Future Free Agent Thread

[stitches]

I've watched like 20 games of Randle and the bull in the china shop is working just fine playing guys like Diallo, Okafor, and the garbage perimeter players on Pelicans. Randle can flat out get buckets. I worry more about him holding the ball too long than being able to score with Gobert on the court. Rubio and Exum aren't good enough to prevent you from signing Randle. Plus, if you're signing Randle, Rubio is likely gone anyways and I think it's pretty absurd to make roster decisions based around Exum considering his health and current ability.

I don't consider Russell obtainable either. Even if we max him, BKN will match. Brogdon...maybe. It might take something weird like a 2 year max. Hell, I'd give Bledsoe and Brogdon 2 year max contracts the first day of FA and try to put the squeeze on MIL...but that's a championship level team. If they cheap out, they might as well start taking offers for Giannis.

Even if we wanted Randle, getting him might be a long shot. There isn't any half decent FA I'd feel confident about signing.

I think Rubio is better player than Randle... If I could have Rubio or Randle, I'd take Rubio. Randle is probably marginally a better fit, but not by much.

Also, we won't be making or abstaining from making a move because of Exum, but we already do have Exum and if we decide to go after Randle we will have to release Rubio, which leaves us with only Exum at PG. We probably won't have the money to get a good enough starting PG so that's why I mentioned both Rubio and Exum... because very likely one of them will be the starting PG if we go after Randle. And this would mean you would have again 3 non-shooter/bad-shooters on the floor at the same time. I just don't see the upside of that arrangement.

[AingesBurner]

I've watched like 20 games of Randle and the bull in the china shop is working just fine playing guys like Diallo, Okafor, and the garbage perimeter players on Pelicans. Randle can flat out get buckets. I worry more about him holding the ball too long than being able to score with Gobert on the court. Rubio and Exum aren't good enough to prevent you from signing Randle. Plus, if you're signing Randle, Rubio is likely gone anyways and I think it's pretty absurd to make roster decisions based around Exum considering his health and current ability.

I don't consider Russell obtainable either. Even if we max him, BKN will match. Brogdon...maybe. It might take something weird like a 2 year max. Hell, I'd give Bledsoe and Brogdon 2 year max contracts the first day of FA and try to put the squeeze on MIL...but that's a championship level team. If they cheap out, they might as well start taking offers for Giannis.

Even if we wanted Randle, getting him might be a long shot. There isn't any half decent FA I'd feel confident about signing.

I think Rubio is better player than Randle... If I could have Rubio or Randle, I'd take Rubio. Randle is probably marginally a better fit, but not by much.

Also, we won't be making or abstaining from making a move because of Exum, but we already do have Exum and if we decide to go after Randle we will have to release Rubio, which leaves us with only Exum at PG. We probably won't have the money to get a good enough starting PG so that's why I mentioned both Rubio and Exum... because very likely one of them will be the starting PG if we go after Randle. And this would mean you would have again 3 non-shooter/bad-shooters on the floor at the same time. I just don't see the upside of that arrangement.

Randle looks like he’s putting up better shooting numbers.

[KqWIN]

I've watched like 20 games of Randle and the bull in the china shop is working just fine playing guys like Diallo, Okafor, and the garbage perimeter players on Pelicans. Randle can flat out get buckets. I worry more about him holding the ball too long than being able to score with Gobert on the court. Rubio and Exum aren't good enough to prevent you from signing Randle. Plus, if you're signing Randle, Rubio is likely gone anyways and I think it's pretty absurd to make roster decisions based around Exum considering his health and current ability.

I don't consider Russell obtainable either. Even if we max him, BKN will match. Brogdon...maybe. It might take something weird like a 2 year max. Hell, I'd give Bledsoe and Brogdon 2 year max contracts the first day of FA and try to put the squeeze on MIL...but that's a championship level team. If they cheap out, they might as well start taking offers for Giannis.

Even if we wanted Randle, getting him might be a long shot. There isn't any half decent FA I'd feel confident about signing.

I think Rubio is better player than Randle... If I could have Rubio or Randle, I'd take Rubio. Randle is probably marginally a better fit, but not by much.

Also, we won't be making or abstaining from making a move because of Exum, but we already do have Exum and if we decide to go after Randle we will have to release Rubio, which leaves us with only Exum at PG. We probably won't have the money to get a good enough starting PG so that's why I mentioned both Rubio and Exum... because very likely one of them will be the starting PG if we go after Randle. And this would mean you would have again 3 non-shooter/bad-shooters on the floor at the same time. I just don't see the upside of that arrangement.

