What's new
By:

Jazz and Mid-Level Exception

billyshelby said:
We couldn't possibly sign Lee. He's strictly a 2. The hole is at 3, and neither Lee nor Burks could play 3.
Click to expand...

I agree generally, but Hayward can play 3, too. And at the end of the day, you get the best players you can. Fit definitely has to be taken into consideration, but the Jazz's need for shooters (and quality wings in general) is greater than Hayward's disadvantage at the 3 (he's a tweener anyway).
 
billyshelby said:
While Burks may eventually be able to play 1, it's wildly optimistic that he would be able to do it from the jump in a consistent rotation. So a Lee signing effectively means choosing between him and Burks as the backup 2. Not realistic.
Click to expand...

what exactly is "the jump"?
The dude was a primary ball handler in college.
If this was a priority during training camp, and we only expected him to play 7+/- minutes, then this doesn't feel "jumpy". It feels like the beginning of something.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I agree generally, but Hayward can play 3, too. And at the end of the day, you get the best players you can. Fit definitely has to be taken into consideration, but the Jazz's need for shooters (and quality wings in general) is greater than Hayward's disadvantage at the 3 (he's a tweener anyway).
Click to expand...

It's nice to have a legit 3 too. Hayward isn't the strongest rebounding SF, and Williams is.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I agree generally, but Hayward can play 3, too. And at the end of the day, you get the best players you can. Fit definitely has to be taken into consideration, but the Jazz's need for shooters (and quality wings in general) is greater than Hayward's disadvantage at the 3 (he's a tweener anyway).
Click to expand...

Right, but with Hayward/Williams/Lee/Burks, we'd have to start Burks and bring Williams off the bench. We didn't bring Williams over to bring him off the bench. Lee just isn't a fit.
 
NAOS said:
what exactly is "the jump"?
The dude was a primary ball handler in college.
If this was a priority during training camp, and we only expected him to play 7+/- minutes, then this doesn't feel "jumpy". It feels like the beginning of something.
Click to expand...

PG is by far the hardest transition from college to pro. Burks may have the ability, but it won't be an overnight process. He'll need gradual minutes. The flip side is you don't actually know if he can do it. Sign Lee, and you're basically committing him to the point. And if he fails, you're stuck with Lee and Burks, two guys who can only play the 2.
 
billyshelby said:
PG is by far the hardest transition from college to pro. Burks may have the ability, but it won't be an overnight process. He'll need gradual minutes. The flip side is you don't actually know if he can do it. Sign Lee, and you're basically committing him to the point. And if he fails, you're stuck with Lee and Burks, two guys who can only play the 2.
Click to expand...

part of me wants to argue a little...
what exactly is 7 minutes a night if not the opposite of an "overnight process"? How is it not "gradual minutes"? How is the pressure not taken off the situation by sharing the distribution load with Hayward during those "limited minutes"?

I understand the stuckness you speak of, but I think you're being a bit too traditional.

Lee does some things that would really help the team out. I'd rather speculate on how it could work than falling back on models of the game that are dying.
 
NAOS said:
part of me wants to argue a little...
what exactly is 7 minutes a night if not the opposite of an "overnight process"? How is it not "gradual minutes"? How is the pressure not taken off the situation by sharing the distribution load with Hayward during those "limited minutes"?

I understand the stuckness you speak of, but I think you're being a bit too traditional.

Lee does some things that would really help the team out. I'd rather speculate on how it could work than falling back on models of the game that are dying.
Click to expand...

I didn't address the 7 minutes a night because I think it's completely unrealistic. You can't depend on giving a guy 7 minutes a night, every night. You obviously can slide Burks to the 1 in matchups which is where he'd learn, but you don't know when they'd come, or how often.

The rest of the time you're stuck with only Burks/Lee to play the 2. You're also stuck with Hayward/Williams splitting time which is not optimal.
 
sb10064424j-001.jpg


You don't get through this end of the talent funnel and suddenly develop better skills at another position than all those other exceptional talents who never made it through. I'm not saying it's not going to ever happen but it's such a long shot that it's irrational to give it much thought at all. Can LeBron play down to PG? Yeah. Could anyone else? Not really.
 
