Kanter vs Gobert

[Inigo Montoya]

As a restricted free agent, there really is no risk of losing him for nothing. No matter what, they Jazz will have the choice to keep him or not.

The risk is that a team will offer him a bigger contract than the Jazz are willing to match, regardless of their ability to do so under the CBA. Just like they let Matthews walk for nothing. So yes, obviously, there is a risk of losing him for nothing.

If it's true that the Jazz are driving his value into the ground, then it would be hard to believe that a different team would offer so much money to Kanter that the Jazz would not match.

This was in reference to the value the Jazz could get in a trade before the deadline.

[DiscoLives4ever]

I wonder if Snyder could sell the bigs long-term on rotating starting spots based on matchups and getting rest. Keep them all at 30+ minutes, and enough starting spots for 55 each during a season.

[KqWIN]

As a restricted free agent, there really is no risk of losing him for nothing. No matter what, they Jazz will have the choice to keep him or not.

The risk is that a team will offer him a bigger contract than the Jazz are willing to match, regardless of their ability to do so under the CBA. Just like they let Matthews walk for nothing. So yes, obviously, there is a risk of losing him for nothing.

If it's true that the Jazz are driving his value into the ground, then it would be hard to believe that a different team would offer so much money to Kanter that the Jazz would not match.

This was in reference to the value the Jazz could get in a trade before the deadline.

I don't know why you are ruling out the possibility of the Jazz matching an offer sheet. The only scenario in which they cannot afford Kanter is if they are using the money on someone else. That's not losing him for nothing. The Jazz were not blindsided by Wesley Matthews leaving. They just decided to go with Bell instead.

[Inigo Montoya]

I don't know why you are ruling out the possibility of the Jazz matching an offer sheet. The only scenario in which they cannot afford Kanter is if they are using the money on someone else. That's not losing him for nothing.

I'm not ruling it out completely, but I think it is unlikely if he gets an offer of 12M+, maybe even less if they view Gobert and Favors as the future starters. If Gobert and Favors are your starters, will you pay 12M+ for a bench player?

And just because they are using that money on someone else, doesn't mean you got something for Kanter - this has been discussed at length. You spent the 3rd pick and 4 years of development on him, that could have been used on other players, not to mention - 19 million dollars for the length of his contract so far. You made him a better player, and now you'll be letting another team to reap the rewards of your hard work. It wouldn't be a big deal if he turned out to be not so good, like Jimmer, or Derrick Williams. But if you developed a guy to a point where he has value, then you should get something for him. By your rational - OKC can let Durant walk for nothing because they could use the money he frees up to get other players (and no, I'm not comparing them and saying they are the same caliber of players). It's not like good players are lining up to get to Utah in free agency, so the Jazz should make the most out of the players they draft when they hold value, whether they keep them or eventually part ways (trade) because their free agency options are limited.

The Jazz were not blindsided by Wesley Matthews leaving. They just decided to go with Bell instead.

As for Matthews - it doesn't matter if the Jazz were blindsided or not (I didn't say that, btw). The reality is that they elected not to match his offer because they thought it was too rich. If anything, letting him walk and thinking they could do better with a FA signing of Bell should tell you why letting guys you developed who have value walk for no return is a really bad idea. We all saw how it turned out - let that be a cautionary tale.

[BudTugly]

IM:

Snyder's #1 job is to get the players to peform at their best. It's not his job to showcase or elevate somebody's perceived value. Likewise it's not the FO's job to dictate gameplanning. You seem to disagree with that. If so you're way off. What really matters is finding the best combinations of talent that compliment Favors, Hayward and now Gobert.

This business about "killing value" really needs to be put to bed. It's ridiculous. If Kanter is having a positive impact on a team that wins he'll have value. Coming off the bench doesn't mean 15 mpg necessarily. He would be the focus of the offense against lesser talent so all those numbers people love would certainly make a jump.

Furthermore even if I was to buy your premise, which I don't, that reduction of value would also apply to his next contract. If he's butthurt over it too bad. Utah has complete control if they want it and signing a good player for less would be good for the team.

