Draft night 2017 might be the single biggest turning point in Utah Jazz history.
- Thread starter 7StraightIsGreat
- Start date
karl malone
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if Hood/Lyles/1st(s) is enough. IND is definitely in a difficult situation & unlikely to extract anywhere near full-value, but I'd be shocked if BOS wasn't willing to top that initial offer if PG's value is as low as you predict it to be.
Not only would the addition of PG to BOS likely increase their potential of competing more so than his addition would for Utah, the damage to the C's collection of assets would be far less minimal than it would be to that of Utah.
Hood certainly has value to a rebuilding team, which IND would be in this scenario, but unless BOS/etc are completely unwilling to allocate any resources to a potential rental, I don't see how Boston doesn't easily outbid us.
Crowder would be made expendable by the acquisition of PG, although he's not an ideal centerpiece for a rebuilding franchise & may need to be flipped. Fultz (assuming they draft him) could/should make at least 1 of AB/Smart/Rozier available.
I doubt they would trade Brown or either BKN 1st without an extension in place but I would imagine the rest of their future picks would be on the table. They also have Zizic, who's likely off-the-table as the team is said to be very high on him, but Yabusele is another intruiging prospect.
I believe IND would more interested in a Crowder/Rozier/multiple future 1st's package. Yabusele may interest them as well & could potentially replace Crowder in the deal (although that may require an additional sweetener or 2) as, unfortunately, Hood's value is likely currently limited by his inconsistencies, injury history, & approaching RFA status.
Not only would the addition of PG to BOS likely increase their potential of competing more so than his addition would for Utah, the damage to the C's collection of assets would be far less minimal than it would be to that of Utah.
Hood certainly has value to a rebuilding team, which IND would be in this scenario, but unless BOS/etc are completely unwilling to allocate any resources to a potential rental, I don't see how Boston doesn't easily outbid us.
Crowder would be made expendable by the acquisition of PG, although he's not an ideal centerpiece for a rebuilding franchise & may need to be flipped. Fultz (assuming they draft him) could/should make at least 1 of AB/Smart/Rozier available.
I doubt they would trade Brown or either BKN 1st without an extension in place but I would imagine the rest of their future picks would be on the table. They also have Zizic, who's likely off-the-table as the team is said to be very high on him, but Yabusele is another intruiging prospect.
I believe IND would more interested in a Crowder/Rozier/multiple future 1st's package. Yabusele may interest them as well & could potentially replace Crowder in the deal (although that may require an additional sweetener or 2) as, unfortunately, Hood's value is likely currently limited by his inconsistencies, injury history, & approaching RFA status.
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here specifically. How are we going to swing for the fences with our collection of (non-Gobert) talent without some major risk? Nobody's giving us a star under a good contract for our collection of unproven/inconsistent/injured talent.
And isn't this what some seem to think Boston's strategy is? And isn't it why they're in some danger of not taking the next step?
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
They are lost sheep that can only follow one Shepard off the cliff.
Sent from my SM-N920P using JazzFanz mobile app
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
People who live in the real world don't need safe spaces cupcake.
Et tu Brute
Well-Known Member
You guys must be talking about the Aussie boxer.
Cause the Spurs version is a shell of his former self. (Still can defend though...)
LoPo
Well-Known Member
Lol. I honestly think Green would be a massive addition to our bench and a good addition to our starters. If we had a wing rotation of Hayward, Green, Hood, Jingles and Joe Johnson, that is really strong. Of course I'm assuming Burks provides nothing. If he comes back above average, even better.
If we could get Green draft night so SA can make a CP3 push, then we could also trade Hood while he has value also on draft night.
If Hayward knew we had Green, a better rookie to groom (Mitchell), and the money to retain JIngles and Hill, that's a good sell for Hayward to stay.
Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
He's def gone. I've already moved into the acceptance phase - I implore you all to preempt the stages of grief. The avalanche of news this week combined with zero pushback from Jazz employed media ... read the tea leaves. If it still was undecided there would be a much more aggressive pushback from the Jazz staff.
We'll bounce back. In like two years lol
We'll bounce back. In like two years lol
karl malone
Well-Known Member
There is always risk when swinging for the fences. Considering that Gobert & Hayward would be in/entering their primes + locked up long-term (assuming Hayward re-signs), acquiring a proven star would clearly be the least risky strategy. But the problem, aside from the fact tbat those caliber of players are rarely available, is that IMO we don't have nearly enough high-end assets to land a Butler type (or any current star on a long-term deal).
We may be able to piece together a good enough package to possibly rent PG for a season (especially if PG forces IND's hand). But, IMO, trading essentially all non-Hayward/Gobert assets for a non-guaranteed long-term core member is the biggest risk we could possibly take (of these options). I don't believe that having a big 3 for a single year is worth potentially/probably ending up with virtually zero talent/assets outside of Hayward & Rudy (unless your reasonably confident that the acquired star re-signs/propels us to a title in his lone season).
Unfortunately Utah would not have the fallback option of replacing said rental with a high-end FA. This is why my idea of swinging for the fences is to condense all assets other than Hayward/Gobert for draft picks &/or promising young talent in order have more chances to develop a star & time to evaluate the development. As well as more time to adjust to the leage, roster needs, new potential trends, etc.
TLDR: Swing for the fences options...
*Acquire star on long-term deal: likely not an option due to a lack of elite assets on our end
*Acquire star on expiring deal: high probability of cashing in majority of assets for a 1 yr rental/low probability of winning a championship in 2018 (especially if we have to gut the team to acquire the 3rd star)
*Acquire as many high-end draft picks/young talent: while the risk of prospects not developing is always high, the multiple opportunities, lack of immediate long-term substantial financial commitment, & extended time for internal assessment are all reasons I prefer to stay from rentals & target potential (since I don't believe option 1 is realistic).
A few things here:
- I don't believe San Antonio would trade Green to shed salary until they had formalized agreement with Paul. However, Diaw's contract isn't guaranteed until July 15 so trading him for Green may be a possibility after the draft but I see it a lot less likely of Green being dealt on draft night.
- If we pick up Green then it compromises our ability to keep all three of Hayward, Hill and Ingles.
- Is Green an upgrade to Hood? I ask that because you insinuate at trading Hood and reference Hayward knowing we have Green as incentive to stay. That's a complicated question. Obviously he would have been better this playoffs because Hood was hot trash. But Green is a career 8.8 ppg scorer while Hood is 12.4 ppg. If Hood is at all healthy, at worst he should approximate his 14.5 ppg last year and at best has a much higher ceiling. Green is a better defender, more experienced and is more clutch, but I struggle seeing this as a move that really changes things, especially if Hood bounces back to any degree, which I am inclined to believe will happen. If we moved him for a good piece, though, then getting Green would be a good replacement and he would look good in our starting lineup.
What? This post is terrible top to bottom. There is no reason to believe that Hayward will not improve again. He is only 27 and has gotten better every year.
But eh, we don't need an all-star, 20+ppg scorer that plays D.