What's new
By:
Filters

Good Article - "NBA Free Agency 2016: Utah Jazz cap situation and future-proofing"

If the cap is going to continue to rise above $100 million then a frugal team like the Utah Jazz should have enough money to pay for added depth, right? Well, maybe. The problem is that you're going to end up having to pay "market value" for the top of your roster regardless. And that market value is going to be one where a) for the time being every team has cap space, and b) the bump in 2016-17 and 2017-18 (before it calls back down in 2018-19) means that the space you have NOW may not be there later, so use it now. Players are going to get paid in the short term. And as a consequence, a frugal team may have to overpay to even just "Keep up with the Joneses."
Click to expand...

this is true. And the math says it was more true last offseason.

#datcakkdoe
 
NAOS said:
this is true. And the math says it was more true last offseason.

#datcakkdoe
Click to expand...

Listening to DL talk recently has made this mistake even more obvious. Mentioned how we had an offer for a good veteran on a good contract for Trey Lyles. We could have gotten a good veteran on a good contract by just signing them. He also mentioned he'd like to acquire a veteran through trade to improve us now... So now we are giving up assets for the guy we could have signed last year.

There will be some monster contracts given out this offseason and it will be much harder to steal a guy this offseason. I think the Hayward panic may start setting in and we may end up doing something short sighted.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Listening to DL talk recently has made this mistake even more obvious. Mentioned how we had an offer for a good veteran on a good contract for Trey Lyles. We could have gotten a good veteran on a good contract by just signing them. He also mentioned he'd like to acquire a veteran through trade to improve us now... So now we are giving up assets for the guy we could have signed last year.

There will be some monster contracts given out this offseason and it will be much harder to steal a guy this offseason. I think the Hayward panic may start setting in and we may end up doing something short sighted.
Click to expand...

Short sighted would be really surprising because nearly ever move (or non-move) seems to have development, cap space, basically future in mind.


Great article, very interesting to see the positional spending breakdown. I think you've gotta keep riding it out. I think the best way is to keep your talent here, barring an insane trade offer, and do everything you can to sign your (core) players. After signing you can always figure it out from there. If a bunch of teams are willing to offer Hayward the max, then they might also be willing to trade for Hayward later on.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Listening to DL talk recently has made this mistake even more obvious. Mentioned how we had an offer for a good veteran on a good contract for Trey Lyles. We could have gotten a good veteran on a good contract by just signing them. He also mentioned he'd like to acquire a veteran through trade to improve us now... So now we are giving up assets for the guy we could have signed last year.

There will be some monster contracts given out this offseason and it will be much harder to steal a guy this offseason. I think the Hayward panic may start setting in and we may end up doing something short sighted.
Click to expand...

We do not know who the player was that we would have lost Lyles for. It may, or may not, have been a mistake. Also losing Lyles would be giving up assets for that player.

It is good to hear some of the things coming out of the FO and coaches about vets and wanting to win now. Now they must match actions with words.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Listening to DL talk recently has made this mistake even more obvious. Mentioned how we had an offer for a good veteran on a good contract for Trey Lyles. We could have gotten a good veteran on a good contract by just signing them. He also mentioned he'd like to acquire a veteran through trade to improve us now... So now we are giving up assets for the guy we could have signed last year.

There will be some monster contracts given out this offseason and it will be much harder to steal a guy this offseason. I think the Hayward panic may start setting in and we may end up doing something short sighted.
Click to expand...

repped, liked, quoted for truth.
 
The (Dairy) Queen of the Cakkers has been dodging in another thread, so I'll just spam this info right here (and probably in every other pertinent thread):

The Tobias Harris trade completely destroys whatever "smart" angle the cakkers thought they had. Ask yourself who is better off because of the signing of Tobias Harris, the Orlando Magic or the Utah Jazz, then get back to me.*

The bottom line is that the FO ****ed up. Period. The rebuild was already on the verge of trouble before last offseason was over (with the failure of #3 Kanter, the obviously-soon-to-be failure of #9 Burke, and the question marks surrounding the injured #5 Exum), and failing to add talent under those circumstances might have been the last straw that turns us into the Grizz 2.0 aka the Grazz.




