Future Free Agent Thread

[stitches]

I don't know how fair that is. CHI ended up benching him/playing him less because he was too good. NOP started him and played him big minutes in the playoffs. He even started the series guarding KD, and while he's no Jrue, he didn't get completely mopped. MIL just moved him in the starting lineup and he played more minutes than any other big in the BOS series for MIL other than Giannis. He's never been on a team that was better with him off the court than when he was on it.

So what's the maximum number and years you would be happy to give him?

[KqWIN]

I don't know how fair that is. CHI ended up benching him/playing him less because he was too good. NOP started him and played him big minutes in the playoffs. He even started the series guarding KD, and while he's no Jrue, he didn't get completely mopped. MIL just moved him in the starting lineup and he played more minutes than any other big in the BOS series for MIL other than Giannis. He's never been on a team that was better with him off the court than when he was on it.

So what's the maximum number and years you would be happy to give him?

Whatever the rest is for two years. I'd like to get him and another player, but I have no idea where his value will shake out. The thing with him is that he doesn't really fit a positional need, especially if we're keeping Favors. Niko wouldn't get any C minutes, and Favors would still have to get his token PF minutes, so we'd pushing a lot of Jae's minutes to the 3...but Jae's whole value is as a 4 who can (kinda) shoot. If we don't bring Favors back or trade Crowder, Niko makes a ton more sense.

[babyjax13]

Today I was thinking... the price of missing on a point guard high in the draft is so high... The miss on Exum has snowballed and made us spend assets again and again in attempt to patchwork a solution - first we gave up a lottery pick for 1 year of George Hill, then we gave up another pick for Ricky Rubio and now we are about to spend one or two more picks on another 2 year solution in Mike Conley and after that we will probably need to give up more value for the next one... What a disaster that Exum miss has been.

Even drafting another player I imagine we'd still be burning a bunch of assets to get a point guard. Hindsight being 20-20, it's too bad we didn't trade the pick.

[Luigi]

I think Favors is better than Mirotic, and he at least is a tough defender. Crowder may not be better, but I think he's probably a better 4 than Mirotic for his mobility.

We do have to do something to try to improve the team. If it comes down to having to gamble on Mirotic, so be it. But that gamble is pretty low on my list of options. He's just not mobile enough.

[KqWIN]

Today I was thinking... the price of missing on a point guard high in the draft is so high... The miss on Exum has snowballed and made us spend assets again and again in attempt to patchwork a solution - first we gave up a lottery pick for 1 year of George Hill, then we gave up another pick for Ricky Rubio and now we are about to spend one or two more picks on another 2 year solution in Mike Conley and after that we will probably need to give up more value for the next one... What a disaster that Exum miss has been.

Even drafting another player I imagine we'd still be burning a bunch of assets to get a point guard. Hindsight being 20-20, it's too bad we didn't trade the pick.

Exum was the obvious pick at the time. I don’t think anyone can say they would have done different. The Trey Burke trade/pick was less clear...but most people were very happy with that trade and thought the Jazz got their PG of the future.

I also still defend the Hill trade. It ended up failing because of a bunch of weird reasons. One of those reasons being that he was too good for us.

The only one that really did not make sense was Rubio. Ironically, Rubio may have been the most successful PG here, but the reasoning behind it was just so dumb. We traded for a PG for Hayward before his decision when we could have easily done it after Hayward signed (if he chose us). On top of that, you traded for one of the worst possible fits from a system perspective.

[Luigi]

Today I was thinking... the price of missing on a point guard high in the draft is so high... The miss on Exum has snowballed and made us spend assets again and again in attempt to patchwork a solution - first we gave up a lottery pick for 1 year of George Hill, then we gave up another pick for Ricky Rubio and now we are about to spend one or two more picks on another 2 year solution in Mike Conley and after that we will probably need to give up more value for the next one... What a disaster that Exum miss has been.

Even drafting another player I imagine we'd still be burning a bunch of assets to get a point guard. Hindsight being 20-20, it's too bad we didn't trade the pick.

