What's new
By:

Go GET Teague

I'd still prefer to see us swing for the fences by trading Hayward for a top draft pick but if we intend on attempting to retain him, this is the type of trade we should make. I wouldn't include any 1st round picks to acquire Teague tho & I'm not sure Burks/Burke/2nds gets it done as I doubt ATL is looking to rebuild & imagine they would want immediate contributors back in any trade.

If that package does get it done however, you'd have to strongly consider it. The only problem I see with it is that it would likely only propel this team to a 6-8 seed this year & a 4-6 seed next year. I'm all for getting back to consistently making the playoffs, but imo this trade would be more about retaining Hayward (& competing for a championship with him down the road) than it would winning a championship with Teague, & personally I'm still not sold that we can win a title with Hayward taking up 1/3 of the team's cap space without a star alongside him (which this move will make it even more difficult to acquire as that type of player is likely only coming via the draft or trade).
 
For those saying that they wouldn't do this as a year and a half rental because we have Dante... Question, what if Dante isn't good?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
For those saying that they wouldn't do this as a year and a half rental because we have Dante... Question, what if Dante isn't good?
Click to expand...
Then if the depth at SG,SF,PF,C isn;t good enough to will the team to the playoffs, they'll be in the lottery in 2017.. again. Which isn't a bad place to be if you've gotta fill a long-term need.. They also have GSW's 1st in 2017 too. And there's especially an epic amount of talent at PG that year - De'Aaron Fox is a floor general, a defensive dynamo, he's an upper echelon athlete for an NBA PG, he's lightning quick in the open court.. 6'3"-6'4"ish, and he can shoot the 3.. He's a perfect match for this type of roster..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSLBhoeXU-4

There's also this list of PG's on the market inthe summer of 2017, which is sure to grow -

Schroder(R)
Teague
Rose
Curry
Hill
Paul
MCW(R)
Holliday
Westbrook
McCollum(R)
Collison
Mills
Kyle Calorie
Trigger Trey Burke(R)
 
Hack said:
Why are you so stuck on what didn't transpire in the off season. You aren't really making a point. There was no one to be had that would have made that big of a difference.
Click to expand...

says the dumb**** that repeatedly talks about past drafts. You're unbelievably dumb.
 
I would like to add wesley matthews to the group of players (carroll, danny green) that some wanted to get last offseason who we luckily didn't add.

He is playing 33 minutes per game and averaging 12.8 ppg on 39% shooting from the field, averaging 1.8 assists, and 3 rebounds and only gets to the line less than 2 times per game.

The cake baking was the right idea. The injuries screwed the cake up otherwise the cake would be really tasty.

The only exception would be that i would have liked to go get a point guard last summer (i was always down with this despite being a "cake baker" since i have been an exum hater) but i dont remember any non cake bakers suggesting any point guards. It was pretty much just go get carroll, green, or matthews and im glad that we didn't do that.
 
fishonjazz said:
I would like to add wesley matthews to the group of players (carroll, danny green) that some wanted to get last offseason who we luckily didn't add.

He is playing 33 minutes per game and averaging 12.8 ppg on 39% shooting from the field, averaging 1.8 assists, and 3 rebounds and only gets to the line less than 2 times per game.

The cake baking was the right idea. The injuries screwed the cake up otherwise the cake would be really tasty.

The only exception would be that i would have liked to go get a point guard last summer (i was always down with this despite being a "cake baker" since i have been an exum hater) but i dont remember any non cake bakers suggesting any point guards. It was pretty much just go get carroll, green, or matthews and im glad that we didn't do that.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I argued for Schroeder.
 
karl malone said:
I'd still prefer to see us swing for the fences by trading Hayward for a top draft pick but if we intend on attempting to retain him, this is the type of trade we should make. I wouldn't include any 1st round picks to acquire Teague tho & I'm not sure Burks/Burke/2nds gets it done as I doubt ATL is looking to rebuild & imagine they would want immediate contributors back in any trade.

If that package does get it done however, you'd have to strongly consider it. The only problem I see with it is that it would likely only propel this team to a 6-8 seed this year & a 4-6 seed next year. I'm all for getting back to consistently making the playoffs, but imo this trade would be more about retaining Hayward (& competing for a championship with him down the road) than it would winning a championship with Teague, & personally I'm still not sold that we can win a title with Hayward taking up 1/3 of the team's cap space without a star alongside him (which this move will make it even more difficult to acquire as that type of player is likely only coming via the draft or trade).
Click to expand...

The thing is swinging for the fences means most of the time you fail miserably... While loading up bases carefully gives you more chances to get some runs. There is only 1 team winning it all per year. Sure being that team is the ideal goal, but more realistic and yet still ambitious goal is to be a team that wins playoff series. You might get bounced in the first round one year, get to the ECF another, semi the next, etc. You are a real team by then. To me this is the goal and adding quality experienced play at the PG position would help tremendously.

