What's new
By:

Utah Denied A Wet Bandit Trade???!!

UGLI baby said:
We want the most lottery balls possible.

This is the last time I will explain this to any of you.

It i not some mythical process, it is a math equation.
Click to expand...


This is why you da smartest dude on jazzfanz
 
I don't mind keeping Marvin, if they re-sign for less money. He likes it here and can be a good supporting player. Not a great chance of getting anything better in the late 1st, plus who knows what other crap they might have had to take on to make it work. I have no problem with them not taking this.
 
MoTappin said:
I don't mind keeping Marvin, if they re-sign for less money. He likes it here and can be a good supporting player. Not a great chance of getting anything better in the late 1st, plus who knows what other crap they might have had to take on to make it work. I have no problem with them not taking this.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Marvin will be back and I think DL goes after one other veteran FA to fill out the roster. Do I wish we could get Parker or Jabari? Certainly. But just by virtue of adding two first rounders, this team will be much better. I still believe there will be a big trade at some point. Maybe not this summer, but the Jazz have a lot of assets.
 
MoTappin said:
I don't mind keeping Marvin, if they re-sign for less money. He likes it here and can be a good supporting player. Not a great chance of getting anything better in the late 1st, plus who knows what other crap they might have had to take on to make it work. I have no problem with them not taking this.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is the same problem with those getting upset. We don't know what the deal was. I want increased ping pong balls in the lottery but not at the expense of tying the Jazz down with long term bad contracts.

Unfortunately this is all speculation.
 
Stoked said:
The problem with this is the same problem with those getting upset. We don't know what the deal was. I want increased ping pong balls in the lottery but not at the expense of tying the Jazz down with long term bad contracts.

Unfortunately this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

Seeing how Hawes and Turner only netted 2nd's, I have a hard time believing a 1st - if it was ever offered - wouldn't have come without a bad contract attaached. The other thing I might see happening is that the deal involved swapping a late first for our early 2nd. That would be an attractive deal for a team with tax concerns; they get to evaluate a player from roughly the same talent group, but can do so without having to pay a guaranteed contract.

I understand the argument about "helping the tank" by trading Marvin and having Kanter and Evans man the position. Perhaps helps Utah finish 6th intead of 8th or 9th...MAYBE.
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
The problem with this is the same problem with those getting upset. We don't know what the deal was. I want increased ping pong balls in the lottery but not at the expense of tying the Jazz down with long term bad contracts.

Unfortunately this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

Even so, I'd rather keep MW than roll the dice on a late 1st. He's not that old, and will probably re-sign for a good price. He works hard & seems like a positive influence on the other guys to do the same. He had a rough year last year, but worked his tail off to get back. Guess I appreciate a guy who works that hard.
 
I find it strange that so many people think that just because we didn't trade him, that means that he will re-sign with us.

He very well might be gone next year to a contending team for super cheap.
 
MoTappin said:
Even so, I'd rather keep MW than roll the dice on a late 1st. He's not that old, and will probably re-sign for a good price. He works hard & seems like a positive influence on the other guys to do the same. He had a rough year last year, but worked his tail off to get back. Guess I appreciate a guy who works that hard.
Click to expand...

A late first round in this upcoming draft has great value. Such a deep class.. Going be soe studs drafted late first and thru the second round
 
MoTappin said:
Even so, I'd rather keep MW than roll the dice on a late 1st. He's not that old, and will probably re-sign for a good price. He works hard & seems like a positive influence on the other guys to do the same. He had a rough year last year, but worked his tail off to get back. Guess I appreciate a guy who works that hard.
Click to expand...

As for the MW v. a first. I think that is an incomplete arguement. Keep in mind that if this went down Utah would have 2 late 1st rounders this year and multiple 2nd rounders over the next couple years. Who knows what that could be turned into. Maybe a lottery pick next year ...just because we get the pick doesn't mean we have to keep it.
 