Exum was the obvious pick at the time. I don’t think anyone can say they would have done different. The Trey Burke trade/pick was less clear...but most people were very happy with that trade and thought the Jazz got their PG of the future.

I also still defend the Hill trade. It ended up failing because of a bunch of weird reasons. One of those reasons being that he was too good for us.

The only one that really did not make sense was Rubio. Ironically, Rubio may have been the most successful PG here, but the reasoning behind it was just so dumb. We traded for a PG for Hayward before his decision when we could have easily done it after Hayward signed (if he chose us). On top of that, you traded for one of the worst possible fits from a system perspective.

Exum was the obvious pick. I was very happy when was available. but after the second injury, I think we made a mistake on banking so hard on him. I gave up on him earlier than most. But I think holding out for him to pan out as long as we did was the mistake.

[KqWIN]

Even drafting another player I imagine we'd still be burning a bunch of assets to get a point guard. Hindsight being 20-20, it's too bad we didn't trade the pick.

Exum was the obvious pick at the time. I don’t think anyone can say they would have done different. The Trey Burke trade/pick was less clear...but most people were very happy with that trade and thought the Jazz got their PG of the future.

I also still defend the Hill trade. It ended up failing because of a bunch of weird reasons. One of those reasons being that he was too good for us.

The only one that really did not make sense was Rubio. Ironically, Rubio may have been the most successful PG here, but the reasoning behind it was just so dumb. We traded for a PG for Hayward before his decision when we could have easily done it after Hayward signed (if he chose us). On top of that, you traded for one of the worst possible fits from a system perspective.

Exum was the obvious pick. I was very happy when was available. but after the second injury, I think we made a mistake on banking so hard on him. I gave up on him earlier than most. But I think holding out for him to pan out as long as we did was the mistake.

That's fair. After his first injury, the Jazz did nothing to replace him other than a mid season Shelvin Mack trade who was a third string PG at the time...and has always been a third string caliber PG. This has less to do with Exum, and more to do with the Jazz wasting a season. If we had just gotten a PG that wasn't third string caliber, we would have had another playoff run. It was a mistake.

After that, I think the Jazz did somewhat give up on Exum to some degree. They brought in two separate PG's to replace him. They certainly weren't making a commitment to him or comfortable relying on him.

The second commitment came with his second contract. It wasn't a large commitment, however. We paid him like a bench player, and banking on him to be a bench player was a decent bet IMO. That obviously didn't come to fruition though. He was bad before he got injured and we potentially turned down a Conley deal because of him. Not looking so great as he continues to be a glass man.

It's not like he's a huge weight on the franchise. But you could say the damage has already been done if we did indeed pass on Conley because of him. The other guy you could loop into this is Burks. I'll have to go back and try to remember everything, but there were surely things we missed out on by waiting on him. Kinda hard to blame a FO for injury issues though.

[Luigi]

Exum was the obvious pick at the time. I don’t think anyone can say they would have done different. The Trey Burke trade/pick was less clear...but most people were very happy with that trade and thought the Jazz got their PG of the future.

I also still defend the Hill trade. It ended up failing because of a bunch of weird reasons. One of those reasons being that he was too good for us.

The only one that really did not make sense was Rubio. Ironically, Rubio may have been the most successful PG here, but the reasoning behind it was just so dumb. We traded for a PG for Hayward before his decision when we could have easily done it after Hayward signed (if he chose us). On top of that, you traded for one of the worst possible fits from a system perspective.

Exum was the obvious pick. I was very happy when was available. but after the second injury, I think we made a mistake on banking so hard on him. I gave up on him earlier than most. But I think holding out for him to pan out as long as we did was the mistake.

That's fair. After his first injury, the Jazz did nothing to replace him other than a mid season Shelvin Mack trade who was a third string PG at the time...and has always been a third string caliber PG. This has less to do with Exum, and more to do with the Jazz wasting a season. If we had just gotten a PG that wasn't third string caliber, we would have had another playoff run. It was a mistake.

