What's new
By:

Following potential 2014 draftees

PKM said:
Agree. Money may become an issue in a few years, but minutes will be there.
Click to expand...

Money becomes an issue in five years. Assuming Jazz give contracts in the $10-12M range for Hayward, Favors and Kanter and $6-7M for Burks (if he has a couple of good years), the team can stay under the luxury tax threshold. It will become difficult once Utah has to pay out for Burke, perhaps Gobert, the 2014 pick(s) and then the next contracts for Gordon, Derrick and Enes. Eventually one of them will probably have to be traded. I salute the vision of Lindsey for getting a 2017 unprotected pick. That might be the draft Utah looks for a rookie replacement at PF or one of the wings.

And as you've noted before (getting somewhat back to topic), 2017 - as much as you can at this point - is projected to be a good draft.
 
PKM said:
Jazz. I am talking about salaries and cap space. You dig?
Click to expand...

Sorry to get off topic here by talking Jazz vs prospects. However, I see the day coming soon when we're talking about payrolls for college teams, certainly on the football and then probably basketball end.
 
Core4 said:
Money becomes an issue in five years. Assuming Jazz give contracts in the $10-12M range for Hayward, Favors and Kanter and $6-7M for Burks (if he has a couple of very good years), the team can stay under the luxury tax threshold. It will become difficult once Utah has to pay out for Burke, perhaps Gobert, the 2014 pick(s) and then the next contracts for Gordon, Derrick and Enes. Eventually one of them will probably have to be traded. I salute the vision of Lindsey for getting a 2017 unprotected pick. That might be the draft Utah looks for a rookie replacement at PF or one of the wings.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and I agree completely.. and also keep in mind that I have been pimping the '14 and '17 drafts since long before Lindsey made those moves.. which is why I was quick to support him.
 
Core4 said:
Sorry to get off topic here by talking Jazz vs prospects. However, I see the day coming soon when we're talking about payrolls for college teams, certainly on the football and then probably basketball end.
Click to expand...

That was directed at OG.. not you.
 
PKM said:
That was directed at OG.. not you.
Click to expand...
I know. But I took the thread a little deeper off topic. And yes, while you were posting your responses, I edited mine noting the 2017 draft. And you were certainly the first one, probably almost a year ago (perhaps even before that) who started talking about 2017. I actually smiled when I heard the terms of that second first rounder from GS. May even have said a, "dang, PKM was right" under my breath.
 
Core4 said:
And you were certainly the first one, probably almost a year ago (perhaps even before that) who started talking about 2017. I actually smiled when I heard the terms of that second first rounder from GS. May even have said a, "dang, PKM was right" under my breath.
Click to expand...

Same. Everyone else I talked to thought it was stupid but because of the information PKM shared I knew that Lindsey was the man for the job.

Thanks PKM.
 
I think 3 big time frontcourt players would be a big problem long term...Even though there minutes available and Randle could move to the 3 spot for another 10 min/game if there's a favorable matchup scenario, I look at other teams and how much they pay for "size" you'd run into a dead end. Randle is going to command max + franchise player -> $80M/5yrs starting in 2018. Favors and Kanter if realizing their full potential are going to be $14M/yr at least. Add Hayward and another backcourt high level free agent, a starter on midlevel money and you reach the tax pretty fast. Are owners willing to exceed it for 2 years in a row if they're serious contender?The advantage of having the offensive production in the backcourt is you usually get more offense, have a player that you can give the ball in crunchtime and pay reasonable money for 1 scoring big man and 2 defensive anchors. That way you can contend w/o hitting the tax necessarily.
 
BTP said:
I think 3 big time frontcourt players would be a big problem long term...Even though there minutes available and Randle could move to the 3 spot for another 10 min/game if there's a favorable matchup scenario, I look at other teams and how much they pay for "size" you'd run into a dead end. Randle is going to command max + franchise player -> $80M/5yrs starting in 2018. Favors and Kanter if realizing their full potential are going to be $14M/yr at least. Add Hayward and another backcourt high level free agent, a starter on midlevel money and you reach the tax pretty fast. Are owners willing to exceed it for 2 years in a row if they're serious contender?The advantage of having the offensive production in the backcourt is you usually get more offense, have a player that you can give the ball in crunchtime and pay reasonable money for 1 scoring big man and 2 defensive anchors. That way you can contend w/o hitting the tax necessarily.
Click to expand...

I think we all agree.. but that time isn't now.. and trading one of those bigs in a few years for picks and fillers may be exactly what the team is looking to do.
 
BTP said:
I think 3 big time frontcourt players would be a big problem long term...Even though there minutes available and Randle could move to the 3 spot for another 10 min/game if there's a favorable matchup scenario, I look at other teams and how much they pay for "size" you'd run into a dead end. Randle is going to command max + franchise player -> $80M/5yrs starting in 2018. Favors and Kanter if realizing their full potential are going to be $14M/yr at least. Add Hayward and another backcourt high level free agent, a starter on midlevel money and you reach the tax pretty fast. Are owners willing to exceed it for 2 years in a row if they're serious contender?The advantage of having the offensive production in the backcourt is you usually get more offense, have a player that you can give the ball in crunchtime and pay reasonable money for 1 scoring big man and 2 defensive anchors. That way you can contend w/o hitting the tax necessarily.
Click to expand...

