Per DL, Jazz will be "very active" in free agency. = The results

[Lakers_Slapper]

The General Manager of the Utah Jazz mentioned in June, speaking on the behalf of the entire Utah Jazz organization, the Utah Jazz would be "very active" in the free agency. Now I am not here to to bad-mouth anyone, only speak the truth and facts as it comes out. The words "very active" actually scared me when I heard them because I thought, compared to what? That of the past? What does very active mean to DL? To me it meant going after big name free agents even though we probably didn't have a chance in the world at signing them. Even if we ended up with nothing, but we tried to land the big names, that is something I was ok with, because we would've been at least trying something. What I didn't know is that "very active" meant an attempt to sign anybody that we possibly could regardless of talent, age or desire to win.
What's sad is we succeeded our biggest free agent signing that we've had in years. That isn't the sad part, the sad part is, we signed 35 year old Joe Johnson. Not a bad signing, but when told we would be "very active" this isn't quite what I had in mind. The words "very active" don't exactly paint the picture of an arthritic NBA great that once was nearly over a half decade ago. In past years one would say that we have been more active in letting talent walk or negotiating trades to which talent is traded or walks onto other teams without taking another player back in exchange. (See Kanter, Burke) I am not a fan of either but you can't tell me that we couldn't have tried to get something for Kanter and have been successful. And Burke traded was the right idea, but in exchange for a 2nd round pick?
Let me guess, "what about Hill?" has got to be coming up next. Hill a great player, no doubt about it. Imagine what he could be on our team if we acquired him prior to his decline. Would've been a really good acquisition. We needed age on our team, no doubt about it, but again, thought we would go in a little harder than we did.
But what about the trade for Boris Diaw? = either way you look at it, we were willing to shed a 2nd round pick for a grey haired, overweight, old man. Very active? Based on what? Very active in the free agency is something that we couldn't do, and active in the trade market is something that obviously isn't up our alley. And that's fine, but come out and say it. DL needs to say, because of lack of interest from other NBA players throughout the league, we have realized that we won't accomplish much more than what you think we will from year to year. Don't get your hopes up, I wouldn't. Not trying to be negative, but I will be realistic, which is what I see and hear from the Jazz organization.

 

[Coach Ellis]

A.) Still baking the cake. Anyone who would have been a clear upgrade over our current starters (outside of Durant) all re-signed with their current team. DL was focused on adding depth, veteran leadership and shooting. He nailed it in those regards.

B.) The Jazz are still committed to a young core of Gobert, Favors, Hayward, Lyles, Hayward, Hood, Burks and Exum. The additions of Hill, Johnson and Diaw add depth to the bench and fill critical needs that this team has, while still maintaining financial flexibility moving forward. In a year when Evan Turner and Harrison Barnes will both make $17+ million per year, the Jazz loaded their bench to the tune of $26 million with little to no strings attached.

C.) The Spurs paid the Jazz to take Diaw, not the other way around. Hanlan wasn't going to get any playing time - even if he made the roster. Jazz got Diaw, cash and a pick. All things considered, I'd have preferred getting Pau Gasol on the two year contract that the Spurs did. . . but adding Diaw wasn't a bad move - especially since his contract isn't guaranteed past this year.

D.) The Jazz starters last year often built up a good lead, only to see it slip during the 2nd and 3rd quarters when the bench would come in and squander it away. Then the closers would furiously rally back and often make s youthful mistake that would cost them the game. Fix the bench, and the middle of the game stretch doesn't kill this team anymore. Add some clutch players in Hill and Johnson to help close out games. . .

E.) The a Jazz will have a competitive team that will make the playoffs. Depending on how they gel together and how well the defense rebounds now that everyone is healthy will be the key factor in how far they go. Everyone who wants to curl up into a ball and quit competing because the Warriors pulled off the coup they did in getting Durant should not be affiliated with sports. Have some pride. Compete. Never give up faith - even in the face of insurmountable odds. Fight and do your best. The Warriors were a good team with a great shooting PG until their rookie coach introduced the the Death Lineup and it proved a hard matchup to beat. Create your own paradigm and force everyone to ****ing deal with it.

 

[SCS]

"We'll be very active" is just typical front office speak when it comes to questions about free agency from the media. A way to give a vague yet positive toned answer to the question without giving up details. It and similar vague answers are used throughout nba front offices.

Looking at our team when that answer was given to us, we had all of our starters scheduled to come back and most of our key bench contributors. It was easy to deduce that bringing in veteran depth on the wing and in the paint, and making one or two small trades was likely going to be the extent of the activity. And that's exactly what we got. I would have liked to have seen a big trade to help us avoid the cap crunch we are about to face, and avoid losing the players we will probably lose because of said cap crunch... but it is what it is.

