What's new
By:

Off-season hopes....

J

Justys

Well-Known Member
Why don't we speed up the rebuild? I know Jazz want some flexibility but, why don't they aggressively pursue the likes of Parsons if he is a restricted FA. Throw some money his way and get a solid SF, (maybe Marvin Williams money from last season...8 or 9 millions for 4 years?) Houston might not match, if they think that they can get Melo. Then max out Greg Monroe great passers with a ton of potential! Resign Hayward and draft best avble of PG.

Burke/Smart? (Draft pick)
Hayward/Burks
Parsons/Hayward
Favors/Kanter
Monroe/Kanter

What's nice , Jazz would still have enough money left to pay for a bench or extend Burks (6-7million a year, for 4 years)

Burks 4 yrs 26 million. Ave 6.5
Parsons 4 yrs 36 million avg 9
Favors 4 yrs 50 million ave 12.25
Hayward 4 years 44 million ave 11
Monroe 4 years 58 million ave 14.5

You could easily extend Burkes and still remain under the luxury tax. Kanter would haved to traded at the deadline for a future assets. Solid team that could be 8 or 9 deep

(Please dont beat me down too bad :-))
 
^^
Not beating you down at all. In fact, DL said in an interview that the Jazz have enough money available to give Hayward a substantial raise and still have a MAX slot available, if they were to find that player and he accepted. I think Lindsey is going to be aggressive in the FA and trade market. This is the last year Utah will have significant cap space available. After that, the Jazz will have money to retain players, but not be far enough under the cap to make significant offers.

I think players like Chandler and Monroe are certainly the type DL will target - i.e. young "veterans" who still have upside. He's not going after guys like Lucas, Tinsley, etc. Those were "one and done" guys to fill the roster but not impact wins.
But free agent and trade moves will really depend on how the draft goes.
 
If the Jazz sign Parsons, why would we keep Hayward? or vice versa? They are virtually the same player except Hayward shoots the ball worse and Parsons isn't as good a passer. I think money could be spent better elsewhere on backup frontline players and point guards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ema
akirac73 said:
If the Jazz sign Parsons, why would we keep Hayward? or vice versa? They are virtually the same player except Hayward shoots the ball worse and Parsons isn't as good a passer. I think money could be spent better elsewhere on backup frontline players and point guards.
Click to expand...

Hayward is better than Parsons imo. I mean imagine if Parsons was the number #1 option on the jazz, would've been pretty bad.
 
Doublea said:
Hayward is better than Parsons imo. I mean imagine if Parsons was the number #1 option on the jazz, would've been pretty bad.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the Jazz being "good" with Hayward as the #1 option? Both players aren't #1 options, but Parsons has something Hayward has never had at the pro-level...consistency. I'll take the guy that shows up every night vs. the guy that shows up once a month.
 
I don't think your rebuild idea is that bad of an idea but I agree Parsons and Hayward are similar talents so we don't need both. I don't know enough about Monroe to sign off on the deal. Why didn't Detroit re-sign him?
 
Doublea said:
Hayward is better than Parsons imo. I mean imagine if Parsons was the number #1 option on the jazz, would've been pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Parsons averaged 16.6 PPG, 5.5 RPG, and 4.0 APG as a #3 option.

Hayward averaged 16.2 PPG, 5.1 RPG, and 5.2 APG as a #1 option.
 
Hey I like the idea but I would go after Al Horford instead of Greg Monroe, maybe the Hawks thinks he is expendable because they made the playoffs without him and almost beat the Pacers.
 
I dont want parsons or monroe
 
akirac73 said:
As opposed to the Jazz being "good" with Hayward as the #1 option? Both players aren't #1 options, but Parsons has something Hayward has never had at the pro-level...consistency. I'll take the guy that shows up every night vs. the guy that shows up once a month.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause he has Harden and Dwight next to him. Thats why he's consistent.
 
Justys said:
What's nice , Jazz would still have enough money left to pay for a bench or extend Burks (6-7million a year, for 4 years)

Burks 4 yrs 26 million. Ave 6.5
Parsons 4 yrs 36 million avg 9
Favors 4 yrs 50 million ave 12.25
Hayward 4 years 44 million ave 11
Monroe 4 years 58 million ave 14.5
Click to expand...
I don't know how you make this work. If the Jazz sign Hayward for $11M/year, no way in hell will Burks sign for a measley $6-7M/year. Burks knows he's more capable of carrying the team than Hayward is, but yet he'd have to take almost half the money that Hayward gets? Not going to happen. I'd rather the Jazz let Hayward walk, sign Parsons for $9M/year and give Burks $9-10M/year instead.
 
I like Parson's game. But I agree he's too similar with Hayward. If I were picking one of them for a new team, I'd probably take Parsons, but now I would want to continue with Hayward -if he's not going to demand too much money- and give him a second chance with the new coach.
 
Doublea said:
Yeah cause he has Harden and Dwight next to him. Thats why he's consistent.
Click to expand...
I forgot about that. I also forgot how Hayward's consistency was improved when he played with Big Al and Millsap shouldering the scoring & leadership roles for the team. Can you refresh my memory?
 
Doublea said:
Yeah cause he has Harden and Dwight next to him. Thats why he's consistent.
Click to expand...
Parsons didn't have much consistency issues before Dwight. He was OK also in his rookie year without Harden. He's just a more confident player than Hayward. I'd say the main reason for his relatively consistent play is his character.
 
I like parsons at the 3 with Hayward at the 2. I think it could work out well and let Kanter/Burks/ our picks be a solid 2nd unit. Plus, pick up assets while u still can. Parsons/Hayward similar yes but there's nothing wrong with 2 shooters thats can set up other teammates?
 
Don't care for OP's team at all, but good job. Way to throw something out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top