I really can't figure where you're coming from. The Jazz struck gold drafting Rudy. That guy is easily already the best center since Eaton. But you're mad the team might not start your boy? How is that position in any way representing what's good for the team?

[Revived]

Gobert's gonna be a really good big man. This poll isn't close and rightfully so.

Utah is extremely lucky that Gobert all the way to them in the 2013 draft. Him and Favors together could turn into the best defensive front court in the NBA.

[dautjazz]

Gobert's gonna be a really good big man. This poll isn't close and rightfully so.

Utah is extremely lucky that Gobert all the way to them in the 2013 draft. Him and Favors together could turn into the best defensive front court in the NBA.

Is there a better defensive frontcourt right now? Outside of maybe Chicago, I don't think there is.

[Inigo Montoya]

Snyder's #1 job is to get the players to peform at their best. It's not his job to showcase or elevate somebody's perceived value. Likewise it's not the FO's job to dictate gameplanning. You seem to disagree with that. If so you're way off. What really matters is finding the best combinations of talent that compliment Favors, Hayward and now Gobert.

Ideally, you want the FO and the coach to work together and be on the same page. If the Jazz signed Snyder with a long term view in mind, and planned to work with synergy, you'd think that the coach and the FO would work together to achieve what is best for the team, and part of it is making sure the Jazz players will be a coveted commodity, especially if a certain player might leave. He can also play Gobert-Favors when Gobert comes off the bench, so I don't see what's the issue, since Gobert isn't going anywhere, and it's not like Kanter is awful. If the Jazz were a contender, or fighting for the playoffs, then you have a point. But when the team is in a 30 win rebuilding season, this is still about improving assets. We've seen plenty of situations where front offices dictate (maybe not the best word to use) coaches what to do, be it style of play based on analytics, or telling them to give more PT to certain players. This isn't new.

This business about "killing value" really needs to be put to bed. It's ridiculous. If Kanter is having a positive impact on a team that wins he'll have value. Coming off the bench doesn't mean 15 mpg necessarily. He would be the focus of the offense against lesser talent so all those numbers people love would certainly make a jump.

Furthermore even if I was to buy your premise, which I don't, that reduction of value would also apply to his next contract. If he's butthurt over it too bad. Utah has complete control if they want it and signing a good player for less would be good for the team.

Once again, the value killing is in reference to a trade before the deadline. If coming off the bench doesn't mean 15mpg necessarily, again, you can also make the case for Gobert to continue to come off the bench and play with Favors. It won't hurt Gobert's value, but it will hurt Kanter's. If you don't see how getting benched and losing the starting job two seasons in a row decreases a player's value, well, that's too bad. I think it is equally ridiculous to pretend it won't matter.

I really can't figure where you're coming from. The Jazz struck gold drafting Rudy. That guy is easily already the best center since Eaton. But you're mad the team might not start your boy? How is that position in any way representing what's good for the team?

This isn't about Kanter being my boy. I said it countless times - I don't consider any player on the roster untouchable. You want to move away from Kanter and go for Favors-Gobert - that's fine. But get something for Kanter and don't let him leave for nothing or for pennies on the dollar. This is exactly how it represents what's good for the team - I want them to be in the best possible position. And for that to happen the Jazz need to preserve and increase their players value so they could get the most return for them. You think the Millers are going to be happy if Kanter walks for nothing after they paid him 19M in the last four seasons?

[HawaiianJazzFan]

Snyder's #1 job is to get the players to peform at their best. It's not his job to showcase or elevate somebody's perceived value. Likewise it's not the FO's job to dictate gameplanning. You seem to disagree with that. If so you're way off. What really matters is finding the best combinations of talent that compliment Favors, Hayward and now Gobert.