 

[Keefe]

The Warriors were a good team with a great shooting PG until their rookie coach introduced the the Death Lineup and it proved a hard matchup to beat. Create your own paradigm and force everyone to ****ing deal with it.

This. I'd love to see us draft a legit big next year or sign one so that we have a scary Gobert/Favors/Diaw/4th monster big/Lyles rotation. But I'm talking a banger. The Dubs are ultra thin up front methinks and to get one more banger to be able to get Draymond Green or whoever their other bigs are, into foul trouble, would turn the tables.

 

[phippsj]

I'm sure you would rather have the Laker's "very aggressive" free agency results? Or Chicago?

This is a good offseason. Joe Johnson is not washed up. Hill is a good player and a great fit. Those two alone are a great summer. Add in a competent big backup in Diaw, and this summer is a win, plain and simple.

 

[kabenac]

Hill > Burke

Joe Johnson > Chris Johnson

Diaw > Booker

We upgraded our bench. Another fact noone has mentioned is while numerous teams have paralyzed themselves from signing someone good in the future (such as the Lakers, who overspent) the Jazz will have the cap space to entice stars to come here.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Hill > Burke

Joe Johnson > Chris Johnson

Diaw > Booker

We upgraded our bench. Another fact noone has mentioned is while numerous teams have paralyzed themselves from signing someone good in the future (such as the Lakers, who overspent) the Jazz will have the cap space to entice stars to come here.

And the first two could even use a few more greater than signs.

 

[Ben10]

I guess you don't listen to and read the Jazz beat writers. They were told that ever free agent was contacted by the Jazz. That includes the Durants and others on that scale. Just because they don't come out and say that Durant said no doesn't mean they didn't try. You have no idea who the Jazz really wanted or didn't, what the did get was pretty impressive that it was a surprise to all the national Media that a guy like Joe Johnson would sign here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Getting Traded]

What's sad is we succeeded our biggest free agent signing that we've had in years. That isn't the sad part, the sad part is, we signed 35 year old Joe Johnson.
Let me guess, "what about Hill?" has got to be coming up next.
But what about the trade for Boris Diaw?

Talk about negativity. All three are good players with lots of experience they can transfer to our young team, and none of the core of the team has been traded. How can you fault that? We had no chance to get a high-profile free agent, and any good young player would've messed with team chemistry. No, I think the Jazz did exactly what they need to do.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

cakk bakkin mufouckas.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

cakk bakkin mufouckas.

 

[Lakers_Slapper]

Talk about negativity. All three are good players with lots of experience they can transfer to our young team, and none of the core of the team has been traded. How can you fault that? We had no chance to get a high-profile free agent, and any good young player would've messed with team chemistry. No, I think the Jazz did exactly what they need to do.

You know what? Your right. I am the first to admit when I'm wrong. I was being negative, and we were in need of veteran leadership. Sometimes my desire to see the Jazz succeed can translate over to the negative way of seeing things. Success is a process that isn't given over night and I should be more open minded about our season before drawing conclusions. I don't agree with many of the decisions of our front office, to the point where I'm quick to assume the worst. Let's see what happens.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Tom Pitt]

The General Manager of the Utah Jazz mentioned in June, speaking on the behalf of the entire Utah Jazz organization, the Utah Jazz would be "very active" in the free agency. Now I am not here to to bad-mouth anyone, only speak the truth and facts as it comes out. The words "very active" actually scared me when I heard them because I thought, compared to what? That of the past? What does very active mean to DL? To me it meant going after big name free agents even though we probably didn't have a chance in the world at signing them. Even if we ended up with nothing, but we tried to land the big names, that is something I was ok with, because we would've been at least trying something. What I didn't know is that "very active" meant an attempt to sign anybody that we possibly could regardless of talent, age or desire to win.
What's sad is we succeeded our biggest free agent signing that we've had in years. That isn't the sad part, the sad part is, we signed 35 year old Joe Johnson. Not a bad signing, but when told we would be "very active" this isn't quite what I had in mind. The words "very active" don't exactly paint the picture of an arthritic NBA great that once was nearly over a half decade ago. In past years one would say that we have been more active in letting talent walk or negotiating trades to which talent is traded or walks onto other teams without taking another player back in exchange. (See Kanter, Burke) I am not a fan of either but you can't tell me that we couldn't have tried to get something for Kanter and have been successful. And Burke traded was the right idea, but in exchange for a 2nd round pick?
Let me guess, "what about Hill?" has got to be coming up next. Hill a great player, no doubt about it. Imagine what he could be on our team if we acquired him prior to his decline. Would've been a really good acquisition. We needed age on our team, no doubt about it, but again, thought we would go in a little harder than we did.
But what about the trade for Boris Diaw? = either way you look at it, we were willing to shed a 2nd round pick for a grey haired, overweight, old man. Very active? Based on what? Very active in the free agency is something that we couldn't do, and active in the trade market is something that obviously isn't up our alley. And that's fine, but come out and say it. DL needs to say, because of lack of interest from other NBA players throughout the league, we have realized that we won't accomplish much more than what you think we will from year to year. Don't get your hopes up, I wouldn't. Not trying to be negative, but I will be realistic, which is what I see and hear from the Jazz organization.