Stoked said:
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2014/02/rejected-round-williams.html

Basically Chad Ford says in his tank ranking insider piece on ESPN that the Jazz declined to trade Williams despite offers of late 1st rounders in 2014.

From the linked article:

"The Jazz rebuffed “one or two” trade proposals before the deadline that would have netted them a late first-round pick in return for Marvin Williams, as Chad Ford of ESPN.com writes in his latest Insider-only “Tank Rank” piece. There were apparently other intriguing offers on the table as well, but Utah chose to hang on to the ninth-year veteran in hopes of re-signing him this summer, Ford writes"

I'd really be interested to know what those exact offers were. Why did DL not pull the trigger?
Click to expand...

I think Williams is an expandable player for jazz but he can make a good bench addition if we set a line up of 5 promising players (currently 4,Burke,Hayward, Kanter,Favors) So we need a SF i guess. I would use Burks in a trade, he can be a much useful player for another team, but he isnt a good fit with jazz. Thats why i always wanted Leonard in his draft year.
 
sepanol said:
I think Williams is an expandable player for jazz but he can make a good bench addition if we set a line up of 5 promising players (currently 4,Burke,Hayward, Kanter,Favors) So we need a SF i guess. I would use Burks in a trade, he can be a much useful player for another team, but he isnt a good fit with jazz. Thats why i always wanted Leonard in his draft year.
Click to expand...

flabbergasted.jpg



Burks not a good fit with Utah? I'd trade Kanter for a stretch-4/better defender before I'd consider trading Burks. I might even consider trading Hayward for a true SF before trading Alec. Utah NEEDS players who can create and get to the basket. What we've learned this year is Godron ISN'T that player.

The only way Burks is NOT a good fit is if Corbin remains the HC. In that case, I really don't care what Lindsey does personnel-wise. I'll start following a different team.
 
unlless

Beantown said:
Also at this point how many more draft picks and young players do we need? We already have two first round picks in this years draft.
Click to expand...

You are assuming the Jazz are going to use them all to actually draft someone. The assets that can be used many ways (balance a trade, combine to trade-up, trade for a future pick, etc.
 
silesian said:
You are assuming the Jazz are going to use them all to actually draft someone. The assets that can be used many ways (balance a trade, combine to trade-up, trade for a future pick, etc.
Click to expand...
Yep. I predict the Jazz do NOT keep all three draft picks. I think they'll first attempt to move up a few spots with their own pick (very unlikely). If they can't, then they'll try to either a) trade the GS and 2nd-rounder to move up or b) deal those picks for a veteran. They'll already have Neto coming over + their pick + Burke and Gobert as 2nd-year players. And Burks and Kanter (not to mention, Favors and Hayward) are all still young. Jazz need some veterans, especially a vocal leader.
 
dalamon said:
It's not about Marv being better than a late first-- it's about making a move to secure a higher draft-pick in a season where we won't be making the playoffs, and get some sort of return in the mean-time.


I understand that keeping Marv here for the entire season gives us a better chance of picking him up again in the offseason (as opposed to trading him, then trying to bid for him again)-- but we got to figure out our priorities:


Would we rather have a worse record, and draft a player like Jabari? Or do we want to take a gamble with a 7th-10th pick, and secure a decent stretch-four?


Personally, I see the most glaring hole in our roster being a lack of a consistent scorer, or a player we can build an offense around. Consequently, clearing up cap-space and acquiring more tradable assets while worsening our team record seems to be the solution here.
Click to expand...

Decent stretch 4? He starts (and plays waaaaay too many minutes) for a team that is bad offensively and defensively. He's not "decent" there at all.

Let him walk.

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
dalamon said:
Obviously you don't trade Marv for a >25s pick, but if a team like the Mavericks offered a 22nd pick + some short, cheap contract for Marv, that's something you consider.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't take on salary past next year you trade him. He's worthless to what the Jazz should be doing right now.

Heck, I'd trade him for a late 2nd round pick (as long as I don't take back long term salary).

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top