Eminence's 'Dream Team'
- Thread starter Eminence
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Am I going to feel your angry inch from way over here?
Yay, actual thoughts
Anywho-De Paula- I see as an asset grab, I think he will turn out much better than what a late first/early second would cost us. If he doesn't it doesn't cost too much, if he does he's a potential asset in the future (think Schroder). But if we weren't willing to or unable to get him then cutting him from the plan for Cotton doesn't really have any great effect.
-10 deep mostly for injuries, and for the fact that lots of these guys are young, likely a few of them wouldn't turn out how I'd hoped. RHJ/Booker/Jaiteh being guys I'd see losing minutes in a playoff scenario.
-Burks is the big one on what would happen to him, not really sure. Tried to express that we had a lot of options with Booker- part of a trade to take back salary and get picks, keep him(probably no Holmes in that idea-duplicate each others offense though I feel Holmes will be the superior defender), maybe as a piece, lots of options. I use Draftexpress as my usual guide for prospect value- Booker(15), RHJ(22), De Paula(28), Jaiteh(35), Holmes(50). I see De Paula and Holmes fluctuate a bit from other sources so I averaged them to around late first/early second. Burke I see as late first round value at this point, maybe just a straight up flip by having somebody pick Jiateh/De Paula and then trading with them.
-I like all of our wings individually but I don't really love them as a collective. Hayward is obviously the best of the lot so I feel he's the one we should look to build around. One of Hood/Burks is great but I feel like having both of them is a little redundant, I'd like to flip one of them for a 3/D player(Booker is the player I see filling that best in the draft) to play with the starting lineup and have the other come off the bench to lead that squad. I like Millsap but I have my doubts, basically hoping to replace him with a bigger/younger version of the same role with RHJ.
And really the big key of it all is Teodosic, if we don't think we could get him then adding all this additional youth without a fairly knowledgeable vet and keeping Exum as the starting PG probably would work out really terribly.
I actually see Hood and Burks as different players. Burks is elite at driving and getting to the FT line. I feel that he will improve his finishing at the rim with his shoulder no longer hurting him. Hood will be more of a shooter from midrange and 3. I see them complementing each other nicely and they both have just enough to compensate when the other steps out of their strength. Such as a Hood drive or Burks 3. Good combo imo.
As for the draft picks: The Jazz currently have the 12th, 42nd and 54th picks. You call for the 15th, 22nd, 28th, 35th and 50th. The 54th adn 50th are a wash so no movement there. 12th to 15th is a drop wo I am assuming that in your scenario the Jazz trade the 12th away. That means a team moves up and the Jazz likely land a player or additional first round picks. Also the 42nd to 35th is a smallish trade. That leaves Jazz trading for the 22nd and 28th picks. That is al aweful lot of draft day trades. I can see the Jazz being active but that is highly unrealistic imo.
I think the Jazz are far more likely to combine in some experince with a new rookie or two instead of 5-6 new rookies. That many rookies would actually be a step back next year as it hits the team on chemistry, experince, knowledge of the teams D and O sets...
Thanks for the share but it is to much change for me.
As for the draft picks: The Jazz currently have the 12th, 42nd and 54th picks. You call for the 15th, 22nd, 28th, 35th and 50th. The 54th adn 50th are a wash so no movement there. 12th to 15th is a drop wo I am assuming that in your scenario the Jazz trade the 12th away. That means a team moves up and the Jazz likely land a player or additional first round picks. Also the 42nd to 35th is a smallish trade. That leaves Jazz trading for the 22nd and 28th picks. That is al aweful lot of draft day trades. I can see the Jazz being active but that is highly unrealistic imo.
I think the Jazz are far more likely to combine in some experince with a new rookie or two instead of 5-6 new rookies. That many rookies would actually be a step back next year as it hits the team on chemistry, experince, knowledge of the teams D and O sets...
Thanks for the share but it is to much change for me.
This is not 5 first round picks. He estimates 3 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders for his list of guys. Still to much imo.
Not that I'm aware of. The T-Wolves had 4 back in 2009. Of course, one of them was Rubio who didn't come over right away, and another (Ty Lawson) they traded to the Nuggets.
Not that I know of and I can't think of any easy way to check it(Phoenix had 3 last year). But comprehension my friend, when I stated that it was obviously a stretch(in my very first reply) I was implying that it was in fact without an easy to think of precedent. Plenty of teams have certainly had value equal to or greater than the five 'first round' picks we're talking about (Cleveland 2013 for instance-though they blew that horrendously).
To Stoked: I hope it works out that way for Burks/Hood as well
Who do you see as starting next to Hayward? I think I would go Hood, but not sure.-If every player with "late first" potential went in the first round there would be 50 first rounders.
