What's new

Al Jefferson to Utah? ...Mark Stein's Twitter reports

Come on man. We gave up two first round picks (which will both be 16-22ish) for a guy that's younger, taller, cheaper, and signed to less years than Boozer who was gone no matter what. If we signed Boozer, you and I both know that in 5 years when he's a 15/9 guy and constantly injured, you would be bitching about Greg Miller signing him to that deal. You're probably the only person outside of Chicago who is so adamant that a 29 year old Boozer deserves 80 million guaranteed dollars.

I find it hilarious how you are so mad about Jefferson's injury history. He missed part of ONE season because of a blown ACL. He came back and played a full season after it. But you let Boozer off the hook for his injury history? Bitch please. Get over the blind Greg Miller hate or go be a Bulls fan.
You have such a simple, one-track mind. To think my issue(s) are all about Boozer is completely missing the point.

Again, my problem is more Jefferson than anything. I've never liked him as a player on or off the court and he has a long way to go to make me eat crow. Like have a his second (or rather, his first being a relevant player) winning season, for starters.
 
You have such a simple, one-track mind. To think my issue(s) are all about Boozer is completely missing the point.

OK. That's fine, but I'm still waiting for YOUR proposed plan for the offseason which you've never posted. You know, since you are so much better at managing a franchise than one of the most successful organizations of the past 2 decades.
 
I'm being serious when I ask if you really think AJ can be a championship piece to the puzzle at the 5? 'Cause I sure don't. So unless we plan on trading Millsap or Okur for a defensive presence at the 5, this is all moot to me and all we've done is acquire more long-term salary.

I was responding to the comment about Booze being 'twice' as good at a 'relatively cheap' price. My answer to the defensive issue is this: We were a better defensive team last year even with Booze and Okur. A lot of that was improvement on the perimeter, some of it was better effort from Booze, but most of it was just the drastic improvement in our rotations. Jefferson is obviously not going to be Howard. But he's a massive body down low. Not one center in the league will push him around or get easy position on the block. His help defense is the big mystery, but I'm guessing he's going to be fine playing on a team where a defensive system is stressed and he knows what role to fill. Lastly, I think we will see AK playing more 4 next year which will help our interior D on the whole.

Is that a championship defense? Probably not. But it could be a lot better than people think if the whole team keeps coming together.
 
OK. That's fine, but I'm still waiting for YOUR proposed plan for the offseason which you've never posted. You know, since you are so much better at managing a franchise than one of the most successful organizations of the past 2 decades.

Here's a post I already made (an amended one)
"So tell me how Boozer coming to the Jazz and allowing them to match is not relevant, in addition to the fact that the TPE created by the trade is the keystone to the entire deal? I've been critical forever, most notably with drafting Hayward (sidenote; if the argument for drafting Hayward is that he's a winner, why is it not also an argument against Jefferson for being a loser his entire career). I would've drafted Aldrich (and about 10 other people besides Evans while still going after Evans to sign him in undrafted free agency) and kept Boozer (which is relevant since the Jazz are spending very similar money for the next 3 years anyway). I would try to dump Memo (but don't know how feasible it is) and would explore trading AK but only for lesser salary longterm since the Jazz would be over the cap (and when under the cap, you try maximize the space) and trying to stay under the tax. Would probably keep AK and try to re-sign him in the offseason for much cheaper. I wouldn't match Matthews. I would explore re-signing Brewer for cheap but only under those circumstances.

I would also look at just not re-signing Boozer at all and using cap space like OKC has done - taking on expiring contracts from poorly managed teams like the Jazz and stockpile draft picks from it - and emphasize parlaying assets to get fewer, stronger ones. I wouldn't take on Jefferson."

The Jazz win because of the system. Players that don't fit in don't play or they make the team a lot worse. Jefferson hasn't shown he does anything requisite of the primary offensive big in the Jazz offense (most notably having an expert knowledge on pick and screen schemes [and be able to convert at an efficient rate when called upon] and creating backdoors for wings and having passing ability to hit the cutters, or merely knowing how to kick the ball out for starters).
 
You have such a simple, one-track mind. To think my issue(s) are all about Boozer is completely missing the point.

Again, my problem is more Jefferson than anything. I've never liked him as a player on or off the court and he has a long way to go to make me eat crow. Like have a his second (or rather, his first being a relevant player) winning season, for starters.

