You mean like what the Jazz actually got, only there was no real upside to what the Jazz "got" in the actual deal?He would have just played his qualifying offer out if we didn't max him. Just like Kanter would have done if OKC didn't max. Their agents are well aware of the cap spike.
So unless you want Jackson at the max, its a dead end trade.
That would have been perfect for the Jazz -- Disgruntled Jackson takes minutes away from Exum for the rest of the season and then we don't match his max deal. That would have helped us an awful lot.
You're right, the Jazz obviously have too much talent. Championship is in the mail.
This. ^^^
Blown opportunity. They should have done a disgruntled player swap - Kanter for Jackson and then gone into the offseason looking to match. Jackson's cap hold was $5.5 million and I doubt that he would have gotten a huge offer as a RFA. Even with Dante and Burke in the fold, it would have been a good move.
I just watched Panathinaikos - Barcelona in Euroleague...Abrinas had 21 points...he is a good shooter! Pity the Jazz didn't take his rights from OKC instead of taking Pleiss.
You're right, the Jazz obviously have too much talent. Championship is in the mail.
What's not debatable is that the Jazz got nothing. I'd rather "gamble" on proven asset than gamble that assets that typically amount to nothing. What cap moves are the Jazz missing out on by having to spend on their own player, anyway? They obviously can or won't do anything on the market, and if they have a really good player at a positional logjam, they can trade and keep the asset(s) moving. I have no idea why people are out-thinking themselves about this, especially in hindsight.Complete fabrication. Nowhere stated or implied.
Surely you understand that it is not only about talent but also about the price of that talent versus how you would otherwise use the cap room.
Surely you see that a max contract on Jackson is debatable and how it would constrain the Jazz future personnel moves.
What's not debatable is that the Jazz got nothing. I'd rather "gamble" on proven asset than gamble that assets that typically amount to nothing. What cap moves are the Jazz missing out on by having to spend on their own player, anyway? They obviously can or won't do anything on the market, and if they have a really good player at a positional logjam, they can trade and keep the asset(s) moving. I have no idea why people are out-thinking themselves about this, especially in hindsight.
What's not debatable is that the Jazz got nothing.
What cap moves are the Jazz missing out on by having to spend on their own player, anyway?
I have no idea why people are out-thinking themselves about this, especially in hindsight