What's new
By:
Filters

NBA Free Agency Moves in General (related to the Jazz, but not just moves made by the Jazz)

infection said:
So we could have waited on our PG problem and got Hill for less than projected?
Click to expand...
Doubtful. He was likely telling the Jazz: Gordon wants me there. I have the leverage. It will take $25M/per to re-sign me. He had the Jazz over a barrel, thinking they'd HAVE to give in because that's what Hayward was requiring in order to re-sign. Hats off to Lindsey for not wrecking the franchise. Even if Hayward goes elsewhere, paying Hill in the range of 4/$100M - give or take - would have been disastrous.

And no, I'm not claiming that's what he was asking. We just heard he had rejected 4/$80M as an extension and had tossed around the word, "max." So I'm taking the midpoint. TBH, I think MAYBE, had he even come down to 4/$90M, Utah may have given him an extension, seeing as how a lot of that could have been thrown into 2016/17.
 
Jack Strop said:
Hindsight is great, isn't it? The plan was to extend Hill. HE was making what, $8M/per. Jazz brought him in, probably thinking they could extend him at $12M tops. But then he played like an all-star and decided he was worth more...much more. Reportedly, Jazz were willing to go as high as 4/$80M. Hill wanted a LOT more.

But Hayward was tired of losing. Do you think if Lindsey had not brought in Hill and JJ, but assembled the same old cast to compete for the 8th seed, the Jazz would even have a CHANCE at retaining Gordon? I don't.

You know what made it a bad trade? The years before. It was quickly apparent Burke was a bust. Everyone knew Dante was a project. But Lindsey was content to roll with 5 guys and a bunch of stiffs. What IF - instead of playing Elijah, C Johnson, etc., Lindsey had brought in a vet PG and a sixth man? Jazz make the playoffs the last 3 years. Hayward is happy, Jazz are improving. No drama. Instead, the Millers made MILLIONS by having the 28th lowest payroll in the league (30th last year). And now, Hayward likely wants to see Utah commit to spending to win before he'd ever consider remaining.
Click to expand...
Jazz didn't know hayward would be as good as he became though so figured adding good players too soon would make us a mediocre treadmill team. We didn't have rudy yet. We were still rebuilding and acquiring assets.
Hindsight is 20/20.
 
fishonjazz said:
Jazz didn't know hayward would be as good as he became though so figured adding good players too soon would make us a mediocre treadmill team. We didn't have rudy yet. We were still rebuilding and acquiring assets.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...

The Jazz were developing their young talent and drafting more of it with lottery picks. That's how rebuilding works.
 
Catchall said:
The Jazz were developing their young talent and drafting more of it with lottery picks. That's how rebuilding works.
Click to expand...
My point Exactly.
 
George Hill has no team I see to sign a huge contract with. He's going to go via sign and trade I'd bet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Jazz didn't know hayward would be as good as he became though so figured adding good players too soon would make us a mediocre treadmill team. We didn't have rudy yet. We were still rebuilding and acquiring assets.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
We were already heading towards being a treadmill team. Lindsey "skipped steps" in the rebuild. Seriously, is there a huge difference between drafting 12th and 16th? Jazz were never going to be bad enough to do the Philly shuffle. Doing a true rebuild would have required trading Favs, Hayward, Burks (at the time he was thought of as a "core" player) in order to get 2-3 Top-5 picks. That's how you rebuild. For whatever Lindsey says, it was not a true rebuild.

Jazz could have had the exact same team, minus Exum, and made the playoffs every year after the Burke draft. Just look at where they would have picked as a 6th-8th seed and deduct the extra picks or positioning from losing. The other difference is that they would have been in the middle of the pack salary wise by adding a couple of vets. Millers went cheap and scraped the plate for every last dollar before Gail stepped in and set up the board. It was very evident - and the reason she did it - that the boys didn't have the passion for basketball and the Jazz that Larry H. had.

Now that said, Lindsey has made up for his draft mistakes by working trades and free agency. He also picked a helluva coach, I don't doubt for ONE SECOND that having Quin (instead of Sloan and Ty) isn't driving players to consider Utah. JJ came knocking on the door; I think that surprised everyone. Other decent names are on the list of those allegedly wanting to play for the Jazz. Teo wants in. Mitchell wanted in.
 
Jack Strop said:
Hindsight is great, isn't it? The plan was to extend Hill. HE was making what, $8M/per. Jazz brought him in, probably thinking they could extend him at $12M tops. But then he played like an all-star and decided he was worth more...much more. Reportedly, Jazz were willing to go as high as 4/$80M. Hill wanted a LOT more.

But Hayward was tired of losing. Do you think if Lindsey had not brought in Hill and JJ, but assembled the same old cast to compete for the 8th seed, the Jazz would even have a CHANCE at retaining Gordon? I don't.

You know what made it a bad trade? The years before. It was quickly apparent Burke was a bust. Everyone knew Dante was a project. But Lindsey was content to roll with 5 guys and a bunch of stiffs. What IF - instead of playing Elijah, C Johnson, etc., Lindsey had brought in a vet PG and a sixth man? Jazz make the playoffs the last 3 years. Hayward is happy, Jazz are improving. No drama. Instead, the Millers made MILLIONS by having the 28th lowest payroll in the league (30th last year). And now, Hayward likely wants to see Utah commit to spending to win before he'd ever consider remaining.
Click to expand...

Utah traded #12 to Atlanta. Indy traded Hill to Utah. Atlanta traded Teague to Indy.

Had we traded #12 for Teague, we would have had a healthy Teague for 82 games, not 49 like Hill.

We would have won more games. If we finish second in the West, Teague re-signs for 20 per (which I said that is what he would get and I was mocked her for saying), and Hayward is committed to coming back...

Damn. I'd take that over what we are doing now.
 
green said:
Teagues at under 20 million per year? The Hill trade looks worse and worse every day.
Click to expand...

You still like Teague more than Hill? Even after I've wrecked your arguments to the point that you won't respond even after I quote and tag you?

Damn man. When did you become so irrational?
 
This is a great year for dudes to get overpaid. Freaking nutty **** going on right now. Market has to stabilize next year, right?
 
Looking at some of the crazy money that teams throw out there, I'm convinced that you should only pay big money to your star players and let everyone else walk when free agency rolls around. Use trades, rookies and exceptions to fill out your roster.
 
George traded to OKC.

Griffin resigns with LA.

Lots of tweets about Hayward staying w/Jazz.

It's a Catholic funeral here in Boston right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top