Grade Offseason

Blackie · Post #41 » by **Blackie** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:05 pm

It is hard to judge before they perform, but I like our pick of a coach who believes in passing the ball and sharing and being unselfish. Sounds good and I believe in his philosophy. We did good in the draft except giving up a high second round pick for practically nothing in a strong draft. I don't know if Hayward is worth what we gave him. Only time will tell. I think it might hinder us in signing our other young talented players in the future. we cant pay everyone like stars. We did some things well, but we also did some questionable things.

MeestR · Post #42 » by **MeestR** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:03 pm

well, the jazz had their draft determined by the failure of the teams in front of them, jazz just didn't mess it up. the decision on hayward was also determined by other teams. booker and novac seemed exciting when the news broke. but looking back, it looks like moves of that caliber are becoming more of the norm rather than exception. snyder i was happy about, but it is too hard to judge that move yet.

so using the grading rubric most colleges use, where A's are earned with exceptional and surprising work, and F's (or E's in some schools) are not showing up, and C's are just not screwing up, the Jazz get a C. They didn't mess up. But this year is looking more and more like last year to me. nothing to be excited about beyond seeing how other teams failures benefit us--ie Exum/Hood.

edit: lucus is gone. C+
[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/491716823331528705[/tweet]

Post #43 » by **FJS** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:42 am

Lucas gone... it's only improve our offseason.

Catchall · Post #44 » by **Catchall** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:31 am

This sums up the offseason for me. Saw it posted on jazzfanz.com. I think we drafted an All Star.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiOLIB9pF2Y[/youtube]

blackham9258 · Post #45 » by **blackham9258** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:21 am

D: we didn't get either of the two firsts that traded hands. One went to Boston by taking on an expring contract in the Clev/Bkl/Bos trade that got rid of Jarrett Jack. Or the Lakers getting a pick for taking on Lin. No we didn't need to keep either player. We could have bought out both players if we didn't wantthem. Instead we got another useless 2nd round pick.

Of course we came into the off season in a position to overpay a player (hayward) who deserved $9-$10M per year based on last season's performance, but had to match instead a max deal which limited our options.

I do like who we got in the draft but I don't give credit when the picks fell in the Jazz lap and they didn't fumble the ball.

Lastly, Memphis was shoppping their 2015 pick during the draft to get rid of Prince. Certainly we could have done the draft night deal and at least got that pick.

Overall I like that we are committing to all our young players but that has more to do with coaching, not whose on the roster.

So like I said: D

blackham9258 · Post #46 » by **blackham9258** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:41 am

One other complaint that has been mentioned: giving away our second round pick because we didn't want another rookie. Well that doesn't wash because Felix from Cleveland didn't play at all last year and was a surprise to even be drafted last year in the worst draft in 10 years, but yet in a draft that had up to 40 first round level talents we gave away essentially a first round pick for nothing. We should have only accepted a 1st in return, or just kept it.

goober · Post #47 » by **goober** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:59 am

blackham9258 wrote:D: we didn't get either of the two firsts that traded hands. One went to Boston by taking on an expring contract in the Clev/Bkl/Bos trade that got rid of Jarrett Jack. Or the Lakers getting a pick for taking on Lin. No we didn't need to keep either player. We could have bought out both players if we didn't wantthem. Instead we got another useless 2nd round pick.

Of course we came into the off season in a position to overpay a player (hayward) who deserved $9-$10M per year based on last season's performance, but had to match instead a max deal which limited our options.

I do like who we got in the draft but I don't give credit when the picks fell in the Jazz lap and they didn't fumble the ball.

Lastly, Memphis was shoppping their 2015 pick during the draft to get rid of Prince. Certainly we could have done the draft night deal and at least got that pick.

Overall I like that we are committing to all our young players but that has more to do with coaching, not whose on the roster.

