George Hill coming to Utah

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

My number one wishlist item for the offseason was a bonafide all star (pipe dream).

My number two wishlist item was a vet or two.

My number three wishlist item was a defensive player who could help us close out 4th quarters without being a liability on offense.

With George Hill we get #2 and #3 from my checklist. I think we get some additional flexibility to play with our other assets a bit. It also bumps Jingles and CJ back on the roster a bit. Jingles is an amazing 13th option but a poor 7th man.

Some of y'alls have heartburn that we didn't get an all star with this particular trade. But folks, we traded the #12 pick in a buyer's market for a guy who gave us one of the main things we missed last season. WELL DONE DENNIS!

 

[LoPo]

To answer the question about #12, I think Luwawu will be a very good player in the league. And I think it's possible that we trade back up into the 1st to snatch him should he fall a little. There's just something I see in his game that will translate well to the NBA game.

 

[green]

You have to look at what I bolded. I was not commenting on the Hill v. Teague.

I was talking about your Hood/Hayward v. Teague argument. While you are factual in your statement you also leave you very relevant facts that add context. Jazz suffered huge injuries to 4 of their top 6 players. Not ingles or Burke mind you but Exum, Gobert, Burks and Favors.

ignoring that for the sake of making your argument look good only damages it.

I disagree. Hood and Hayward were not injured for extended periods of time. I assume you are having the Jazz top 6 players be:

Favors
Gobert
Hayward
Hood
Burks
Exum

Yeah, they did have injuries to four of those, but Hood and Hayward were not any of them. And Teague is better than any of them.

All I am asking for is to get better. Yes, the Jazz are a lot better with Hill. A lot better. But, Teague is a better player than Hill. And it looks like we could have gotten Teague.

That bothers me. It's similar to the Jazz not trading for Harden when OKC wanted Kanter. Well, we gave OKC Kanter a few years later for nothing. I hope this trade doesn't end up being the same situation.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Some people will bitch about anything I swear.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I disagree. Hood and Hayward were not injured for extended periods of time. I assume you are having the Jazz top 6 players be:

Favors
Gobert
Hayward
Hood
Burks
Exum

Yeah, they did have injuries to four of those, but Hood and Hayward were not any of them. And Teague is better than any of them.

All I am asking for is to get better. Yes, the Jazz are a lot better with Hill. A lot better. But, Teague is a better player than Hill. And it looks like we could have gotten Teague.

That bothers me. It's similar to the Jazz not trading for Harden when OKC wanted Kanter. Well, we gave OKC Kanter a few years later for nothing. I hope this trade doesn't end up being the same situation.

Please go read Rgiss's post comparing Hill and Teague. Then report back on what you think of it. Cause Teague isn't as good as you think.

 

[Maneesh]

My number one wishlist item for the offseason was a bonafide all star (pipe dream).

My number two wishlist item was a vet or two.

My number three wishlist item was a defensive player who could help us close out 4th quarters without being a liability on offense.

With George Hill we get #2 and #3 from my checklist. I think we get some additional flexibility to play with our other assets a bit. It also bumps Jingles and CJ back on the roster a bit. Jingles is an amazing 13th option but a poor 7th man.

Some of y'alls have heartburn that we didn't get an all star with this particular trade. But folks, we traded the #12 pick in a buyer's market for a guy who gave us one of the main things we missed last season. WELL DONE DENNIS!

Lol.... No you traded potential, a lottery pick, for a 30 year old mediocre pg on the last year of his deal. Just because Locke say he is great does not make it so. Look at all headlines they say pacers receive Teague. Jazz acquisition is after thought in this trade and it should be. Mohamed Dennis Lindsey countinue to make jazz mediocre. SHAME you to EVER!!!!!

 

[RandyForRubio]

Problem with Teague is you have to build around him. You don't with Hill. If you can't see that, then idk what to say.

 

[green]

You won't actually respond to any of my points, but you wanna call Teague a #1?! You're clueless. Buddy, if Hayward isn't a #1, Teague isn't either.

Eh. Hayward hasn't led a team anywhere. Teague has. You can call me clueless all you want, but reality is reality.

