Suns/jazz Trade: Bledsoe for Favors and picks

[AingesBurner]

For what it's worth I think this trade is reasonable.

Oh **** you know if Stitches aka the biggest Favors fan likes this trade you know it's fair.

[stitches]

For what it's worth I think this trade is reasonable.

Oh **** you know if Stitches aka the biggest Favors fan likes this trade you know it's fair.

I mean... at least it's something of actual value you are getting and it solves our second biggest problem in July(finding a PG) and he comes with a good salary.

[KqWIN]

Yeah this trade has always seemed reasonable. Neither team has much leverage, but the value tilts towards Bledsoe because he has more years imo. Similar caliber of players when healthy. Question marks for both.

[stitches]

Yeah this trade has always seemed reasonable. Neither team has much leverage, but the value tilts towards Bledsoe because he has more years imo. Similar caliber of players when healthy. Question marks for both.

Yeah, last year I wouldn't have traded Favors for Bledsoe, because I thought he had more value... now because of Favors' injuries we probably need to add a first to do it, but IMO it's reasonable.

[AingesBurner]

For what it's worth I think this trade is reasonable.

Oh **** you know if Stitches aka the biggest Favors fan likes this trade you know it's fair.

I mean... at least it's something of actual value you are getting and it solves our second biggest problem in July(finding a PG) and he comes with a good salary.

Definitely agree.

[mglee]

Oh **** you know if Stitches aka the biggest Favors fan likes this trade you know it's fair.

I mean... at least it's something of actual value you are getting and it solves our second biggest problem in July(finding a PG) and he comes with a good salary.

Definitely agree.

Yea this exactly. I don't want to be stuck with a fat contract for Hill. It would really limit the teams long term potential


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[mudsak]

And in all honesty... Bledsoe would be an awesome addition to our team. It would give us such a boost in offense. 2 backcourt guys (both of which are capable defenders) who can put up 20+ on a nightly basis. Ingles, Hood, hopefully some growth from Exum... I'd be stoked on this move.

So say we move Favors in this trade, dump Burks, let Withey/Mack walk, and probably trade away Diaw to clear some more Salary... who do we try to bring in to fill PF? I'd like to know what our salary looks like in this situation... James Johnson would be a nice addition at PF.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Catchall]

Note that the Suns shut down Bledsoe prematurely last season as he was included in potential trade proposals. That affected his games played.

[babyjax13]

As long as we have Gordon, I prefer players that are more effective off-ball. Bledsoe's usage is at 28.3% which puts him at 22nd (ahead of Hayward) and his EFG% is only 49% and is TS% is 56% (which is good, but not good enough for the amount he requires the ball). Hayward, Hill, and Gobert are all much more effective. I'd rather not disrupt our offense with that kind of player. I don't want to send out good assets for a lateral move (and the move from Hill to Bledsoe for our team is *at best* a lateral move). I'd rather see what we could get for Boris Diaw and a pick, or just bank on resigning Hill and then decide where to go from there. If we decide to make a major outlay for someone, Mike Conley makes a lot more sense than Bledsoe (if the Grizzlies decide to blow it up, I think we can make a competitive offer). Otherwise, grab someone like Seth Curry and roll with that. I think a healthy Hood and a healthy Favors are also more effective in our system, and that Favors (again, major caveat) is a significantly more impactful player when healthy. I know Locke has been saying that he thinks we are unlikely to retain him, but I just don't find his argument all that convincing. If long-term we have to make choices between Favors/Hood/Hill/Johnson/Alec/Ingles, Favors and Hill are the most impactful players out of that group.

[eLo]

Fav is my favorite Jazzman right now, but this trade could really work out good for us. Bledsoe could be some improvment over Hill, but main thing is that we would not to have overpay pg guy immediately, we could use this cash this summer to bring other pf liker Sap and find out what this team i seriously worth.