The upside comes from two things:

1) Randle still has room for development as a player. In his current state, he’s pretty good, but I don’t think he’s topped out on his potential by any means. So much to improve on. If we believe in our player development, Randle is the type of player to bet on.

2) He’s new. We know what we have in Rubio and Favors. I don’t need another year to figure out what they can give us. Running it back with them would guarantee stagnation. The grass isn’t always greener...but we’re already on ugly grass and I don’t want to perpetuate it.

The Jazz will have limited options this summer because nobody wants to play with. It’s likely that Rubio and Favors are the best players available. That’s why I would be shocked if the Jazz go with a different direction. They are the safest path to success.

I see the appeal, but personally, that would be my least preferred option. I would rather sign worse players that either fit better or have the potential to improve. If you were to ask me who the better player is between Rubio and Jeremy Lamb, it’s an easy answer. It’s Rubio, and we are likely to win more games with Rubio. But I’d still rather go with Lamb because there’s more upside. I’d take a greater chance at winning 44 games if it meant we have a better chance at winning 54 games. It’s better than being stuck.

You’re probably thinking that making a move for the sake of making a move is bad. I hear that argument. But if you don’t switch things up, you don’t give yourself a chance to get better.

Randle may not be the answer, but he could be. We know with certainty that Rubio and Favors are not the answer.

[stitches]

The upside comes from two things:

1) Randle still has room for development as a player. In his current state, he’s pretty good, but I don’t think he’s topped out on his potential by any means. So much to improve on. If we believe in our player development, Randle is the type of player to bet on.

2) He’s new. We know what we have in Rubio and Favors. I don’t need another year to figure out what they can give us. Running it back with them would guarantee stagnation. The grass isn’t always greener...but we’re already on ugly grass and I don’t want to perpetuate it.

The Jazz will have limited options this summer because nobody wants to play with. It’s likely that Rubio and Favors are the best players available. That’s why I would be shocked if the Jazz go with a different direction. They are the safest path to success.

I see the appeal, but personally, that would be my least preferred option. I would rather sign worse players that either fit better or have the potential to improve. If you were to ask me who the better player is between Rubio and Jeremy Lamb, it’s an easy answer. It’s Rubio, and we are likely to win more games with Rubio. But I’d still rather go with Lamb because there’s more upside. I’d take a greater chance at winning 44 games if it meant we have a better chance at winning 54 games. It’s better than being stuck.

You’re probably thinking that making a move for the sake of making a move is bad. I hear that argument. But if you don’t switch things up, you don’t give yourself a chance to get better.

Randle may not be the answer, but he could be. We know with certainty that Rubio and Favors are not the answer.

I guess it ultimately boils down to difference in how much you value Randle vs how much I value him. I don't think he's a great player. FLAT OUT! You seem to think he is or at the very least that he can be in our system, while on the other side I think our system and our roster construction would actively hinder him in becoming a better player.

About Rubio and Favors not being the answer - I guess it depends on what question you are asking. They might not be the answer to championship but they do provide a very high floor. You also seem to think Randle provides nothing but upside. IMO Randle provides much more downside than upside. If you go after him, this will be your roster for the foreseeable future. You are marrying yourself to him for the duration of Mitchell and Gobert's contracts at the minimum and eliminating any other high end option. I just don't see him as anything more than a bench scorer on a championship contender type team. I think by paying him as a starter you pretty much eliminate yourself from taking the next step.

BTW don't take this to mean that I'm happy with keep reupping Favors and Rubio. Similar to you I don't believe they are the answer to the ultimate question, so for example, I would much rather lose Rubio for nothing next year than reup him for the next 4 years. I see our capspace as a resource to be used on a player that can help us take the next step. Favors and Rubio are not that but I also don't think Randle is that either. I'd rather keep the space open than waste it and with it the only chance we will ever have to add impact player while Mitchell and Gobert are under contract.

[SoCalJazzFan]

The Bucks will have $91.8M team salary this summer, which they could lower to $73.8M by dropping Hill's $18M NG contract. That would leave them $58M until they reached the luxury tax of $132M.

They have the following players of their own that they could re-sign:
Bledsoe
Lopez
Middleton
Mirotic
Brogdon

Bledsoe, Middleton and Lopez alone will cost them at least $60M.

I doubt that they are willing to go deeper into the tax (which will also have repeater tax consequences) by spending $35M-$40M for Mirotic and Brodgon. At least one, or both, of them could be had, IMO.

[KqWIN]

The upside comes from two things:

1) Randle still has room for development as a player. In his current state, he’s pretty good, but I don’t think he’s topped out on his potential by any means. So much to improve on. If we believe in our player development, Randle is the type of player to bet on.

