What's new
By:

George Hill coming to Utah

I think this is a great trade. Hill is a proven veteran who can score, shoot the 3 and defend. Plus he can easily slide over the the 2 when Dante is playing the 1, or vice versa. It gives us extra versatility on the floor. The Jazz starting 5 was great last year in terms of +/-, it was their bench that lost them games. Hill substantially strengthens the bench, provides leadership from someone with ample playoff experience, and can help Dante have a soft landing if it takes him longer than hoped to get things into high gear. He is much, much better than what we were likely to get at 12. The only downside is his contract situation, but I assume (hope) the FO took that into consideration and has a plan.
 
ncoloradojazz said:
im so sick of this is a weak draft class. First off none of the players have played a minute of nba ball. Plus lots of role player types in this class. Maybe not star power but cant have a team of all stars.. Couple draft gems in round 2 this year but yes it is a weak class.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of people saying they're sick of people saying its a weak draft class.
It's obviously an opinion. No way to know until years down the road.

But if you're not looking to share opinions with others why visit a message board ya dope.
 
It is not a week draft class. The draft is tomorrow and it only lasts one day.
 
fishonjazz said:
So what does everyone see happening for the minutes/playing time breakdown between hill, exum, hood, hayward, burks, mack, ingles and neto?

In the normal competitive game with everyone healthy....
I think hill starts at pg
Hood starts at shooting guard
Hayward starts at small forward.

Hayward gets 35 minutes
Hill gets 28
Hood gets 31
Burks gets 28
Which leaves 22 remaining minutes for exum (I think my math is right??? 48 minutes each position of pg, sg, and sf?)

Neto and mack only get in during blowouts. (And I don't really care if they ever play) same for ingles I guess.


Maybe Hayward gets minutes at the 4 in small lineups?
Click to expand...
No guesses from anyone?
 
This is absolutely certain - adding Hill (for the assumed long term) means that one of what we consider our core unit (Gobert, Favors, Hayward, Hood, Burks and Exum) are likely gone before the 2017 season. We just can't simply afford them all especially if we re-sign Hill to a comparable contract ($8 per year) and pay Hayward even low level max ($20+). Somebody has to go, and honestly, I think it would have to be more than Burks.

I like the trade for 2016 and maybe even 2017 too, but we are going to give up two young players (#12 and one of our "core") for this trade if we re-sign Hill past this next season.
 
JimLes said:
Just once, just once before I die I'd like to see a trade where the Jazz come out on top. Like, Lakers-style on top where we get a quality player for garbage.

It's like there's only two trades the Jazz ever make. They either trade picks for an underwhelming players or get involved in 3-team deals to help another team while we get picks or garbage.
Click to expand...

You either have a short memory or you are younger than 2 years old:

Here is a trade that went in our favor:

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/6/27/4468110/nba-draft-2013-denver-nuggets-rudy-gobert-utah-jazz
 
Jazz just made a trade to help now. It's about frigging time. This trade should have happened a year ago.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
If it were a strong draft class, everyone from pick #3 on wouldn't be trying to trade their draft pick. Remember how many people tried to trade their pick last year? To take pick #12 and turn it into a certainty is a pretty good move, especially when there were people with better picks trying to do the same.
 
BTW for everybody who will feel compelled to **** on that deal in the future because we missed on player X(almost certainly there will be a player in the 12-60 range who will end up high end starter and even an all-star), I want you to tell us right here and right now who that player is. I don't want you to play with the field against George Hill. Either state right now your pick, or don't dare bring it up when player X blows up.
 
stitches said:
BTW for everybody who will feel compelled to **** on that deal in the future because we missed on player X(almost certainly there will be a player in the 12-60 range who will end up high end starter and even an all-star), I want you to tell us right here and right now who that player is. I don't want you to play with the field against George Hill. Either state right now your pick, or don't dare bring it up when player X blows up.
Click to expand...


Already recorded in a stick is post. People made their bandwagon picks. I said I was on the trade the pick bandwagon.
 
Stoked said:
Already recorded in a stick is post. People made their bandwagon picks. I said I was on the trade the pick bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Well bandwagon picks are picks at any position, for instance I liked Bender, who is projected 3-8. Stitches is asking specifically who they would take at 12.
 
fishonjazz said:
So what does everyone see happening for the minutes/playing time breakdown between hill, exum, hood, hayward, burks, mack, ingles and neto?

In the normal competitive game with everyone healthy....
I think hill starts at pg
Hood starts at shooting guard
Hayward starts at small forward.

Hayward gets 35 minutes
Hill gets 28
Hood gets 31
Burks gets 28
Which leaves 22 remaining minutes for exum (I think my math is right??? 48 minutes each position of pg, sg, and sf?)
Click to expand...

Actually, since players miss on average about 10% of the games (if I recall correctly), the correct number to use is about 52 mins total at each position. Not 48 mins, as weird as that seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top