I don't really think your points are valid. You want DL to go after someone else in FA, but who could we have signed without jeopardizing our ability to resign our core players? A lot of fans make the point you just made; but it's a logical fallacy. You are by default inferring the Jazz could have signed Kevin Durant or LeBron had they tried hard enough, but they didn't want to try hard enough so it didn't happen.

And George Hill's decline? What are you talking about? His usage rate dropped because the pacers signed a ball dominant guard in Ellis and Paul George came back, so naturally his stats dropped, but he was still and elite defender and still a very efficient offensive guard. I don't understand where you get that Hill has suddenly declined.

 

[Stoked]

You try so hard to find fault. Pretty telling that took even you a week to come up with this trash.

 

[gomretat]

It has to be clear that a team could be "very active" and not sign anyone at all. Being very active does not mean doing things that are not in the best long term interest of the team. It does mean aggressively exploring options. The same is true for working trades and trying to change position in the draft. Sometimes you work every option you can find and still stay put. I am more than comfortable with how active the Jazz FO is and has been. At times I might make different decisions but that is why they get paid the big bucks.

 

[Farmer.Tan]

Seems to me the Jazz got exactly what they needed without killing the development of the younger guys.

 

[VINYLONE]

The General Manager of the Utah Jazz mentioned in June, speaking on the behalf of the entire Utah Jazz organization, the Utah Jazz would be "very active" in the free agency. Now I am not here to to bad-mouth anyone, only speak the truth and facts as it comes out. The words "very active" actually scared me when I heard them because I thought, compared to what? That of the past? What does very active mean to DL? To me it meant going after big name free agents even though we probably didn't have a chance in the world at signing them. Even if we ended up with nothing, but we tried to land the big names, that is something I was ok with, because we would've been at least trying something. What I didn't know is that "very active" meant an attempt to sign anybody that we possibly could regardless of talent, age or desire to win.
What's sad is we succeeded our biggest free agent signing that we've had in years. That isn't the sad part, the sad part is, we signed 35 year old Joe Johnson. Not a bad signing, but when told we would be "very active" this isn't quite what I had in mind. The words "very active" don't exactly paint the picture of an arthritic NBA great that once was nearly over a half decade ago. In past years one would say that we have been more active in letting talent walk or negotiating trades to which talent is traded or walks onto other teams without taking another player back in exchange. (See Kanter, Burke) I am not a fan of either but you can't tell me that we couldn't have tried to get something for Kanter and have been successful. And Burke traded was the right idea, but in exchange for a 2nd round pick?
Let me guess, "what about Hill?" has got to be coming up next. Hill a great player, no doubt about it. Imagine what he could be on our team if we acquired him prior to his decline. Would've been a really good acquisition. We needed age on our team, no doubt about it, but again, thought we would go in a little harder than we did.
But what about the trade for Boris Diaw? = either way you look at it, we were willing to shed a 2nd round pick for a grey haired, overweight, old man. Very active? Based on what? Very active in the free agency is something that we couldn't do, and active in the trade market is something that obviously isn't up our alley. And that's fine, but come out and say it. DL needs to say, because of lack of interest from other NBA players throughout the league, we have realized that we won't accomplish much more than what you think we will from year to year. Don't get your hopes up, I wouldn't. Not trying to be negative, but I will be realistic, which is what I see and hear from the Jazz organization.

Hi. Can I ask how long you have been a Jazz fan? Also, how old are you?

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Great post OP.


For me to poop on.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Great post OP.


For me to poop on.

#Triumph

 

[karl malone]

Outside of landing a superstar, this was about as good of a (realistic) off-season that could've/should've been expected. With a young core already in place & on the brink of taking that next step, there wasn't a need to add long-term pieces (although hopefully Hill will be more than just a one year rental).

What there was a need for, however, was depth (in the event of more injuries) & experience (to show our young core how to translate talent into success). Hill, J.Johnson, & Diaw not only provide those qualities (as well as the ability to provide offense when the team is enduring a scoring drought), but are great fits (on & off the court) that won't hamper our future financial flexibility when it comes to retaining our young players.

Unless the expectation was that of a blockbuster trade or the signing of a marquee FA, I'm not sure how this off-season could've been any more of a success. Regardless of how this upcoming season plays out, the FO has put this team in the position to have sustained long-term success (which is all you can really ask for) beginning this year.