Marvin Williams Sign & Trade? Or Nothing

[SoCalJazzFan]

Anyone who was paying attention near the trade deadline knew the believable rumors that a playoff team (assumed to be San Antonio) floated the idea of their 1st pick for Marvin. If it was true, it was a mistake not to do it. It would have resulted in a couple of additional losses, and given the Jazz yet another asset. The Jazz were fortunate that the draft turned out the way it did; it could have been quite a bit worse, and that extra 1st round pick and a few extra losses could have made the difference.

[BudTugly]

The Jazz obviously didn't want more late pics since they traded their second for nothing. This business of actually believing that #25-30 would be the key to trading up for Wiggins is just flat out ridiculous. IMO they were planning on bringing him back at around 3-5 mil depending upon how Hood looked to them early on. Charlotte offered more than that, it happens.

Not doing what a fan wants is not the same as making a mistake. I wanted them to trade picks with Milwaukee after I saw JLIII for 3 weeks. Was failing to do that a mistake?

The fact of the matter is, if they really wanted to lose, Lucas would have played 30+ minutes a game the whole season. They could have red shirted Burke, he was hurt. I suppose that's an awful failure too.

Plus all of you Marvin-on-the-grassy-knoll enthusiasts either don't know or don't want to talk about the contract taken back for MW. How many picks would that have been worth?

It's like seeing a dog digging in the garbage. The dog says, "there's bacon in there, Bud! I smelled it!" "No, boy, it's just trash. I'm taking it out." Dog glares at me, knowing he's right. Later I hear a crash. Dog has knocked over the garbage can outside and torn up the trash. He's got an empty bacon package. "SEEE!! BACON!! Chad Ford says so!!!"

There's no bacon in there, gents. Not really. It's time to move on.

[Litany]

trading him for who? some 2nd rounders and a cash? No thanks

Yeah, getting nothing is much better than 2nd rounders + cash....

The Jazz were rumored to get a 1st rounder for him. And even a 2nd rounder is better than nothing. Also, the biggest boon to trading him was to hurt the Jazz's record, while forcing Corbin to play the young guys more. Just because the Jazz lucked out and managed to get Exum eventually because the Magic reached doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to keep him.

Nobody actually believes a 1st rounder was on the table right? In their right mind?

Do you see any reason the jazz say no to trading Marvin for a first rounder during an obvious tank season?

Geez, seems like everyone just wants something to bitch about right now.

[Litany]

Ah, the magical Marvin mistake is now so gigantic, if only the world knew. That half year rental was the key to getting the top pick in a generational draft.

Yea, hard to decide what's funnier, Williams being worth 10 wins, that a pick in the high 20s would be enough to trade up, that invoking the name of Chad lends weight to your fantasy, or that you yourself buy all of this in seriousness.

At least theres a voice of reason in this thread. Lol. Wow.

[Inigo Montoya]

Do you see any reason the jazz say no to trading Marvin for a first rounder during an obvious tank season?

Because they wanted to keep him? If you admit it was a tanking season, then keeping him made no sense.

In his latest Tank Rank piece (which is behind a paywall), Ford writes that the Jazz had "several interesting offers" for Williams, including a chance at a late first-rounder, but declined to move him in hopes of re-signing him this summer.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazznotes/57592916-62/jazz-williams-chance-deal.html.csp

Also, a late 1st round pick doesn't have to mean a 2014 pick - it could also be a future pick, so all this noise about the Jazz not wanting to pick too many players in this last draft is short-sighted.

As for taking back salary for Marvin in that deal - it could have been an expiring contract as well. And if not - we just took on Novak for two years for a 2nd round pick....

[Litany]

Do you see any reason the jazz say no to trading Marvin for a first rounder during an obvious tank season?

Because they wanted to keep him? If you admit it was a tanking season, then keeping him made no sense.

In his latest Tank Rank piece (which is behind a paywall), Ford writes that the Jazz had "several interesting offers" for Williams, including a chance at a late first-rounder, but declined to move him in hopes of re-signing him this summer.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazznotes/57592916-62/jazz-williams-chance-deal.html.csp

Also, a late 1st round pick doesn't have to mean a 2014 pick - it could also be a future pick, so all this noise about the Jazz not wanting to pick too many players in this last draft is short-sighted.

As for taking back salary for Marvin in that deal - it could have been an expiring contract as well. And if not - we just took on Novak for two years for a 2nd round pick....

I just don't buy it. Last year they brought in John Lucas. One of the worst PGs ever and had him starting. We were tanking. The jazz weren't worried about Marvin Williams long term. That's a joke.

If a first was on the table for him we would have done it. I don't believe there is a team that would have given up a first for Marvin.

People say"oh the spurs". Nope that team and other teams picking in the 25-30 range need as many cost controlled contracts as they can get. They need rookies on good deals because of their other larger contracts.

Like I said, Lindsey has shown a willingness to trade. Makes no sense he'd be worried about keeping Williams for a season or two instead of thinking long term, which he always talks about.