After that, I think the Jazz did somewhat give up on Exum to some degree. They brought in two separate PG's to replace him. They certainly weren't making a commitment to him or comfortable relying on him.

The second commitment came with his second contract. It wasn't a large commitment, however. We paid him like a bench player, and banking on him to be a bench player was a decent bet IMO. That obviously didn't come to fruition though. He was bad before he got injured and we potentially turned down a Conley deal because of him. Not looking so great as he continues to be a glass man.

It's not like he's a huge weight on the franchise. But you could say the damage has already been done if we did indeed pass on Conley because of him. The other guy you could loop into this is Burks. I'll have to go back and try to remember everything, but there were surely things we missed out on by waiting on him. Kinda hard to blame a FO for injury issues though.

Yeah, I'd mark the mistake at the Exum contract, and also on missing on trades (e.g., conley). I do think it was wise to sign him for the growth potential. But we bid against ourselves, and his contract was showing up on most worst contracts of the summer lists. So more like a 3 mil a year mistake, not huge. But missing on Conley, or other trades, that might hurt.

[KqWIN]

Yeah, I'd mark the mistake at the Exum contract, and also on missing on trades (e.g., conley). I do think it was wise to sign him for the growth potential. But we bid against ourselves, and his contract was showing up on most worst contracts of the summer lists. So more like a 3 mil a year mistake, not huge. But missing on Conley, or other trades, that might hurt.

I think we definitely bid against ourselves with Favors, but Exum had leverage because he could have taken the qualifying offer. Any less and he might have taken it, and if he did end up developing you would have had a big egg on your face. I think most would say that Exum's contract is now negative, but I still think it was worth the risk. He just can't stay healthy...or make layups. And that's a damn shame.

[Luigi]

Yeah, I'd mark the mistake at the Exum contract, and also on missing on trades (e.g., conley). I do think it was wise to sign him for the growth potential. But we bid against ourselves, and his contract was showing up on most worst contracts of the summer lists. So more like a 3 mil a year mistake, not huge. But missing on Conley, or other trades, that might hurt.

I think we definitely bid against ourselves with Favors, but Exum had leverage because he could have taken the qualifying offer. Any less and he might have taken it, and if he did end up developing you would have had a big egg on your face. I think most would say that Exum's contract is now negative, but I still think it was worth the risk. He just can't stay healthy...or make layups. And that's a damn shame.

Nah, I think we got Favors under market, and Exum over market. And I think that's gotta be the majority position among league execs last summer. Favors had suitors, still does. Exum's QO threat is pretty weak given his production and injury history, even before the last one. I wanted to resign him for the improvement possibility, but I think we came in 3 million higher than we needed to to beat a QO threat from a guy like Exum. I guess we could have been less stingy when it came to Haywood, but here we needed some good old fashioned Jazz cheapness. Smallish mistake though, by my count. Not moving him at the trade deadline was probably the real mistake, even if he never got injured.

[KqWIN]

Yeah, I'd mark the mistake at the Exum contract, and also on missing on trades (e.g., conley). I do think it was wise to sign him for the growth potential. But we bid against ourselves, and his contract was showing up on most worst contracts of the summer lists. So more like a 3 mil a year mistake, not huge. But missing on Conley, or other trades, that might hurt.

I think we definitely bid against ourselves with Favors, but Exum had leverage because he could have taken the qualifying offer. Any less and he might have taken it, and if he did end up developing you would have had a big egg on your face. I think most would say that Exum's contract is now negative, but I still think it was worth the risk. He just can't stay healthy...or make layups. And that's a damn shame.

Nah, I think we got Favors under market, and Exum over market. And I think that's gotta be the majority position among league execs last summer. Favors had suitors, still does. Exum's QO threat is pretty weak given his production and injury history, even before the last one. I wanted to resign him for the improvement possibility, but I think we came in 3 million higher than we needed to to beat a QO threat from a guy like Exum. I guess we could have been less stingy when it came to Haywood, but here we needed some good old fashioned Jazz cheapness. Smallish mistake though, by my count. Not moving him at the trade deadline was probably the real mistake, even if he never got injured.