Read this in Rumor Central on espn.com about Jordan Farmar:

"What about Utah, which after yesterday's trade for Marvin Williams now only has Earl Watson and Jamaal Tinsley to run the point, though Mo Williams is also now in the fold."

Ludicrous statement if you ask me.
 
I saw a tweet today that suggested the Jazz will probably not spend the MLE on just one player, and instead spend it on a few.
 
theonlyone said:
I saw a tweet today that suggested the Jazz will probably not spend the MLE on just one player, and instead spend it on a few.
Click to expand...

The inference being they don't the extra years associated with a full MLE player. But they'd use the MLE to add a guy or two on a one year deal who helped next year. At this point, the MLE is a bullet in a gun we won't likely use. Could become more prominent if Al or Sap was dealt, though that's not very likely.
 
franklin said:
sb10064424j-001.jpg


You don't get through this end of the talent funnel and suddenly develop better skills at another position than all those other exceptional talents who never made it through. I'm not saying it's not going to ever happen but it's such a long shot that it's irrational to give it much thought at all. Can LeBron play down to PG? Yeah. Could anyone else? Not really.
Click to expand...

Cute. And, a little convincing. Too bad the funnel isn't always the same funnel pointed to the same position on a "model." Can Lebron play up to Kareem's sky hook? Who gives a ****...

Billy's point about 7 minutes a night, every night, was a good critique. I was arguing about averages that ultimately respond to matchups ... but it was still a good critique. I guess when you are staring down the bench at Earl and Jamal, you start thinking, who gives a **** about the PG model for 7 minutes a night?
 
lee can play some 3, too. i just don't know if he'd come here to be the 4th wing. so which young guy do you want him taking minutes from: hayward, burks or marvin?
 
theNBAnerd said:
lee can play some 3, too. i just don't know if he'd come here to be the 4th wing. so which young guy do you want him taking minutes from: hayward, burks or marvin?
Click to expand...

All I know is that we are one wing short and one Jefferson too many.
If we can get a guy with Lee's skill set for the right price, but then have to play some unconventional ball a few minutes a night (small ball or non-PG ball), it might be worth it.
 
NAOS said:
All I know is that we are one wing short and one Jefferson too many.
If we can get a guy with Lee's skill set for the right price, but then have to play some unconventional ball a few minutes a night (small ball or non-PG ball), it might be worth it.
Click to expand...

One wing short of what? We have three point guards. Hayward and Burks and the rookie 2nd rounder at the 2. Williams and presumably Carroll and Evans (though he plays 4 more I suppose) at the 3. Plus obviously Hayward and to a lesser degree, Millsap can play the 3.

I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at the 2 or the 3 but I'm curious what you mean when you say we're one wing short. As currently constructed, this team has no time for a new wing to take more playing time away from Burks. Oddly enough, one thing I'd look for in a trade of Jefferson (or Millsap--sigh) is a 4th big back, specifically a 5. That wouldn't be the key piece in the deal. Just an afterthought. But I'd still like that. Someone who won't expect much playing time. Yet someone who's solid and would help us retain our depth up front.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
One wing short of what? We have three point guards. Hayward and Burks and the rookie 2nd rounder at the 2. Williams and presumably Carroll and Evans (though he plays 4 more I suppose) at the 3. Plus obviously Hayward and to a lesser degree, Millsap can play the 3.

I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at the 2 or the 3 but I'm curious what you mean when you say we're one wing short. As currently constructed, this team has no time for a new wing to take more playing time away from Burks. Oddly enough, one thing I'd look for in a trade of Jefferson (or Millsap--sigh) is a 4th big back, specifically a 5. That wouldn't be the key piece in the deal. Just an afterthought. But I'd still like that. Someone who won't expect much playing time. Yet someone who's solid and would help us retain our depth up front.
Click to expand...

I don't expect anything from our rookie, and until Carroll or Evans develop a CONSISTENT shot, then I'll continue to easily overlook them.
Our backup PGs don't raise my meter at all.

So, 96 minutes at the 2 and 3. Breakdown:
Burks - 25
Hayward - 30
Marvin - 26
4th wing - ~15
It's possible Carroll can do this well. Or, we can bring in a legitimate player who will push everybody to earn those minutes. I'd have absolutely no problem with that. If the fourth guy deserved more minutes, then you try to distribute some playing time into the "PG" spot since Watson and Tinsley are limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top