2) He’s new. We know what we have in Rubio and Favors. I don’t need another year to figure out what they can give us. Running it back with them would guarantee stagnation. The grass isn’t always greener...but we’re already on ugly grass and I don’t want to perpetuate it.

The Jazz will have limited options this summer because nobody wants to play with. It’s likely that Rubio and Favors are the best players available. That’s why I would be shocked if the Jazz go with a different direction. They are the safest path to success.

I see the appeal, but personally, that would be my least preferred option. I would rather sign worse players that either fit better or have the potential to improve. If you were to ask me who the better player is between Rubio and Jeremy Lamb, it’s an easy answer. It’s Rubio, and we are likely to win more games with Rubio. But I’d still rather go with Lamb because there’s more upside. I’d take a greater chance at winning 44 games if it meant we have a better chance at winning 54 games. It’s better than being stuck.

You’re probably thinking that making a move for the sake of making a move is bad. I hear that argument. But if you don’t switch things up, you don’t give yourself a chance to get better.

Randle may not be the answer, but he could be. We know with certainty that Rubio and Favors are not the answer.

I guess it ultimately boils down to difference in how much you value Randle vs how much I value him. I don't think he's a great player. FLAT OUT! You seem to think he is or at the very least that he can be in our system, while on the other side I think our system and our roster construction would actively hinder him in becoming a better player.

About Rubio and Favors not being the answer - I guess it depends on what question you are asking. They might not be the answer to championship but they do provide a very high floor. You also seem to think Randle provides nothing but upside. IMO Randle provides much more downside than upside. If you go after him, this will be your roster for the foreseeable future. You are marrying yourself to him for the duration of Mitchell and Gobert's contracts at the minimum and eliminating any other high end option. I just don't see him as anything more than a bench scorer on a championship contender type team. I think by paying him as a starter you pretty much eliminate yourself from taking the next step.

BTW don't take this to mean that I'm happy with keep reupping Favors and Rubio. Similar to you I don't believe they are the answer to the ultimate question, so for example, I would much rather lose Rubio for nothing next year than reup him for the next 4 years. I see our capspace as a resource to be used on a player that can help us take the next step. Favors and Rubio are not that but I also don't think Randle is that either. I'd rather keep the space open than waste it and with it the only chance we will ever have to add impact player while Mitchell and Gobert are under contract.

I don’t see much downside at all. If Randle doesn’t improve at all, he’d still be a useful player for us. He’d instantly be the best scorer on the team and helps address one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue with the roster. Even if he plays the Favors rotation, he can help us. The current roster construction is terrible and lacking in several aspects. Randle may not be a great fit, but it’s hard to be worse than what the current state is. Even if he’s “worse” than Favors, what is the real impact? We could replace Favors with a bag of chips, and our ceiling isn’t changed much. Favors raises the floor, but he doesn’t change the ceiling. All he can ever be with this team is a backup C who comes with a PF tax.

Are we missing out on anything else? The opportunity to sign someone else means very little to me. I don’t think we’d be missing out on anything good by taking a chance on Randle. We’re unlikely to get a players who’s as good as Randle is right now or a player with his potential.

What intrigues me most about Randle isn’t what he is today, it’s what he can be. We keep talking about Randle in his current state, but he has so much room for improvement. The reason he's as good as he is today is raw talent. With some seasoning and skill development he could legitimately be a all star. I don’t like dreaming about best case scenarios...but compare the best case scenarios for Randle vs Favors. Not even close in my opinion.

[SoCalJazzFan]

One thing that concerns me about Randle is that over 90% of his shots are two pointers, with 75% of his overall shots being within 10 ft of the basket. How does that solve our spacing issues?

Another thing is that Randle isn't a rim defender, like really at all. One of the benefits of Favors is that the paint is more of less closed down when he and Gobert play together, and he is an amazing backup center with rim protecting ability.

Mirotic provides spacing (more than half of his shots are 3P), and while his defense isn't the greatest, he is much more of a rim protector than Randle. He has historically had great RPM stats too, so what you lose on D you more than gain in O with him. This team needs a lot more O.

[stitches]

I don’t see much downside at all. If Randle doesn’t improve at all, he’d still be a useful player for us. He’d instantly be the best scorer on the team and helps address one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue with the roster. Even if he plays the Favors rotation, he can help us. The current roster construction is terrible and lacking in several aspects. Randle may not be a great fit, but it’s hard to be worse than what the current state is. Even if he’s “worse” than Favors, what is the real impact? We could replace Favors with a bag of chips, and our ceiling isn’t changed much. Favors raises the floor, but he doesn’t change the ceiling. All he can ever be with this team is a backup C who comes with a PF tax.