Ideally, you want the FO and the coach to work together and be on the same page. If the Jazz signed Snyder with a long term view in mind, and planned to work with synergy, you'd think that the coach and the FO would work together to achieve what is best for the team, and part of it is making sure the Jazz players will be a coveted commodity, especially if a certain player might leave. He can also play Gobert-Favors when Gobert comes off the bench, so I don't see what's the issue, since Gobert isn't going anywhere, and it's not like Kanter is awful. If the Jazz were a contender, or fighting for the playoffs, then you have a point. But when the team is in a 30 win rebuilding season, this is still about improving assets. We've seen plenty of situations where front offices dictate (maybe not the best word to use) coaches what to do, be it style of play based on analytics, or telling them to give more PT to certain players. This isn't new.

This business about "killing value" really needs to be put to bed. It's ridiculous. If Kanter is having a positive impact on a team that wins he'll have value. Coming off the bench doesn't mean 15 mpg necessarily. He would be the focus of the offense against lesser talent so all those numbers people love would certainly make a jump.

Furthermore even if I was to buy your premise, which I don't, that reduction of value would also apply to his next contract. If he's butthurt over it too bad. Utah has complete control if they want it and signing a good player for less would be good for the team.

Once again, the value killing is in reference to a trade before the deadline. If coming off the bench doesn't mean 15mpg necessarily, again, you can also make the case for Gobert to continue to come off the bench and play with Favors. It won't hurt Gobert's value, but it will hurt Kanter's. If you don't see how getting benched and losing the starting job two seasons in a row decreases a player's value, well, that's too bad. I think it is equally ridiculous to pretend it won't matter.

I really can't figure where you're coming from. The Jazz struck gold drafting Rudy. That guy is easily already the best center since Eaton. But you're mad the team might not start your boy? How is that position in any way representing what's good for the team?

This isn't about Kanter being my boy. I said it countless times - I don't consider any player on the roster untouchable. You want to move away from Kanter and go for Favors-Gobert - that's fine. But get something for Kanter and don't let him leave for nothing or for pennies on the dollar. This is exactly how it represents what's good for the team - I want them to be in the best possible position. And for that to happen the Jazz need to preserve and increase their players value so they could get the most return for them. You think the Millers are going to be happy if Kanter walks for nothing after they paid him 19M in the last four seasons?

You are very confusing. On one hand you don't want to lose Kanter for nothing, and want to increase his value. Don't you realize that the higher Kanter's value is... the more likely he is to leave to some ridiculous deal?? If his value is low, we'd match any low value offer we got for Kanter, and that would be the best case scenario for our stable of big men. If your reasoning is to increase his value for a trade, you do realize the trade deadline is in like a month right?? You really think those 4 years of info other teams have is going to be impacted by the next several weeks Kanter plays in? Not to mention that it might take him that amount of time to even get 100% healthy from that injury. Do you really think that teams are too dumb to realize that Kanter isn't crap and that Rudy has been playing exceptionally, and helping to DRASTICALLY improve the Jazz's biggest weakness... defense? You said you hear rumblings of coaches playing players to increase value regardless of what happens on the court. Do you have any examples for this franchise?? Are there any examples of this proving to be valuable to a franchise?? And 19 million dollars over 4 years might be the worst argument, that's barely more than the average draft pick makes, so you could pretty much make that point about anyone. The Jazz paid that in one year almost for a crappy, injured, AK.

If we went by your philosophy, why are we playing Hayward, Favors, or Gobert?? They already have TONS of value, the most on the team and they are under contract for multiple years. Doesn't the front office know that Jeremy Evans, Ian Clark, and Booker need to increase their value because they aren't a valuable commodity? Doesn't he know these players might leave? We have spent years on Jeremy Evans, doesn't Snyder have the long term in view? What is Snyder doing, clearly he doesn't realize all the value he is losing with these players. Why isn't he starting Evans? WTF, Snyder. Why isn't Snyder in a symbiotic relationship with the owners? Why is he playing Favors? Favors value is already there and he is under contract and NO threat to leave, he doesn't need to play. Kanter needs more value, we don't want to hurt his feelings.

By almost every metric, Kanter/Favors and Kanter/Gobert are a worse combination then Favors and Gobert (even our offense is amazing thus far with Favors and Gobert) and you want to sacrifice time needed to develop this combo, so that we can inflate Kanter's value for either the next few weeks for a trade or so that we can overpay him in the offseason? I honestly don't understand.