 

[Maneesh]

Please go read Rgiss's post comparing Hill and Teague. Then report back on what you think of it. Cause Teague isn't as good as you think.

Hill is not so good you think. Lol what is this???

 

[green]

So we prolly could have got hill next summer and kept #12?

was this mainly about appeasing lord Hayward in hopes of re-signing him?

Again, the more I learn about this trade, the more you scratch your head. It's a Jazz move. No risk, cheap, almost guarantees the 8th seed. Mucho profit-o.

 

[green]

Yup.

Also, lolz at all the people saying "TEAGUE! WHY NOT TEAGUE!?" Did it cross any of our minds that people wouldn't have wanted to trade Teague to Utah for #12?

So, Atlanta was willing to take our #12 pick and send Teague to Indy but not Utah? Makes no sense.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

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.

My stand on this post is:

Well done Jazz. Great trade. George Hill will deliver more for us now than any player we could have drafted at #12. There will be at least one standout player after the #12 pick, but I don't know who that will be. I expect DL will be in play for the guy HE thinks that will be. If I were to make a guess now, I would say Thon Maker, Valentine, Diallo, or Felder (who would give us 7 point guards at this point).

 

[Stoked]

I disagree. Hood and Hayward were not injured for extended periods of time. I assume you are having the Jazz top 6 players be:

Favors
Gobert
Hayward
Hood
Burks
Exum

Yeah, they did have injuries to four of those, but Hood and Hayward were not any of them. And Teague is better than any of them.

All I am asking for is to get better. Yes, the Jazz are a lot better with Hill. A lot better. But, Teague is a better player than Hill. And it looks like we could have gotten Teague.

That bothers me. It's similar to the Jazz not trading for Harden when OKC wanted Kanter. Well, we gave OKC Kanter a few years later for nothing. I hope this trade doesn't end up being the same situation.

they wanted Hill, not Teague and one has to wonder why.

Also your playoff hood/Hayward v. Teague argument is deeply flawed.

Take out Millsap, Horford, Bazemore and Korver for extended time and see how Teague does.

You yourself said the team got much better with a player who holds to team identity and address a team need. It's not who is the better player, it's who is a better fit and improves the team more.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So, Atlanta was willing to take our #12 pick and send Teague to Indy but not Utah? Makes no sense.

Yeah, so we can conclude we just didnt want Teague.

 

[green]

I'm probably a little late discussing this, but why wouldn't we just go directly to Atlanta and offer the #12 for Teague? Why even include Indy?

This. Makes no sense. We took the lesser player for some reason. Probably because Hill is cheaper and would be easier to resign next year.

It's a Utah move. Maximize profits, not wins.

 

[green]

This is where I'm at and is why I'm a little confused by people who don't like the trade and think we should have waited to "sign him in free agency" next summer.

My problem is this: We traded the #12 pick. I love that. BUT, it looks like we could have traded the #12 for Teague AND signed Hill next summer. That is where the questions come from. It seems...dumb...or cheap.

 

[LoPo]

This whole trade will be evaluated in almost exactly 12 months. Here the questions:
1. Did we have a good season and solid playoff performance?
2. Did we show that we were good enough to convince Hayward to stay?
3. Do we want to keep Hill?
4. Does Hill want to stay at an affordable contract?
5. Who ends up being #12 and how good does he end up being?

If the first 4 questions are positive, then this trade works out great. If the 5th question yields an answer that might make us cringe (such as #12 looks like a really good player), then a positive answer on the first four questions should ease our minds some. If we get negative answers on any of the first four, we got to hope like hell that #12 is a terrible player. If not, Lindsey will be roasted for this deal.

Rarely is a trade made where the evaluation can be made so quickly.

 

[Jazz_junkie]

So, Atlanta was willing to take our #12 pick and send Teague to Indy but not Utah? Makes no sense.

Teague doesn't fit what we needed as much as Hill. Happier then **** with this trade.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[MT Steve]

I would much rather have Hill than Teague.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

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.

Gobert for Erick Green... whoever that is?