Are we missing out on anything else? The opportunity to sign someone else means very little to me. I don’t think we’d be missing out on anything good by taking a chance on Randle. We’re unlikely to get a players who’s as good as Randle is right now or a player with his potential.

What intrigues me most about Randle isn’t what he is today, it’s what he can be. We keep talking about Randle in his current state, but he has so much room for improvement. The reason he's as good as he is today is raw talent. With some seasoning and skill development he could legitimately be a all star. I don’t like dreaming about best case scenarios...but compare the best case scenarios for Randle vs Favors. Not even close in my opinion.

Again... it seems the biggest difference here is in how we view Randle. I don't think it's hard to find better players to sign(with the added bonus of them being good fits too). I think there will be multiple players better than him that we can sign this off-season and next off-season. i see no chance in hell he's ever an all-star.

I think you still massively underestimate Favors and his contributions to this team. I don't think Randle makes us a better team than what we have with Favors now. Randle is definitely not a better player and he's not a significantly better fit than Favors and he doesn't give us the added bonus of having great back up 5 play.

[KqWIN]

One thing that concerns me about Randle is that over 90% of his shots are two pointers, with 75% of his overall shots being within 10 ft of the basket. How does that solve our spacing issues?

Another thing is that Randle isn't a rim defender, like really at all. One of the benefits of Favors is that the paint is more of less closed down when he and Gobert play together, and he is an amazing backup center with rim protecting ability.

Mirotic provides spacing (more than half of his shots are 3P), and while his defense isn't the greatest, he is much more of a rim protector than Randle. He has historically had great RPM stats too, so what you lose on D you more than gain in O with him. This team needs a lot more O.

He doesn’t, but another huge issue we have is shot creation and scoring in general. Randle is the best scorer available and is a better scorer than anyone we have right now.

But again, I see Randle as the upside play. I think he’s good enough to helps us without any improvement...but his potential for improvement is why I’m intrigued.

I agree that Mirotic is the better fit and overall player as of today. If either of them would like to play for us, we should consider ourselves lucky. I think Randle has the most upwards potential though. He’s young, talented, and his weaknesses can be improved upon.

[stitches]

One thing that concerns me about Randle is that over 90% of his shots are two pointers, with 75% of his overall shots being within 10 ft of the basket. How does that solve our spacing issues?

Another thing is that Randle isn't a rim defender, like really at all. One of the benefits of Favors is that the paint is more of less closed down when he and Gobert play together, and he is an amazing backup center with rim protecting ability.

Mirotic provides spacing (more than half of his shots are 3P), and while his defense isn't the greatest, he is much more of a rim protector than Randle. He has historically had great RPM stats too, so what you lose on D you more than gain in O with him. This team needs a lot more O.

He doesn't solve our spacing issues. He supposedly would help with offense creation and playmaking from the PF spot. I don't think it will work as smoothly as KqWIN imagines again... precisely because of our spacing issues.

[KqWIN]

I don’t see much downside at all. If Randle doesn’t improve at all, he’d still be a useful player for us. He’d instantly be the best scorer on the team and helps address one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue with the roster. Even if he plays the Favors rotation, he can help us. The current roster construction is terrible and lacking in several aspects. Randle may not be a great fit, but it’s hard to be worse than what the current state is. Even if he’s “worse” than Favors, what is the real impact? We could replace Favors with a bag of chips, and our ceiling isn’t changed much. Favors raises the floor, but he doesn’t change the ceiling. All he can ever be with this team is a backup C who comes with a PF tax.

Are we missing out on anything else? The opportunity to sign someone else means very little to me. I don’t think we’d be missing out on anything good by taking a chance on Randle. We’re unlikely to get a players who’s as good as Randle is right now or a player with his potential.

What intrigues me most about Randle isn’t what he is today, it’s what he can be. We keep talking about Randle in his current state, but he has so much room for improvement. The reason he's as good as he is today is raw talent. With some seasoning and skill development he could legitimately be a all star. I don’t like dreaming about best case scenarios...but compare the best case scenarios for Randle vs Favors. Not even close in my opinion.

Again... it seems the biggest difference here is in how we view Randle. I don't think it's hard to find better players to sign(with the added bonus of them being good fits too). I think there will be multiple players better than him that we can sign this off-season and next off-season. i see no chance in hell he's ever an all-star.