*Tobias Harris was underperforming and was basically traded the very day he became tradable.... with all those $$$ and years left.
 
King Cy said:
Do you ever shutup about cakes?

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

not until the Queen (who has repeatedly attempted to hand me "Ls" on this subject) steps up and admits he's wrong. He should take an L right on the chin for this and Burke.... which, when you add it up, is pretty much a total loss of credibility.
 
Stoked said:
We do not know who the player was that we would have lost Lyles for. It may, or may not, have been a mistake. Also losing Lyles would be giving up assets for that player.

It is good to hear some of the things coming out of the FO and coaches about vets and wanting to win now. Now they must match actions with words.
Click to expand...

The idea is you don't have to trade an asset if you sign a vet to a good contract rather than trade for one. Make sense?
 
Wasnt Harris a RFA. So Jazz could have made an offer that would have been matched and would be in the same boat except Orlando would have had to wait a year to trade him,
 
Stoked said:
We do not know who the player was that we would have lost Lyles for. It may, or may not, have been a mistake. Also losing Lyles would be giving up assets for that player.

It is good to hear some of the things coming out of the FO and coaches about vets and wanting to win now. Now they must match actions with words.
Click to expand...

I'm just bitter because we were obviously a year late to the party for no real good reason. Now we want to spend... Good luck. Everyone has money.

I was thinking today while listening to a podcast we should throw a big offer to Evan Fournier... Then I thought about how much it would have to be so that Orlando didn't match it. My guess is somewhere in between 15-20M per year and even then I think they match it unless they are on the verge of something else. thats more than Middleton got... And Fournier isn't as good as him IMO.

I also thought it'd be great to sign a guy like Dudley but it'd be nice to know how he fits first... We could have had him for free last year.

There will be very little value plays in free agency this year and there were many last year. If we sign someone this year it screws with the timing of extensions and retaining our guys so much more this year than it would have last year. I will be pissed if we trade one of our first for a win now one year rental. We tanked away seasons and rented our cap space for those picks.

I like DL and think he is good but will be curious to see what he comes up with... Whatever it is it will cost much more this year than it would have last year.
 
#bern said:
The idea is you don't have to trade an asset if you sign a vet to a good contract rather than trade for one. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was after... You can also use that asset with draft assets to acquire a better asset or one that fits better.

Say we had signed aminu and wanted Teague last year... We could have used aminu plus the gsw pick to get that done. There was almost no way to sign a bad deal last year with the rising cap. Even an albatross like Kanter could be moved.
 
Signing this player last off-season would have cut into time needed for our young uns to develop though. Unless it was post-Exum injury of course.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Signing this player last off-season would have cut into time needed for our young uns to develop though. Unless it was post-Exum injury of course.
Click to expand...

All those minutes Chris Johnson and Joe Ingles got this season will really pay off next year.
 
Broncster said:
Wasnt Harris a RFA. So Jazz could have made an offer that would have been matched and would be in the same boat except Orlando would have had to wait a year to trade him,
Click to expand...

Are you trying to obfuscate? There's a underlying lesson in this example.
 
NAOS said:
not until the Queen (who has repeatedly attempted to hand me "Ls" on this subject) steps up and admits he's wrong. He should take an L right on the chin for this and Burke.... which, when you add it up, is pretty much a total loss of credibility.
Click to expand...

And you ruin your own in the process by coming off as petty and bitter. Stop fighting battles that don't exist/matter and just post. When you do that I think you are quite good tbh.
 
Stoked said:
And you ruin your own in the process by coming off as petty and bitter. Stop fighting battles that don't exist/matter and just post. When you do that I think you are quite good tbh.
Click to expand...

meh, don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top