That's really not relevant in his case. You should know that. He's been on absolutely awful, awful teams - a post player (who naturally needs the ball fed to him) can't do much when he has the kind of rosters he's been with. The situation in Minnesota for Jefferson's entire tenure there was a complete trainwreck. You honestly don't think that a point guard like Williams and a coach like Sloan (not to mention Johnson, who's been a fantastic teacher) can get more out of him than pre-KG Boston and post-KG Minnesota? You don't think a point guard like Williams and a coach like Sloan can implement Jefferson into their offense infinitely better than the point guards and coaches in Minnesota could?
 
That's really not relevant in his case. You should know that. He's been on absolutely awful, awful teams - a post player (who naturally needs the ball fed to him) can't do much when he has the kind of rosters he's been with. The situation in Minnesota for Jefferson's entire tenure there was a complete trainwreck. You honestly don't think that a point guard like Williams and a coach like Sloan (not to mention Johnson, who's been a fantastic teacher) can get more out of him than pre-KG Boston and post-KG Minnesota? You don't think a point guard like Williams and a coach like Sloan can implement Jefferson into their offense infinitely better than the point guards and coaches in Minnesota could?
There are different ways to score than on the low-block and there are ways to help teammates score from the attention a player creates. Jefferson hasn't shown he understands any of that. Jefferson's skill-set is a very, very poor one for what the Jazz run.
 
You have such a simple, one-track mind. To think my issue(s) are all about Boozer is completely missing the point.

Again, my problem is more Jefferson than anything. I've never liked him as a player on or off the court and he has a long way to go to make me eat crow. Like have a his second (or rather, his first being a relevant player) winning season, for starters.

If I'm correct. I think you are concerned about his defense, right? If you want to look at if from a glass half full perspective you can say he played on a crappy team that was never bound to do anything, that could of had an effect on his effort level. Maybe in a team that is competing he will give more effort on D.
 
I try not to take a lot of time talking about what I'd do because almost every time, that's contingent on what other organizations would do. Besides that, it's a waste of time and energy to care as much as I do but am completely addicted somehow. That said, I have much, much better and important **** to do right now.
 
Aldunkopy.jpg
 
... and kept Boozer (which is relevant since the Jazz are spending very similar money for the next 3 years anyway).

This is where your argument fails and you come off as ignorant. For the next three years, Jefferson will save us 2 million per year, and we won't take on a 6 year contract with a power forward who is aging towards the latter end of the contract and already has major injury problems. Yes Boozer may be a better fit, but we (and YOU) don't know that yet. So why continue to complain about a deal which puts us in a position to compete this year. Boozer would not win us a championship, we've seen that for 6 years now.
 
Here is Hollinger's entire article...

OK, let's start right from the top: Would you trade Carlos Boozer for Al Jefferson?

You'd at least have to think about it. Jefferson is three years younger and had better numbers over the past three seasons. He can play center -- Boozer cannot -- which allows the Jazz to paper over Mehmet Okur's expected absence and move Andrei Kirilenko up to power forward in stretches, where he's more effective anyway.

Jefferson's not a great defender, but neither was Boozer. Yes, he's probably worse than Boozer in this respect, but last season's particularly lead-footed performance could be partially attributed to the fact that he was still recovering from knee surgery.

And the price is less. Jefferson has only three guaranteed years left on his deal; keeping Boozer would have cost at least five. Would you rather pay Jefferson until he's 28 or Boozer until he's 33?

Apparently Utah thought the same thing, because it effectively completed a Boozer-for-Jefferson swap Tuesday, using the trade exception from Boozer's sign-and-trade to Chicago to acquire Jefferson from Minnesota. The Timberwolves, in return, get two first-round draft choices.

As you can probably tell, I consider this a pretty solid endgame for Utah. Jefferson can coexist with both Paul Millsap and Kirilenko offensively, and while the former pairing might have some rough nights on D, they'll be a hellacious combo offensively. Jefferson will have to get used to more pick-and-rolls and fewer post-up isolations, but he can handle it.

The deal leaves the Jazz over the luxury tax, but not intractably so -- $1.7 million, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Utah is close enough to the line that it can probably engineer a deal at the trade deadline, if not sooner.

There's also a good chance it could trade Okur for a wing player, especially if Kirilenko shows he can thrive at the 4. With Jefferson at the 5, Millsap at the 4 and Kosta Koufos and Kyrylo Fesenko in reserve, it would seem to be the next logical move. His injury status, however, could prove an impediment to such a swap until the trade deadline.

What it does likely mean, however, is that Wes Matthews is headed to Portland. I can't imagine Utah matching the Blazers' offer sheet and swallowing the luxury tax hit. The Jazz may also choose to pull Fesenko's qualifying offer, since that extra $500,000 could really matter when it comes to tax avoidance.