I will say one thing, the day that Snyder defers to Greg Miller on who to play and who to start, is the day he should be fired. Regardless of who's feelings he hurts.

[KDBG]

The bigger question is who is more important for this team going forward. Did you guys see the hefty price that Cleveland payed for Mozgov? That's how important a rim protector is to teams in today's NBA. And Gobert has the potential to be the best rim protector in the game for years to come. I love me some Kanter, but Goberts just don't grow on trees. Gobert is by far a more important piece than Kanter.

So what about Kanter vs. Favors? Kanter is the more versatile player offensive player, but Favors don't grow on trees either. In other words, two-way bigs are almost as rare as elite rim protectors. So I would definitely pick Favors over Kanter to pair with Gobert. Defensively, the Gobert/Favors pairing has already shown unreal potential. Offensively, I think they started off a little rough, but as of late have really started to figure out how to play with each other. The spacing issues are getting blown way out of proportion. Of course there's room to grow, but it's anything but a disaster like some make it seem.

Unless someone like Lillard is coming back in a trade, it boggles my f***ing mind why some on this board are so antsy to trade one of our key pieces in Favors just because Gobert/Kanter is better for "spacing issues." Some people are acting like Favors is freakin Bismack Biyombo offensively. Did anyone see Favors' beautiful fadeaway jumper versus the Bulls the other night? Those are the kind of tough shots Favors has been making with regularity all season long.

Also, I'd like to note that the Spurs frontline of Splitter/Duncan doesn't create any spacing issues for San Antonio. Obviously, they're both fantastic passers for their positions. But both Gobert and Favors have shown great potential in that department, especially as of late.

Last thing, 101 in team building: Build around your best players, not the other way around. Gobert, Favors, and Hayward have made a far bigger impact then anyone else on our roster this year. Keep them together, and put the pieces around them that'll help them flourish even more.

[StocktonShorts]

The Kult of Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

[Inigo Montoya]

The Kult of Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

The Kult of Anti-Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

[BudTugly]

Okay, I'm gonna try not to come off as insulting and if I fail then sorry in advance.

But here's the deal. Gobert is walking on the floor as a project bench player and having an impact we've almost never seen in the NBA. You increase his role, that impact just goes up. It's crazy how good he is. This thread is called Gobert vs. Kanter, well that's over. Kanter lost. Really the only thing to be said against Rudy at this point is sample size. He just crushed Chicago. Crushed. And those guys are elite up front. Gobert is not getting lucky, or having outlier shooting nights, anything like that. Everything he's doing is repeatable and is being repeated. Scaleable and being scaled up. He's the real deal.

Once you accept this you'll know that it's absolutely irrelevant weather or not you could possibly squeeze a smidge more trade value by limiting him in favor of a dude who has never even sniffed that impact. The difference would be what exactly anyways? Say the Knicks want Kanter. You get, say a top 6 protected pick vs. a lottery protected pick? Big F'n deal. Meanwhile Gobert could be accelerating his enmeshment with your other core players and continuing to stomp face all over the league. He makes the team better to a degree that I find almost unbelievable. He's gotta play, and play a lot. Bird in hand Inigo my amigo.

Rudy is going to be a max player with absolute certainty. His career path is going to look a lot like Hibbert's unless the team somehow signs him for a little less before he hits the market. Teams are going to be throwing trade offers like crazy. Everybody wants a guy that does what he does.

So the question now is not Gobert vs Kanter but Favors vs Kanter. You gonna bench Favs for Enes? I wouldn't. You can marginalize Booker since Enes has certainly looked better this year but that's as far as an objective person will go.

It really is that simple. And yea it's ridiculous to imagine there are some birds in the bush out there that make it worth retarding the growth of your best prospect since Malone. 100% dumb.

