If Hill is worth $30 mil on the open market, then just sign him (if that's what helps keep Hayward). You can trade him later but probably not too much later. But you don't lose the asset for nothing and you don't do anything to signal to Hayward that you're going to be tight with the purse strings.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Hood needs to get healthy and become a 42% three point shooter.
But then we'd lose him too lest the Millers decided to go like 20M over the LT.
Patterson could be signed if he's had for the MLE or less. After retaining all of those players, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to get under the cap.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Because you're choosing to ignore the scary details or at least leave them unsaid because then your plan may seem absurd.
Hood has to not suck when he plays in games with real consequences. With exception to some spurts of good play, he was terrible all playoffs long.
Another thing to think about.
If we resign Hill are we basically saying good bye to Exum? How would Dante feel about his remaining time if he knew Hill would be here for 4 more years?
I'm not saying one is better than the other for the long run, but we should at least think about the impact this will have on others.
If we resign Hill are we basically saying good bye to Exum? How would Dante feel about his remaining time if he knew Hill would be here for 4 more years?
I'm not saying one is better than the other for the long run, but we should at least think about the impact this will have on others.
Damn in that case we better clear all our cap-space to prepare for that.
GVC
Well-Known Member
In this instance, dump = don't re-sign (which is the topic of this thread...).
Do you really think the Jazz are better off exchanging Hill, Favors, Burks, Diaw and Mack for Jrue than they would be re-signing Hill and trying to make additional moves (trades) with the additional assets to improve the team?
Prioritizing Exum's feelings about roster moves is about the dumbest approach to team-building that I can think of.
Who cares how Exum feels? I'm sorry, I hope Exum turns out to be great, but you can't put the franchise on hold to hope a guy finally develops into a starter in his 4th year. You sign players then figure it out along the way if other players emerge.
If the worst case to signing Hill is "what if these other players finally emerge and we have all these great players we cant pay" then that is a great problem to have. Trades can be made, problems can be solved. It's better than saving money in *hopes* that players develop on time. That is a huge mistake DL has made the last 2 years that I think he has learned from.
Wow. Not thinking about our number 5 overall draft pick is smart? I don't think so.
I guess I still have high hopes for Dante.
I guess I still have high hopes for Dante.
GVC
Well-Known Member
It's irrelevant. The replacement you're suggesting would cost just as much, maybe be marginally better, and force the Jazz to dump additional players without taking salary back.
Now, maybe Favors and Burks have no reclamation value, and maybe no team can make use of Boris's non-guaranteed $7.5mil, but I'd much rather go with Hill, and see if Favors and Burks can rebound and/or bring something worthwhile back in a trade (the Jazz would have much more flexibility trading those players without having to worry about freeing up cap space to sign Jrue).
GVC
Well-Known Member
The Jazz won't have cap space with or without Hill. The Jazz are going to have to round out their team through trades and the draft. I'd rather have as many tradeable assets as possible, given this reality.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Bingo.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
We've already talked about this, and I'm not going to spend 3 years making a post just to ease your worried mind(too speculative as we don't know what might happen with trades, etc.), but I will go over a few numbers. Utah will have about 23 million in cap space, but would have to renounce rights on Hill and Ingles to actually have that space. Hayward would have to opt in. Of course, it's almost certain that Hayward will opt out, in which case he has a cap hold of 24 million. Which means, even if we renounce Ingles and Hill, Utah still doesn't have any cap space.
Now, they could salary dump Burks and opt-out on Diaw to get some cap space, or even Dump Favors if say, somebody like Chris Paul wanted to come to Utah and take a pay cut. I don't think that's a realistic plan, but whatever.
The tax problem is surely going to be an issue after next year, but I don't think it's wise to let your 3rd best player walk in order to avoid dumping your 6th/7th best player. As for filling in other holes, it's not just rookies, but there are a couple exceptions teams can use once their cap space is gone.
As for trying to build to beat GS, good luck with that. That team was built only under some special circumstances that will catch up to them sooner than later. Utah really is in territory where they are about as good as the 2nd team in the west, and team health varies from year to year. It's very possible that GS has some injury problems even next year that makes it possible to get past them. Utah just needs to build the best team they can and hope the cards fall in their favor. Letting Hill walk to save money almost certainly will result in a team that isn't as good.
Having said all that, it's hard for me to say I'd give him 30 million per. I'll leave that to DL to decide just exactly where the line is, but if I had to guess, I'd bet he's back in Utah for around 20-25 million. For a shorter deal, it might be worth it to give him 30 million a year.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Dude...The Jazz are $20mil OVER the cap, so even without Burks and Diaw the Jazz have no cap space. They have only the ~$8mil mid-level exception to sign free agents.
At this point, Dante Exum is simply Dante Exum. It is up to him to prove he belongs on the court. The Jazz are in win-now mode and he's been coddled plenty. Exum has done nothing to this point to earn the privilege that you are suggesting.
