What's new
By:

GM Dennis Lindsey

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 5000
  • Start date Start date
JustTheTip said:
I don't view the trade for Hill as a fail.

I mean, if Hill doesn't come, Utah doesn't do well as a team, and there's no chance that Hayward stays. The draft last year was low on talent, so I'm not too bothered by the trade even if Hill leaves. Have to make moves to try to keep your star players.
Click to expand...

It was a fail when you consider Hill vs Teague. If you had Teague, you end up second or third in the west last year, make it to the WCF, Hayward is already committed and we are pumped going forward.

20/20 is whatever, but looking back at that trade, Lindsey made the wrong move...which is a common theme with him.

He has a lot of moves that looked good when they were made but ended up being terrible.

At some point, he has to have some results.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya, I guess we could lose him for nothing when another team offers him the max. True.
I like that we traded him instead though.
Click to expand...

And I like that we traded him too. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a very good deal. I detailed why in my original post. Do you understand?
 
JustTheTip said:
And I like that we traded him too. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a very good deal. I detailed why in my original post. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
I would have liked if we would have traded kanter earlier of course..... of course most of us didn't think rudy was ready yet and weren't down on kanter yet.
I'm glad we traded him though.
 
green said:
It was a fail when you consider Hill vs Teague. If you had Teague, you end up second or third in the west last year, make it to the WCF, Hayward is already committed and we are pumped going forward.

20/20 is whatever, but looking back at that trade, Lindsey made the wrong move...which is a common theme with him.

He has a lot of moves that looked good when they were made but ended up being terrible.

At some point, he has to have some results.
Click to expand...

I just don't agree. Hill fits our entire system better than Teague. He was the right player to choose.

You're using a lot of guessing, and then calling it fact. It's lazy analysis. I could just as easily say that Hayward doesn't get the ball ad much with Teague, our defense is worse, we lose more, and Hayward is ready to leave by the end of the season.
 
JustTheTip said:
I just don't agree. Hill fits our entire system better than Teague. He was the right player to choose.

You're using a lot of guessing, and then calling it fact. It's lazy analysis. I could just as easily say that Hayward doesn't get the ball ad much with Teague, our defense is worse, we lose more, and Hayward is ready to leave by the end of the season.
Click to expand...

I'm not.

You had two roughly equivalent players. Teague is the better defender, Hill the better shooter.

One played 82 games. One played a little over half that.

If you don't think the Jazz would have been better with Teague for almost twice as many games...

Like I said, when you look back at Lindsey's moves...it leaves a lot to be desired.

If he didn't luck into Gobert, he'd be the worst GM ever.
 
green said:
I'm not.

You had two roughly equivalent players. Teague is the better defender, Hill the better shooter.

One played 82 games. One played a little over half that.

If you don't think the Jazz would have been better with Teague for almost twice as many games...

Like I said, when you look back at Lindsey's moves...it leaves a lot to be desired.

If he didn't luck into Gobert, he'd be the worst GM ever.
Click to expand...

No one in the history of basketball has said Jeff Teague is a better defender than George Hill.
 
green said:
I'm not.

You had two roughly equivalent players. Teague is the better defender, Hill the better shooter.

One played 82 games. One played a little over half that.

If you don't think the Jazz would have been better with Teague for almost twice as many games...

Like I said, when you look back at Lindsey's moves...it leaves a lot to be desired.

If he didn't luck into Gobert, he'd be the worst GM ever.
Click to expand...

Teague is the better defender? Really?

No point in listening past that tbh.
 
And if Teague had been injured and Hill played well somewhere else, I'm guessing this green poster would have reversed the argument.

Jazz win 51; green unhappy they didn't win 55. I'll bet green watches a game and afterwards complains the Jazz should have won by 10 instead of 8. To me, Green just seems like an unhappy person who wants to have a bunch of people to blame so he can deflect his own anger/frustration. Hope you can turn your life around, man. It's not healthy to be angry over so many things and against so many people and institutions.

As for Kanter...
1. How do you know Kanter wasn't shopped earlier?
2. Green, How can you claim Utah would have gotten him for less. He was a RFA. His agent claimed he was the best player of his generation. Sounds like a guy that was going to demand a max contract. Jazz would have had to match/decline any offer he received. And he certainly didn't want to stay in Utah.
3. What exactly was his value even before his public demand? Was he seen as a franchise player? Would a team have given Utah a lottery pick? He was no longer valued as a #3 pick.
4. I'm guessing Utah didn't decide to trade him until Gobert broke out. And that was when Rudy replaced an injured Kanter in the lineup. Wasn't that late November/early December? So about 1 month after Kanter healed, but saw the writing on the wall before he went public with his trade demand. I'll bet Lindsey had already started making calls and gauging interest before Christmas.
5. My view is he likely had value to a playoff team as a rotational big. So a pick in the 15-30 range. Look at other expirings year over year. Many times all a team gets back is a 2nd round pick. Or maybe a couple of picks if Utah took back a bad contract in return.
 
It's hard to argue against Hill. He was damn near perfect fit when healthy. Only crappy thing was the toe injury.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
It's hard to argue against Hill. He was damn near perfect fit when healthy. Only crappy thing was the toe injury.
Click to expand...
And him using his face to defend against Len's elbow.
It's very hard to argue against a GM who puts together a roster that wins 51 games, especially when you consider the injuries to Favors, Burks, Hill, Hood, Hayward.

Surprisingly, Utah was only 7th in total games missed. However, @ManGamesLostNBA estimates 9.4 wins lost to injuries. That's the most in the NBA according to them.
 
green said:
I'm not.

You had two roughly equivalent players. Teague is the better defender, Hill the better shooter.

One played 82 games. One played a little over half that.

If you don't think the Jazz would have been better with Teague for almost twice as many games...

Like I said, when you look back at Lindsey's moves...it leaves a lot to be desired.

If he didn't luck into Gobert, he'd be the worst GM ever.
Click to expand...


You are such a freaking grouch
 
Its interesting. I do feel we would have won more games with Teague than Hill. Having an NBA starting quality PG for 31 more games of the season would have led to more wins. Over 49 games, I bet we win 3 more games with Hill over Teague. Over 33 games, I bet we win 6 more games with Teague instead of no Hill.

The flip side - we were a better team with Hill than I imagine with Teague. He "fits better" than I imagine Teague would have. And I also don't think we would be trying to keep Teague right now the same way we are hoping to keep Hill.

So my breakdown is this - if Hill does not stay, we made the wrong choice because we would have won more games. If he does, it was a great trade.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top