The picks Utah gave away are of modest value. While the "Memphis pick" sounds alluring, it will never be in the top nine, and if unused by 2015, it reverts to cash. The protections are top 14 in 2011, top 12 in 2012, top 10 in 2013 and top nine in 2014 and 2015.

The Jazz's own pick, obviously, is likely to come late in the draft … especially now that they have Jefferson. But the Wolves now have a decent stable of first-round picks -- the one from Memphis, the one from Utah and their own. This should make Minnesota fans feel slightly better when I remind them that the long-ticking time bomb called the Marko Jaric trade may cause them to owe the Clippers a completely unprotected pick in the 2012 draft.

For Minnesota, I can't argue with the idea of trading Jefferson. There was no way he could coexist in the same frontcourt as Kevin Love, and I'm a huge Love fan. Additionally, wiping away Jefferson's $13 million opens the door to substantial cap space -- it'll have it right away but may not choose to use it until next summer. Alternatively, it can adopt the Oklahoma City model and rent out its cap space in return for more assets. And two first-rounders never hurt.

Regardless, a frontcourt with Love, Michael Beasley, Nikola Pekovic and Darko Milicic will be a considerable improvement on last season's unit at both ends of the floor. The Wolves likely will spend another year in the basement, but one can at least see the kernels of a foundation taking shape.

The Jazz, however, are the big story here. They've kept the window open on the possibility of the Deron Williams era producing a conference championship. They've managed to come away from Boozer's free agency none the worse for wear.
 
So tell me how Boozer coming to the Jazz and allowing them to match is not relevant, in addition to the fact that the TPE created by the trade is the keystone to the entire deal? I've been critical forever, most notably with drafting Hayward (sidenote; if the argument for drafting Hayward is that he's a winner, why is it not also an argument against Jefferson for being a loser his entire career). I would've drafted Aldrich (and about 10 other people besides Evans while still going after Evans to sign him in undrafted free agency) and kept Boozer (which is relevant since the Jazz are spending very similar money for the next 3 years anyway). I would try to dump Memo (but don't know how feasible it is) and would explore trading AK but only for lesser salary longterm since the Jazz would be over the cap (and when under the cap, you try maximize the space) and trying to stay under the tax. Would probably keep AK and try to re-sign him in the offseason for much cheaper. I wouldn't match Matthews. I would explore re-signing Brewer for cheap but only under those circumstances.

I would also look at just not re-signing Boozer at all and using cap space like OKC has done - taking on expiring contracts from poorly managed teams like the Jazz and stockpile draft picks from it - and emphasize parlaying assets to get fewer, stronger ones. I wouldn't take on Jefferson.

1. It was very gentlemanly of Boozer's camp to allow the Jazz an opportunity to match. It was also gentlemanly of Chicago to agree to a S&T.
2. RE Hayward: BPA. Any team not drafting by this standard deserves their Sam Bowie
3. Boozer at that price was never going to be a Jazzman
4. You are correct, dumping Memo is not feasible.
5. Doubtful that anyone will take AK's contract until the trade deadline, and doubtful that it would be for anything other than bad contracts even if they did trade him.
6. Even without bringing back Boozer, they were too close to the cap to take on any expiring contracts.
7. Given their constraints, bringing in Jefferson is an oustanding move by KOC. Lets hope he's not done.
 
I get but don't see the LA trade comparisons since the LA got to keep Bynum (or Odom take your pick) while the trade itself is only Jazz & Minni, it was for all intent and purposes is a 3 team trade with the Bulls getting Booz or could even realistically say a 4 team with Mathews going to the Blazers for a larger pay day.

I think most people are happy with this trade, it helps ease my mind that Minni fans didn't want to lose Jefferson and the fact that any team that trades players with Minni comes out roses (ie Roy for Foye and KG to Boston). In my opinion at worst case this maintains status qua as far as Jazz remaining a top 5 team, best case is Jefferson maybe not this year but next year settles into the Jazz system and is a beast.

This trade still has some people complaining about KOC but they'd complain if he didn't make a move as well.... for not making a move.
Oh and for the record I still would like AK starting at PF and keep Milsap coming of the bench if Milsap is ok with it.
 
Interesting article by Hollinger.

But what's even more interesting is GoBolts avatar. I wonder if Conrad has that issue.
 
NUMBERICA is an angry Boozer homer who still can't grasp that Boozer signed with another team. So bashes anything the Jazz front office does, and when asked what he would do this summer to stay competitive, he has no answers. Classic.

I'm going to say you completely and utterly pegged him correctly.
 
Back
Top