I disagree on Favors. He had no market and no leverage. He would have gotten a MLE, and maybe not even the full MLE. We paid him double or triple what he would have gotten if he left. Exum had real leverage with the QO and if he believed in himself at all would not lock himself into a long term deal at small money. I think being the leverage point in a Conley trade does also suggest that he was on a deal that had value before he got injured again.

[Luigi]

I disagree on Favors. He had no market and no leverage. He would have gotten a MLE, and maybe not even the full MLE. We paid him double or triple what he would have gotten if he left. Exum had real leverage with the QO and if he believed in himself at all would not lock himself into a long term deal at small money. I think being the leverage point in a Conley trade does also suggest that he was on a deal that had value before he got injured again.

It appears Memphis wanted Exum in the Conley deal, and the Jazz were unwilling to include him. That says he had some value to Memphis (more than the alternative piece). That value would have been proven if we traded him. But I think the fact that we refused actually says more about how the Jazz overvalue Exum, before signing him and in refusing to trade him.

I just can't see a world in which Exum turns down 3/24 and gambles on a QO with his awful injury history and his lack of production.

But I think it's clear that I like Favs more than you, and that you like Exum more than me.

[KqWIN]

I disagree on Favors. He had no market and no leverage. He would have gotten a MLE, and maybe not even the full MLE. We paid him double or triple what he would have gotten if he left. Exum had real leverage with the QO and if he believed in himself at all would not lock himself into a long term deal at small money. I think being the leverage point in a Conley trade does also suggest that he was on a deal that had value before he got injured again.

It appears Memphis wanted Exum in the Conley deal, and the Jazz were unwilling to include him. That says he had some value to Memphis (more than the alternative piece). That value would have been proven if we traded him. But I think the fact that we refused actually says more about how the Jazz overvalue Exum, before signing him and in refusing to trade him.

I just can't see a world in which Exum turns down 3/24 and gambles on a QO with his awful injury history and his lack of production.

But I think it's clear that I like Favs more than you, and that you like Exum more than me.

Even if they could have gotten him at 3/24, that's effectively no different than what he signed. Only a $1.6M annual difference, which is less than the vet min. And I could have easily seen him turning it down anyways. Players believe in themselves more than anyone else, and they should. 3/24 isn't a monster deal and if he believed he was being as much as some fans think (I don't think he was), he might have just wanted out anyways.

Favs would have just been a victim of circumstance. Nobody needed a C, and we make him look much worse than he is by splitting his minutes at PF. There simply wasn't a team with more than the MLE that also needed a C.

[Luigi]

Even if they could have gotten him at 3/24, that's effectively no different than what he signed. Only a $1.6M annual difference, which is less than the vet min. And I could have easily seen him turning it down anyways. Players believe in themselves more than anyone else, and they should. 3/24 isn't a monster deal and if he believed he was being as much as some fans think (I don't think he was), he might have just wanted out anyways.

Like I said, small mistake. But a 3 million per mistake. 3/24 with the same incentive structures as his 3/33 is what we should have done. Or at least put a team option in there. Do you not remember it making the rounds on the worst contracts of the summer? I can respect taking a minority position on Exum's contract, I'm just wondering how you see it. I mean, taking the QO has proven to be a disaster for everyone but Greg Monroe so far. Even for players without his injury history and a proven record (not just flashes). I just see no leverage there. But this is all a year old conversation. Hopefully we do better this summer.

Yeah, going back over the list, maybe we were high on Favors, too.

Capela got 5/90
Love got 4/120
Harrell got 2/12
Bjelica got 3/20.5
Nurkic got 4/48
Randle got 2/18

Favors got 2/36

[KqWIN]

Even if they could have gotten him at 3/24, that's effectively no different than what he signed. Only a $1.6M annual difference, which is less than the vet min. And I could have easily seen him turning it down anyways. Players believe in themselves more than anyone else, and they should. 3/24 isn't a monster deal and if he believed he was being as much as some fans think (I don't think he was), he might have just wanted out anyways.