The second point is that if such a trade happened and helped us get into the Playoffs this year and say lose 4-1 to the Warriors or the Spurs, and the following season we won 50 games (fairly big if naturally), well a positive dynamic exists where players know this group has potential, can win, and can be interested in being part of the project. You don't have to necessarily give Hayward a max max contract, you can trade him before the new contract if he isn't willing to take a more reasonable offer, and in such trades you have a better chance of getting something in return than if you were bad.

I know i'd try to make it happen.
 
fishonjazz said:
I would like to add wesley matthews to the group of players (carroll, danny green) that some wanted to get last offseason who we luckily didn't add.

He is playing 33 minutes per game and averaging 12.8 ppg on 39% shooting from the field, averaging 1.8 assists, and 3 rebounds and only gets to the line less than 2 times per game.

The cake baking was the right idea. The injuries screwed the cake up otherwise the cake would be really tasty.

The only exception would be that i would have liked to go get a point guard last summer (i was always down with this despite being a "cake baker" since i have been an exum hater) but i dont remember any non cake bakers suggesting any point guards. It was pretty much just go get carroll, green, or matthews and im glad that we didn't do that.
Click to expand...

part of anti-cakk bakking was acquiring injury insurance. So, there's problem #1 with what you just said. Problem #2 is that the jury can still be out on Carroll and Matthews. The former has been hurt, and the latter is just coming back from a major injury (and, despite that, has been clutch for the Mavs in close games). Problem #3 is that we can tell now that Q will roll with triple-wing offenses... so adding another perimeter player would have been adding a player to soak up some of these incredibly unproductive minutes that Neto is playing (i.e. at point guard). Problem #4 is that the players you've listed were just some of those who were discussed based purely on AVAILABLE TALENT. Anti-cakk-bakking was about stocking the team with talent when we had a competitive advantage for doing so; it was a position-first discussion. Talent, plain and simple.

cakk bakking has been a disaster. We'd be sitting near the 5th or 6th seed if we weren't the cheapest team in the west who didn't address known holes in the roster.
 
Would have loved Carroll back, but not at the price tag. Was thinking he'd get about $12 per (which I'd have been fine with.)

Also wanted the Jazz to make a full court press for Tomic, which also didn't happen (although pretty sure he'd have contributed more than Pleiss.)

Definitely advocated making some small, cost effective additions to add veterans to the bench and add competition to the roster. Three guys I remember being high on were PG: Jeremy Lin, SF: Omri Casspi and C: Bismack Biyombo - think any/and or all of them would have been great additions and helped weather the storm this season.
 
Ellis269 said:
Would have loved Carroll back, but not at the price tag. Was thinking he'd get about $12 per (which I'd have been fine with.)

Also wanted the Jazz to make a full court press for Tomic, which also didn't happen (although pretty sure he'd have contributed more than Pleiss.)

Definitely advocated making some small, cost effective additions to add veterans to the bench and add competition to the roster. Three guys I remember being high on were PG: Jeremy Lin, SF: Omri Casspi and C: Bismack Biyombo - think any/and or all of them would have been great additions and helped weather the storm this season.
Click to expand...

Carroll did get too much. Definitely doesn't change the fact that it was a good idea (for a fan) to advocate for acquiring him before that price was set.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
For those saying that they wouldn't do this as a year and a half rental because we have Dante... Question, what if Dante isn't good?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think he will be good, but that's not my only reason for not wanting this trade. Burke and Burks provide much needed scoring pop in the second unit. U all realize Teague would be a short term rental, right??
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Personally, I think he will be good, but that's not my only reason for not wanting this trade. Burke and Burks provide much needed scoring pop in the second unit. U all realize Teague would be a short term rental, right??
Click to expand...

I realize that is a possibility but not a certainty. Everyone you get from a trade is possibly just a rental for a couple seasons.
 
veji1 said:
The thing is swinging for the fences means most of the time you fail miserably... While loading up bases carefully gives you more chances to get some runs. There is only 1 team winning it all per year. Sure being that team is the ideal goal, but more realistic and yet still ambitious goal is to be a team that wins playoff series. You might get bounced in the first round one year, get to the ECF another, semi the next, etc. You are a real team by then. To me this is the goal and adding quality experienced play at the PG position would help tremendously.

The second point is that if such a trade happened and helped us get into the Playoffs this year and say lose 4-1 to the Warriors or the Spurs, and the following season we won 50 games (fairly big if naturally), well a positive dynamic exists where players know this group has potential, can win, and can be interested in being part of the project. You don't have to necessarily give Hayward a max max contract, you can trade him before the new contract if he isn't willing to take a more reasonable offer, and in such trades you have a better chance of getting something in return than if you were bad.

I know i'd try to make it happen.
Click to expand...

I agree that trading Hayward is a huge risk, I just see it as less risky than assuming he will re-sign here &/or giving him a max/near-max contract. Imo winning it all isn't the ideal goal, it's the only goal. I agree that you have to work your way up to that point but (imo) if we continue on our current trajectory, we will come up just short (although I could be wrong & hope that I am).