So like I said: D

I think D is pretty low and quite frankly ignorant

That makes our off-season below average

Was our season below average?
The two biggest knocks I have are matching Hayward (which I think will turn out fine with the increasing cap) and trading our 2nd round pick (which I think people are overreacting about)

Trading Lucas for a pick and cash is a major plus, getting a pick a long with Novak is a plus, drafting Exum and Hood is a major plus

I think the benefits outweigh the negatives so there's no way the grade is a D

The59Sound · Post #48 » by **The59Sound** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:48 am

I love that people are saying they don't give the draft that high a grade because the Jazz had advantageous circumstances. So, you're going to lower your grade because DL was able to pick Exum straight-up at 5 instead of doing 72 labyrinthine backroom deals to acquire him?

(Not a response to you, Bish. Comment on some other folks' sentiments.)

blackham9258 · Post #49 » by **blackham9258** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:50 am

The whole purpose of taking all expiring contracts last year was so that we could do the same this year, and we didn't use the space at all.

What could have been with this years space:

*Marvin should have been flipped for a 1st rounder last deadline: +1
*Take on Tayshawn Prince at the draft for a 1st: +2
*Be in on the Jarrett Jack Deal: +3

That to me is an A.

Assets, Assets, Assets. What could we have done with 3 more firsts in future trades.

Its not that the other things that were done were bad, its just that they were average. C is average, and when you downgrade for what could or should have been, to me thats a D.

goober · Post #50 » by **goober** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:32 pm

The59Sound wrote:I love that people are saying they don't give the draft that high a grade because the Jazz had advantageous circumstances. So, you're going to lower your grade because DL was able to pick Exum straight-up at 5 instead of doing 72 labyrinthine backroom deals to acquire him?

(Not a response to you, Bish. Comment on some other folks' sentiments.)

I agree with this wholeheartedly

Would you rather have Andrew Wiggins with Favors, Burks, and our 2017 GS 1st gone

Or

Dante Exum while keeping the above?

I think the answer is pretty obvious

BudTugly · Post #51 » by **BudTugly** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:50 pm

blackham9258 wrote:The whole purpose of taking all expiring contracts last year was so that we could do the same this year, and we didn't use the space at all.

What could have been with this years space:

*Marvin should have been flipped for a 1st rounder last deadline: +1
*Take on Tayshawn Prince at the draft for a 1st: +2
*Be in on the Jarrett Jack Deal: +3

That to me is an A.

Assets, Assets, Assets. What could we have done with 3 more firsts in future trades.

Its not that the other things that were done were bad, its just that they were average. C is average, and when you downgrade for what could or should have been, to me thats a D.

Failing to fulfill your impossible fantasies is not the same as failing to recognize or act upon real opportunities.

blackham9258 · Post #52 » by **blackham9258** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:34 am

Fyi it is not fantasy. 1- The Boston deal happened. 2- several sources confirmed jazz could have sent Marvin for a first at last year's deadline 3- Memphis and Okc would have given up firsts to have had the space after dumping Prince or perk.

dr0welf · Post #53 » by **dr0welf** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:55 pm

Eventually, in a rebuild you get out of asset collection mode. I'm not sure we are to that point yet but maybe the FO thinks we are there?

BudTugly · Post #54 » by **BudTugly** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:53 pm

blackham9258 wrote:Fyi it is not fantasy. 1- The Boston deal happened. 2- several sources confirmed jazz could have sent Marvin for a first at last year's deadline 3- Memphis and Okc would have given up firsts to have had the space after dumping Prince or perk.

Well sorry for posting in jerk mode, it was a rough day.

Still sounds like you're just mad they aren't doing what you want rather than actually missing out on some amazing opportunity.

Marvin for a pick to me always sounded very fishy. The only teams that would do that would represent pretty late firsts, so not much of a haul, plus you have to take back salary. So in essence you're just doing somebody a fairly significant favor for very little return. I think the year plus grumble about trading away Williams had more to do with cheerleading for the false "Core" and Corbin bashing than any real opportunity to make the team better.

I don't want more garbage contracts. I want to be able to trade one or two of the young players for one actual star. That can't happen if the team is still spinning its wheels on Thornton, Prince, Perk or whomever. I want to have flexibility to take advantage of a significant opportunity, not squander it for a pittance. Which two crappy picks is.

Don't mean to single you out, but there is a lot of sentiment that looks to me like people just wanting to see action for it's own sake.