[StocktonShorts]

If a first was on the table for him we would have done it. I don't believe there is a team that would have given up a first for Marvin.

People say"oh the spurs". Nope that team and other teams picking in the 25-30 range need as many cost controlled contracts as they can get. They need rookies on good deals because of their other larger contracts.

Like I said, Lindsey has shown a willingness to trade. Makes no sense he'd be worried about keeping Williams for a season or two instead of thinking long term, which he always talks about.

I dunno, man. There was a big PR push from the Jazz organization in the second half of the season to show how much they liked Marvin and Marvin liked them back. He was on sports talk radio all the time.

Dennis Lindsey went on the air after the trade deadline and talked about how the Jazz's young players couldn't grow "amongst rocks and weeds". (http://jazzfanatical.wordpress.com/2014 ... rview-221/).

I think that what probably happened is the Jazz were offered a first for Marvin, but on the condition they absorbed some additional future salary. How much that was and for how long we don't know, but given that the Jazz didn't really do anything substantial with that cap space this summer, I don't think it would've hurt them.

[BudTugly]

It's not that it would have been stupid to trade him, the point is a huge deal is being made over a non-event that wouldn't have had the impact being trumpeted about here.

I personally would not have traded him, I can see the point of view wanting to. But absolutely disagree that it's a big deal.

I kind of wonder if there was a health issue the FO didn't want leaked about Marvin. That was the only thing that would have kept me from attempting to retain him. If he only plays 50 games I'll assume that is the case.

[Inigo Montoya]

The Jazz were 1-2 wins away from 4th place, and if the Magic took Exum instead of reaching for Gordon, this whole season would have been a waste. By trading Marvin the Jazz would have better positioned themselves in the lottery instead of relying on others and on blind luck. And as a bonus, would have gotten a late 1st instead of letting him walk for nothing as he ended up doing.

[BudTugly]

If, could have, would have, etc. Again, mountains of BS are being built of of this. For what? You think you are going to win something? Greg gonna come to your town and tell you he's so, so, sorry?

Feel free to be mad, buddy. That's your deal. Just don't try to sell me a bridge built on rumors, speculation and what-ifs.

[Inigo Montoya]

Nobody's trying to sell you anything. And you're being equally speculative, if not more.

[BudTugly]

I'm not mad though. Just looking out for your health bro.

[StocktonShorts]

If, could have, would have, etc. Again, mountains of BS are being built of of this. For what? You think you are going to win something? Greg gonna come to your town and tell you he's so, so, sorry?

Feel free to be mad, buddy. That's your deal. Just don't try to sell me a bridge built on rumors, speculation and what-ifs.

Are you actively shopping for a bridge?

[blackham9258]

Both Ford and Locke and others confirmed that there was a first offered. It was reported to be a late pick but that it had one extra year on the contract at least. That made me believe it wasn't San Antonio, but either LAC, HOU, or OKC. San Antonio would have had to give up the Bonner and their 3rd string pg and I don't think they would have done that, nor do I think we would have wanted the 30th pick.

So lets look at those other potential deals:

OKC would have sent us Perk... I would have done this and bought him out for like $4.5 of this years pay. This is I think the least likely of the deals because if they really wanted to get rid of Perk they would have by now. So I won't even go into who would have been available at their picks.

Houston: Would have wanted us to take Lyn... That would be a no for me... too much money this year unless they were going to send us one of either Montejunas or Jones as well, but I would have loved getting my hands on Capela who Houston drafted. He has Ibaka upside if you believe the draft write ups.

LAC: Would have wanted us to take Dudley who has 2/$8.5M left. I would not have done that deal. Plus they were late enough in the first round to not be of interest.

Frankly, now that I have done the exercise I think the team did well not to do the deal at the deadline.

I also think that as the Jazz looked at the draft as a whole they had slotted people into tiers and the difference between the 25-30th pick wasn't going to be that much different than the #35th pick so why limit your space to move up 5-10 spots and get an equal player. What was interesting is that guy the Jazz picked was projected to be taken #22 by Memphis, who ultimately moved back up to get him from the Jazz in a bad deal for the Jazz. We should have kept him... I know the whole too many rookies thing but you take guys like that that can rebound and are analytical studs. We should have gotten a first for that frankly, given this was such a deep draft.

[BudTugly]

Are you actively shopping for a bridge?

Chad Ford @chadfordinsider · Jul 31

Breaking: Multiple sources confirm random Jazz fan "actively" pursuing bridge. Brooklyn?

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1337054&p=40831975#p40831975

[idajazz]

I think you all are making to much of this.
It looks pretty simple to me, I think the plan was keeping Marvin, I don't believe they had any Idea that another team would make the kind of offer he got.
Combine that with knowing that Elder Hayward was going to get paid, and drafting Hood, they just cut bait.

[Winglish]

Marvin Williams did help the team win a few games, but in hindsight the Jazz would have taken Exum at #4 anyway so no harm was done.