I think you still massively underestimate Favors and his contributions to this team. I don't think Randle makes us a better team than what we have with Favors now. Randle is definitely not a better player and he's not a significantly better fit than Favors and he doesn't give us the added bonus of having great back up 5 play.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do think Randle can be an all star. I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s definitely within the realm of possibilities. It’s not impossible for him to improve his shot, bbiq, and his defense. I think he’s the best upside play out there and certainly has more upside than Favors.

The ceiling for Favors is what it is. He’s giving us all he has. Getting more out of Favors at this point would mean taking away his token PF minutes. Even if you think Favors is so much better as a backup 5, we’re still talking about 12-15 minutes a night max. Backup C isn’t a ceiling raiser.

Given the choice between taking a chance to improve versus securing the success we have...I think the FO would obviously choose safety. So this discussion is moot anyways.

[stitches]

Indeed, I guess we have to leave it at 'agree to disagree' at this point. Maybe this is just a failure of imagination on my part.

Anyways... Here's an interesting one that came up on the T&T board - There was a question about what would you give up for Gary Harris and Porter Jr. I said anything that's not Mitchell or Gobert. A Nuggets fan asked for Ingles.

And here we come... to this...

Would you do Joe Ingles+filler+1st for Gary Harris+Michael Porter Jr?

[Inigo Montoya]

Would you do Joe Ingles+filler+1st for Gary Harris+Michael Porter Jr?

Yes. Harris' efficiency is great and he costs less than Otto Porter, which is touted for his efficiency. As of Porter Jr., it is strange that Nuggets fans are willing to give him away before even seeing him play. The Jazz need an infusion of offensive talent and he can be that--we'd be hard pressed finding such a prospect\talent outside of the lottery.

[SoCalJazzFan]

Indeed, I guess we have to leave it at 'agree to disagree' at this point. Maybe this is just a failure of imagination on my part.

Anyways... Here's an interesting one that came up on the T&T board - There was a question about what would you give up for Gary Harris and Porter Jr. I said anything that's not Mitchell or Gobert. A Nuggets fan asked for Ingles.

And here we come... to this...

Would you do Joe Ingles+filler+1st for Gary Harris+Michael Porter Jr?

That would be a really tough move for DL, but for all of the reasons Denver wouldn't do it, you'd have to do it for the potential future of the franchise.

[KqWIN]

Garris is overrated and I have no opinion on MPJ...but I’d probably do it. Though, Ingles is obviously not the area we need to improve on. If I’m going to take a risk, I’d prefer to do it with a position that is already bad to begin with. It’s not an accident that Ingles has been a plus minus god.

[KqWIN]

How dumb would it be to consider taking a flyer on our old friend, Rodney Hood? Things ended badly...but Hood has gotten the full grass isn’t always greener experience since being traded.

[Inigo Montoya]

How dumb would it be to consider taking a flyer on our old friend, Rodney Hood? Things ended badly...but Hood has gotten the full grass isn’t always greener experience since being traded.

I think that ship has sailed. Too many bridges burned.

[KqWIN]

How dumb would it be to consider taking a flyer on our old friend, Rodney Hood? Things ended badly...but Hood has gotten the full grass isn’t always greener experience since being traded.

I think that ship has sailed. Too many bridges burned.

I hear ya. It’s a shame it ended the way it did because Hood (theoretically) offers a lot of what we need. We could definitely use some more shooting and shot creation.

I think one of the main reasons things fizzled our was because Hood thought he was being held back when Mitchell overtook him. Fast forward to now and it’s pretty clear that the Jazz were a great situation for him. He should have been happy about the minutes and opportunity he was given.

Who knows. When he came back to Utah, it seemed like his teammates loved him. Now that Hood has a better idea of his standing in the league, I wouldn’t mind seeing the sequel.

[sipclip]

How dumb would it be to consider taking a flyer on our old friend, Rodney Hood? Things ended badly...but Hood has gotten the full grass isn’t always greener experience since being traded.

I think that ship has sailed. Too many bridges burned.

It is funny but I would welcome back Hood and Burks with open arms this summer. They fill some of the roleplayer needs that this team has. I feel bad for Burks because he was playing great ball with the cavs but then goes to a kings team fighting for a playoff spot with a glut at the wings and seems to be taking the team first approach a little too serious and is trying to fit in rather than play his game. Burks is at his best when he is aggressive and looking to score and set guys up and he hasn't been in that mode at all since joining the kings.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[KqWIN]

Love me some AB! I’ll always love him on this team. I had high hopes for both guys. We need players just like them, but unfortunately they weren’t healthy/consistent enough for us.


Still, when you scan the marketplace for shooting/shot creation, it’s a desert. I would not mind them as a low cost risk. Better use of a roster spot than Tony Bradley.