The Jazz would have a championship run to look forward to before they need to worry about that.
 
PKM said:
I think we all agree.. but that time isn't now.. and trading one of those bigs in a few years for picks and fillers may be exactly what the team is looking to do.
Click to expand...

orangello said:
The Jazz would have a championship run to look forward to before they need to worry about that.
Click to expand...

I'd hate picks and filler. I'd want promising talent from a team that wants a big man and accidentally got a high draft pick that's too young to fit their core's age. And you gotta find the right point when Kanter's/Favors' value is at an all time high between upside/production. Depending on how the Jazz score players in free agency I think a contention window would start earlierst in 3 years from now. 4 is more realistic since the Jazz don't have history in luring free agents.
 
BTP said:
I'd hate picks and filler. I'd want promising talent from a team that wants a big man and accidentally got a high draft pick that's too young to fit their core's age. And you gotta find the right point when Kanter's/Favors' value is at an all time high between upside/production. Depending on how the Jazz score players in free agency I think a contention window would start earlierst in 3 years from now. 4 is more realistic since the Jazz don't have history in luring free agents.
Click to expand...

The jazz have attracted plenty of free agents.... just not the superstar ones.

Thats why the jazz best chance is to draft or trade to get thier superstar and then use free agency to get the type of free agents that will come to utah (jason terry, corey maggette types) to fill out the roster.

Hayward, burks, kanter, favors, burke, wiggins/parker, + jason terry caliber free agent

Or

Burks, kanter, randle, burke + james harden (or other big time star aquired through trading a combo of 2 core 4 guys and picks)

Either of those things happen and we compete for chips pretty quick
 
BTP said:
I'd hate picks and filler. I'd want promising talent from a team that wants a big man and accidentally got a high draft pick that's too young to fit their core's age. And you gotta find the right point when Kanter's/Favors' value is at an all time high between upside/production. Depending on how the Jazz score players in free agency I think a contention window would start earlierst in 3 years from now. 4 is more realistic since the Jazz don't have history in luring free agents.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what I meant but just didn't cover it well. I was really just implying we can't trade for another high cost guy.. but rather better/cheaper contracts.
 
fishonjazz said:
The jazz have attracted plenty of free agents.... just not the superstar ones.

Thats why the jazz best chance is to draft or trade to get thier superstar and then use free agency to get the type of free agents that will come to utah (jason terry, corey maggette types) to fill out the roster.

Hayward, burks, kanter, favors, burke, wiggins/parker, + jason terry caliber free agent

Or

Burks, kanter, randle, burke + james harden (or other big time star aquired through trading a combo of 2 core 4 guys and picks)

Either of those things happen and we compete for chips pretty quick
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference attracting a star to a small market team that is making bold moves to contend and attracting one to the same market but the team is content with being a playoff team.

The stud players are HIGHLY competitive by nature and they want to see a franchise with the same competitive fire.
 
I reiterate the perfect draft wiggins or Parker, James young (trade burks and the gsw pick to move up) and McDermott

Burke, Neto, Clark
Hayward, young
Parker, rush?
favors, McDermott, Evans
kanter, Gobert

that team has defense, scoring, shooting, a bench 2 way players.

young would be a great bench player being able to play the 2 or the 3. great rebounder for position. if he can play defense and gain wait he would be in the running for 6th man of the year.

McDermott is just a warrior. a great stretch 4 but undersized. he will also come in ready to contribute. great work ethic and bbiq.

Gobert is the eraser and wouldn't need touches to impact the game.

Hayward and Parker playing together would be a nightmare to guard and both will be solid defenders.

favors would be the 5th option in the starting unit so he can focus on anchoring the defense.

kanter can hit the jumper to pull the center out and creating cutting lanes for the wings.

burke is a perfect fit in the PnR offense the jazz would run and could over play defensively with favors in the middle.

I want this to happen so bad
 
Jako said:
I reiterate the perfect draft wiggins or Parker, James young (trade burks and the gsw pick to move up) and McDermott

Burke, Neto, Clark
Hayward, young
Parker, rush?
favors, McDermott, Evans
kanter, Gobert

that team has defense, scoring, shooting, a bench 2 way players.

young would be a great bench player being able to play the 2 or the 3. great rebounder for position. if he can play defense and gain wait he would be in the running for 6th man of the year.

McDermott is just a warrior. a great stretch 4 but undersized. he will also come in ready to contribute. great work ethic and bbiq.

Gobert is the eraser and wouldn't need touches to impact the game.

Hayward and Parker playing together would be a nightmare to guard and both will be solid defenders.

favors would be the 5th option in the starting unit so he can focus on anchoring the defense.

kanter can hit the jumper to pull the center out and creating cutting lanes for the wings.

burke is a perfect fit in the PnR offense the jazz would run and could over play defensively with favors in the middle.

I want this to happen so bad
Click to expand...

I like everything you've said and agree with 90% of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top