Post #55 » by **StocktonShorts** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:20 pm

Given the Carrick Felix deal and the new info about Trevor Booker's second year, I'm going to have to up my overall grade from a B- to a B+.

Also, one thing to consider with the trade of the 2nd round pick: I think the Jazz decided that a future pick was worth more to them (and to other teams) than an exercised pick this year, even if the pick ends up being a later pick than the one they gave up.

As long as a pick isn't exercised, it's easier for another team to imagine what it might become. Once you've exercised the pick, then you're stuck with a particular player and the (sometimes harsh) reality of his limitations.

Paper Face · Post #56 » by **Paper Face** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:15 am

In the realm of cybernetic transhumanism, I give the Jazz an F for drafting an unmodified human being. Talk about boring.

SoCalJazzFan · Post #57 » by **SoCalJazzFan** » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:33 pm

dr0welf wrote:Eventually, in a rebuild you get out of asset collection mode. I'm not sure we are to that point yet but maybe the FO thinks we are there?

All indications are that the Jazz are in the rebuilding mode still, and as such should be collecting assets.

The Jazz are about $7M under the minimum team salary, yet didn't make moves on hardly any free agents. I think that passing on Aminu and even Hamilton could hurt them, as if Hayward doesn't perform as well at SF and needs to play SG and/or Burks is better as a 6th man than a starting SG, the lineup choices are thin (do you start Hood at SF as a rookie?).

This is the team that we all wanted to see last year. The coach didn't cooperate (as much an ownership/FO mistake as anything), so this year the FO is making sure that the coach doesn't have a choice but to play certain players big time minutes in certain combinations. A winning record is obviously not the goal this season. Which players should be kept and how much to pay them appears to be the goal, perhaps with another tank job in mind to nab another quality player in next years draft and then, hopefully, earnestly move towards the playoffs.

stitches · Post #58 » by **stitches** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:55 pm

SoCalJazzFan wrote:
dr0welf wrote:Eventually, in a rebuild you get out of asset collection mode. I'm not sure we are to that point yet but maybe the FO thinks we are there?

All indications are that the Jazz are in the rebuilding mode still, and as such should be collecting assets.

The Jazz are about $7M under the minimum team salary, yet didn't make moves on hardly any free agents. I think that passing on Aminu and even Hamilton could hurt them, as if Hayward doesn't perform as well at SF and needs to play SG and/or Burks is better as a 6th man than a starting SG, the lineup choices are thin (do you start Hood at SF as a rookie?).

This is the team that we all wanted to see last year. The coach didn't cooperate (as much an ownership/FO mistake as anything), so this year the FO is making sure that the coach doesn't have a choice but to play certain players big time minutes in certain combinations. A winning record is obviously not the goal this season. Which players should be kept and how much to pay them appears to be the goal, perhaps with another tank job in mind to nab another quality player in next years draft and then, hopefully, earnestly move towards the playoffs.

We are actually not 7 million under the minimum. We are about 6-7 million under the maximum, about 100K over the minimum if we sign Clarke and about 700K under the minimum if we don't.

SoCalJazzFan · Post #59 » by **SoCalJazzFan** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:29 pm

^^ My bad, I didn't realize that the number I was looking at didn't include the estimated $5M for Booker this season.

Still, it is clear that the Jazz aren't trying to build a playoff bound team this year. They are forcing the coaches' hands and seeing who to keep. The silver lining is that this next draft looks pretty deep in frontcourt players if Kanter doesn't work out.

Jefff · Post #60 » by **Jefff** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:31 pm

Draft: for the second round i give a D, Stokes or Jeremi grant are two possible steals for a 2nd rounder, and yeah, we're already filled with young guys, but it's always possible to pick and stash; for the first round i give an A+, Exum is reeeeeally raw, but could turn in a franchise player, and Hood has all to be an excellent SF for ten years; overall A-

Coach: i do prefer going international, but Snyder is good; B+

Free Agent-Market: let's be honest, Utah isn't attractive, so you have to overpay; Hayward is overpaid, other moves are smaller but decent, we acquired assets, a shooter, a junkyard dog; i give a C note.

All in all is a B+, we wanted to go young, and we did it.