I also agree that we need to create a winning atmosphere in order to get players to buy into what we're trying to accomplish, I just feel like we're running out of time to do that with Hayward. Even if we were to win 50+ games next year, there is no guarantee that Hayward will stay. Also, unless he's giving clear indication that he's interested in re-signing for less than a max contract, we would be better off trading him now (imo) as we will receive more in return for 1 & 1/2 years of Hayward than a 1/2 year of him (regardless of how well the team is playing next year).

Don't get me wrong, I wish Hayward didn't have that opt-out clause & that we had the option of allowing this team to gel for another year without the risk of losing him for nothing, I just think that there is a lot more to lose than gain by counting on him re-signing after next year. But like I said, if that's what we're counting on, then we need to make some win-now moves this season.
 
It's not like somebody with Teague's skills and experience can't be dealt one season from now, at next year's deadline, for some assets. That'd be a good move if Dante was showing something and/or the FO got the sense that Teague wasn't interested in re-signing. A contender would love to add Teague at that price. Could probably get a late first-round pick or something like that. Maybe more.
 
karl malone said:
I agree that trading Hayward is a huge risk, I just see it as less risky than assuming he will re-sign here &/or giving him a max/near-max contract. Imo winning it all isn't the ideal goal, it's the only goal. I agree that you have to work your way up to that point but (imo) if we continue on our current trajectory, we will come up just short (although I could be wrong & hope that I am).

I also agree that we need to create a winning atmosphere in order to get players to buy into what we're trying to accomplish, I just feel like we're running out of time to do that with Hayward. Even if we were to win 50+ games next year, there is no guarantee that Hayward will stay. Also, unless he's giving clear indication that he's interested in re-signing for less than a max contract, we would be better off trading him now (imo) as we will receive more in return for 1 & 1/2 years of Hayward than a 1/2 year of him (regardless of how well the team is playing next year).

Don't get me wrong, I wish Hayward didn't have that opt-out clause & that we had the option of allowing this team to gel for another year without the risk of losing him for nothing, I just think that there is a lot more to lose than gain by counting on him re-signing after next year. But like I said, if that's what we're counting on, then we need to make some win-now moves this season.
Click to expand...

Funny because this comes up a lot in conversations about team sport, and I suppose the US system of franchies which is theoretically "egalitarian" means every team can hope to win it all. In Europe if you are from a medium size city, you know your football club has little chances to win it all, but you support it because it's your club and what you want from them can be a lot more varied than "winning it all" :
- Having an attractive game style which gives fans a great show
- Winning a secondary trophy (like a division banner for example)
- Beating the local rivals (say beat Denver and such).
- Giving the big boys some sweat (ie lose in the playoffs against a good team but putting a big fight)
- etc..

To me as a fan the "only winning it all matters" mantra is a chimera which if applied rigorously would lead to completely dogmatic FO decisions with 20 teams in the league going for a phily style so called process of torching it all.

No to me there are many goals. For this team ?
- first goal is to get a taste of the playoffs
- second goal is to get a taste of what winning in the playoffs means (ie win a series)
- third goal is to be in the run for going all the way
- fourth goal is to see the finals
- fourth goal is to win it all

If the first and second goal are reached but the third isn't... well did we have a bad run ? Does this mean all this time was wasted ? Sure the Stockton Malone era got all the way to the fourth goal, but does this mean that the memories of the time are for naught ? Does the Boozer-Okur-Dwill-AK era count for nothing ?
 
NAOS said:
part of anti-cakk bakking was acquiring injury insurance. So, there's problem #1 with what you just said. Problem #2 is that the jury can still be out on Carroll and Matthews. The former has been hurt, and the latter is just coming back from a major injury (and, despite that, has been clutch for the Mavs in close games). Problem #3 is that we can tell now that Q will roll with triple-wing offenses... so adding another perimeter player would have been adding a player to soak up some of these incredibly unproductive minutes that Neto is playing (i.e. at point guard). Problem #4 is that the players you've listed were just some of those who were discussed based purely on AVAILABLE TALENT. Anti-cakk-bakking was about stocking the team with talent when we had a competitive advantage for doing so; it was a position-first discussion. Talent, plain and simple.

cakk bakking has been a disaster. We'd be sitting near the 5th or 6th seed if we weren't the cheapest team in the west who didn't address known holes in the roster.
Click to expand...
If Burks didn't get injured and we aquired carroll, matthews, or green then someone would be riding pine... And we would be paying way too much money for our 4th best wing. Which would be the free agent that we just aquired.

The cake bakers were saying that hood hayward and burks are all as good as or better than those free agent wings.
I think all three of our guys are better than those free agents. And we would have had to pay those guys lots of money (more than Burks or hood certainly) and then have to deal with a log jam when the team is healthy. Especially when exum is back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top