[Inigo Montoya]

You are very confusing. On one hand you don't want to lose Kanter for nothing, and want to increase his value. Don't you realize that the higher Kanter's value is... the more likely he is to leave to some ridiculous deal?? If his value is low, we'd match any low value offer we got for Kanter, and that would be the best case scenario for our stable of big men. If your reasoning is to increase his value for a trade, you do realize the trade deadline is in like a month right?? You really think those 4 years of info other teams have is going to be impacted by the next several weeks Kanter plays in? Not to mention that it might take him that amount of time to even get 100% healthy from that injury. Do you really think that teams are too dumb to realize that Kanter isn't crap and that Rudy has been playing exceptionally, and helping to DRASTICALLY improve the Jazz's biggest weakness... defense? You said you hear rumblings of coaches playing players to increase value regardless of what happens on the court. Do you have any examples for this franchise?? Are there any examples of this proving to be valuable to a franchise?? And 19 million dollars over 4 years might be the worst argument, that's barely more than the average draft pick makes, so you could pretty much make that point about anyone. The Jazz paid that in one year almost for a crappy, injured, AK.

If we went by your philosophy, why are we playing Hayward, Favors, or Gobert?? They already have TONS of value, the most on the team and they are under contract for multiple years. Doesn't the front office know that Jeremy Evans, Ian Clark, and Booker need to increase their value because they aren't a valuable commodity? Doesn't he know these players might leave? We have spent years on Jeremy Evans, doesn't Snyder have the long term in view? What is Snyder doing, clearly he doesn't realize all the value he is losing with these players. Why isn't he starting Evans? WTF, Snyder. Why isn't Snyder in a symbiotic relationship with the owners? Why is he playing Favors? Favors value is already there and he is under contract and NO threat to leave, he doesn't need to play. Kanter needs more value, we don't want to hurt his feelings.

By almost every metric, Kanter/Favors and Kanter/Gobert are a worse combination then Favors and Gobert (even our offense is amazing thus far with Favors and Gobert) and you want to sacrifice time needed to develop this combo, so that we can inflate Kanter's value for either the next few weeks for a trade or so that we can overpay him in the offseason? I honestly don't understand.

I will say one thing, the day that Snyder defers to Greg Miller on who to play and who to start, is the day he should be fired. Regardless of who's feelings he hurts.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough - I apologize if I do. I can tell you're confused, since this post is full of misunderstanding and misinterpretations of what I'm saying, so I won't comment on it, because it will just be too long and pointless to rehash what was already said - no hard feelings. I'll take responsibility for not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.

[StocktonShorts]

The Kult of Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

The Kult of Anti-Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

Two diametrically opposed cults, what could possibly go wrong?

[Inigo Montoya]

So the question now is not Gobert vs Kanter but Favors vs Kanter. You gonna bench Favs for Enes? I wouldn't. You can marginalize Booker since Enes has certainly looked better this year but that's as far as an objective person will go.

I agree, this is a much more reasonable debate, since Kanter almost doesn't play the C position this season.

[Inigo Montoya]

The Kult of Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

The Kult of Anti-Kanter around here has gotten out of control.

Two diametrically opposed cults, what could possibly go wrong?

The Hayward thread - part two. We can make it past 20 pages, can't we?

[freestyler34]

Kanter and Gobert are totally different players, you can't compare apples and oranges.

Gobert is a true Center with DPOY potential and limited offensive game

Kanter is a PF(IMO) with excellent offensive game, he can almost score on any frontcourt at will this season, if u didnt noticed,also he can hit mid range,3pt shoots but hes a bad defender for C and average for PF (Centers asked to be rim protectors and good help defenders you dont even need to be having a offensive game in the modern NBA, thats why you dont play Kanter at C)

[KDBG]

When is the last time we didn't have crazy depth in our frontcourt? I think you gotta go all the way back to the Handlogten/Googs/Ruffin days. Having this kind of depth is obviously a very good problem to have. Now how to solve the never-ending revolving door with our guard situation... C'mon Exum, give us some faith by dunking on someone's ass tonight.

[Inigo Montoya]

When is the last time we didn't have crazy depth in our frontcourt? I think you gotta go all the way back to the Handlogten/Googs/Ruffin days.

That's a lot of depth too, but of the wrong kind.