-Yep, that's what you get with draft picks.
-Worrying about second contracts for rookies and bench guys(1 of these rookies isn't on the bench) isn't the best idea, all of them will never be re-signed by anyone.
-So if it were modified to say:
Milos/Exum
Hood/Burks
Hayward/RHJ
Favors/Looney(my preferred of the mid 1st PFs for #12)
Gobert/Jaiteh
would that be so ridiculously crazy? In that scenario we trade into the early 20's for RHJ (Burke/Booker/future picks, whatever), use our normal picks, and sign Milos. So basically two changes- No trading Burks so we don't pick D.Booker at 12 and instead go with Looney and don't need to grab Holmes later. And also no using other future assets to grab De Paula at the end of the first. Simple changes to make but comparable scenario(also highly feasible-whereas mine was indeed rather outlandish), instead of your "this is crazy" hyperbole.
Gotcha, I used a later post that had 3 firsts and 2 seconds as the basis for my reply.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I've never seen one person be so condescending. Actually pretty impressive.
I would like to apologize for that. Day is already a little crappy and I let people get under my skin a bit. Still wish people would look past the "5 picks" reaction and give their opinions on the basketball.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to NAOS...
This takes a borderline playoff team and puts them in the running for the #1 draft pick next year.
Rookies dont help you win games, maybe in the future this team develops chemistry and becomes a good team but that is a big if. By the time the rookies develop Hayward and Favors are gone. Getting rid of Booker is a bad idea, he was a great team player and really gave this team its attitude. Trading Burk seems like a bad idea as well. He did not play much last year and was hurt, his value is low. Assuming he plays healthy he is going to have a great year next year and make his contract look good. I am okay with trading Burke but not sure he will bring us enough value to make it worth it. Most pgs make a big jump between 2nd and 3rd year and I think Burke will do that. Also if you are getting rid of Burke it better be for a known NBA pg. You need that player to be a solid contributor not a player who has never played in the NBA. I dont see Devin Booker as a starter in the NBA especially his rookie year. He seems like a shooter off the bench. There are more problems with this lineup but that is just a few.
Thanks for posting your ideas but I dont think any of these are good moves for this team.
Rookies dont help you win games, maybe in the future this team develops chemistry and becomes a good team but that is a big if. By the time the rookies develop Hayward and Favors are gone. Getting rid of Booker is a bad idea, he was a great team player and really gave this team its attitude. Trading Burk seems like a bad idea as well. He did not play much last year and was hurt, his value is low. Assuming he plays healthy he is going to have a great year next year and make his contract look good. I am okay with trading Burke but not sure he will bring us enough value to make it worth it. Most pgs make a big jump between 2nd and 3rd year and I think Burke will do that. Also if you are getting rid of Burke it better be for a known NBA pg. You need that player to be a solid contributor not a player who has never played in the NBA. I dont see Devin Booker as a starter in the NBA especially his rookie year. He seems like a shooter off the bench. There are more problems with this lineup but that is just a few.
Thanks for posting your ideas but I dont think any of these are good moves for this team.
With Hood's imminent all-star status, Burks coming back, Dante's hopeful improvement, etc., I think we stick with the team that gelled and kicked *** last spring and see how much improvement there is next season. Why mess with success?
Exum/Burke
Hayward/Burks
Hood/Ingles
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Cauley-Stein
Exum/Burke
Hayward/Burks
Hood/Ingles
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Cauley-Stein
Burke and Exum aren't ready to be starters in the NBA, so we inject a whole bunch of rookies into our roster to become a legit playoff contender?
Your idea puts the Jazz another 3 years from being serious playoff contenders. I expect with very little player movement that next year will be Utah's playoff warm up (we make it to the playoff and don't get swept) and the year after we will be a solid playoff team.
More rookies is not the answer. Yeah, you always want to take a shot on some rookies, but you don't gut the team to make room for them and expect to make the team better.
Since the Jazz have been a bad team for the last few years everyone is overly focused on drafting. Hopefully we're out of that window and onto the phase where this team starts to win. You spend too long in the developmental window and all your projects fall off the back end of the developmental treadmill and you're no better than when you started.
Your idea puts the Jazz another 3 years from being serious playoff contenders. I expect with very little player movement that next year will be Utah's playoff warm up (we make it to the playoff and don't get swept) and the year after we will be a solid playoff team.
More rookies is not the answer. Yeah, you always want to take a shot on some rookies, but you don't gut the team to make room for them and expect to make the team better.
Since the Jazz have been a bad team for the last few years everyone is overly focused on drafting. Hopefully we're out of that window and onto the phase where this team starts to win. You spend too long in the developmental window and all your projects fall off the back end of the developmental treadmill and you're no better than when you started.