[UTJazzFan_Echo1]

As long as we have Gordon, I prefer players that are more effective off-ball. Bledsoe's usage is at 28.3% which puts him at 22nd (ahead of Hayward) and his EFG% is only 49% and is TS% is 56% (which is good, but not good enough for the amount he requires the ball). Hayward, Hill, and Gobert are all much more effective. I'd rather not disrupt our offense with that kind of player. I don't want to send out good assets for a lateral move (and the move from Hill to Bledsoe for our team is *at best* a lateral move). I'd rather see what we could get for Boris Diaw and a pick, or just bank on resigning Hill and then decide where to go from there. If we decide to make a major outlay for someone, Mike Conley makes a lot more sense than Bledsoe (if the Grizzlies decide to blow it up, I think we can make a competitive offer). Otherwise, grab someone like Seth Curry and roll with that. I think a healthy Hood and a healthy Favors are also more effective in our system, and that Favors (again, major caveat) is a significantly more impactful player when healthy. I know Locke has been saying that he thinks we are unlikely to retain him, but I just don't find his argument all that convincing. If long-term we have to make choices between Favors/Hood/Hill/Johnson/Alec/Ingles, Favors and Hill are the most impactful players out of that group.

I get where you're coming from, but it also wouldn't hurt to have someone else with the ball in their hands more to take pressure off of Gordon.

Also, Seth Curry? Why is everyone so high on him all a sudden? He's not a starting caliber point guard on a playoff team.

[babyjax13]

As long as we have Gordon, I prefer players that are more effective off-ball. Bledsoe's usage is at 28.3% which puts him at 22nd (ahead of Hayward) and his EFG% is only 49% and is TS% is 56% (which is good, but not good enough for the amount he requires the ball). Hayward, Hill, and Gobert are all much more effective. I'd rather not disrupt our offense with that kind of player. I don't want to send out good assets for a lateral move (and the move from Hill to Bledsoe for our team is *at best* a lateral move). I'd rather see what we could get for Boris Diaw and a pick, or just bank on resigning Hill and then decide where to go from there. If we decide to make a major outlay for someone, Mike Conley makes a lot more sense than Bledsoe (if the Grizzlies decide to blow it up, I think we can make a competitive offer). Otherwise, grab someone like Seth Curry and roll with that. I think a healthy Hood and a healthy Favors are also more effective in our system, and that Favors (again, major caveat) is a significantly more impactful player when healthy. I know Locke has been saying that he thinks we are unlikely to retain him, but I just don't find his argument all that convincing. If long-term we have to make choices between Favors/Hood/Hill/Johnson/Alec/Ingles, Favors and Hill are the most impactful players out of that group.

I get where you're coming from, but it also wouldn't hurt to have someone else with the ball in their hands more to take pressure off of Gordon.

Also, Seth Curry? Why is everyone so high on him all a sudden? He's not a starting caliber point guard on a playoff team.

I just like him because his scoring takes place in similar spots at a similar usage to Hill. I don't see him as a long-term solution, but a good player to use as a stop-gap for Exum. Other players would obviously be better, but I don't want to have a massive outlay of assets to get them.

EDIT: And if we were going to get a second scorer, I would hope we'd at least get someone who is efficient. I'm not confident that Bledsoe is that player.

[stitches]

I just like him because his scoring takes place in similar spots at a similar usage to Hill. I don't see him as a long-term solution, but a good player to use as a stop-gap for Exum. Other players would obviously be better, but I don't want to have a massive outlay of assets to get them.

EDIT: And if we were going to get a second scorer, I would hope we'd at least get someone who is efficient. I'm not confident that Bledsoe is that player.

Bledsoe has 3 consecutive years with 55-56 TS%... that's what Hayward's efficiency was prior to this year. He's pretty damn efficient for his USG and for the teammates he's had.

[babyjax13]

I just like him because his scoring takes place in similar spots at a similar usage to Hill. I don't see him as a long-term solution, but a good player to use as a stop-gap for Exum. Other players would obviously be better, but I don't want to have a massive outlay of assets to get them.

EDIT: And if we were going to get a second scorer, I would hope we'd at least get someone who is efficient. I'm not confident that Bledsoe is that player.

Bledsoe has 3 consecutive years with 55-56 TS%... that's what Hayward's efficiency was prior to this year. He's pretty damn efficient for his USG and for the teammates he's had.

See my abov post. If his athletecism doesn't let him get to the line, he is inefficient. With his injuries in skeptical he can keep up that ts in the future. Maybe he'd thrive in the pnr game with Rudy and our spacing with a stretch four would keep the lane open for him, but I would rather pursue other options (including Hill).