Like I said, small mistake. But a 3 million per mistake. 3/24 with the same incentive structures as his 3/33 is what we should have done. Or at least put a team option in there. Do you not remember it making the rounds on the worst contracts of the summer? I can respect taking a minority position on Exum's contract, I'm just wondering how you see it. I mean, taking the QO has proven to be a disaster for everyone but Greg Monroe so far. Even for players without his injury history and a proven record (not just flashes). I just see no leverage there. But this is all a year old conversation. Hopefully we do better this summer.

Yeah, going back over the list, maybe we were high on Favors, too.

Capela got 5/90
Love got 4/120
Harrell got 2/12
Bjelica got 3/20.5
Nurkic got 4/48
Randle got 2/18

Favors got 2/36

I don't remember that, maybe I'm wrong, and players bet on themselves in some shape or form all the time. It's also not $3M per mistake though. It's $1.6. Even if you're counting is as $3M, that is not a lot. Paying a player $3M more annually then they deserve can't be one of the worst contracts because it can't really have a large impact on cap sheet. To your point earlier, I think the Jazz are conscious of how badly they **** up with Hayward. Their cheapness over inconsequential money is the reason why Hayward is in Boston. The difference between what you want to pay Exum and what they actually paid him has very little to no opportunity cost, but it can mean a lot the other way.

[Crunch 99]

Front office made a lot of mistakes, but we also came pretty darn close to everything coming up roses when we drafted DM and almost kept Hayward. If Hayward stayed and didn't get hurt (I am assuming he really was mulling the decision over till the final couple days), we would be a very serious contender for second in the west right now imo, and maybe even the second best team in the NBA, not because we would have had the very top elite offensive players in the league, but because we would have had very good, unselfish offensive players working in a system that produces good open looks, combined with the elite defense anchored by Gobert. Rubio would have been fine imo.

[Luigi]

Even if they could have gotten him at 3/24, that's effectively no different than what he signed. Only a $1.6M annual difference, which is less than the vet min. And I could have easily seen him turning it down anyways. Players believe in themselves more than anyone else, and they should. 3/24 isn't a monster deal and if he believed he was being as much as some fans think (I don't think he was), he might have just wanted out anyways.

Like I said, small mistake. But a 3 million per mistake. 3/24 with the same incentive structures as his 3/33 is what we should have done. Or at least put a team option in there. Do you not remember it making the rounds on the worst contracts of the summer? I can respect taking a minority position on Exum's contract, I'm just wondering how you see it. I mean, taking the QO has proven to be a disaster for everyone but Greg Monroe so far. Even for players without his injury history and a proven record (not just flashes). I just see no leverage there. But this is all a year old conversation. Hopefully we do better this summer.

Yeah, going back over the list, maybe we were high on Favors, too.

Capela got 5/90
Love got 4/120
Harrell got 2/12
Bjelica got 3/20.5
Nurkic got 4/48
Randle got 2/18

Favors got 2/36

I don't remember that, maybe I'm wrong, and players bet on themselves in some shape or form all the time. It's also not $3M per mistake though. It's $1.6. Even if you're counting is as $3M, that is not a lot. Paying a player $3M more annually then they deserve can't be one of the worst contracts because it can't really have a large impact on cap sheet. To your point earlier, I think the Jazz are conscious of how badly they **** up with Hayward. Their cheapness over inconsequential money is the reason why Hayward is in Boston. The difference between what you want to pay Exum and what they actually paid him has very little to no opportunity cost, but it can mean a lot the other way.

No, it's 3! I get to set my number Take the existing contract, and knock 3 off per year from the base salary, keep the same guarantees and incentives. (I get that he has a 9.1 base salary with 1.9 incentives--take 3 off of either the base or the incentives total, but it has to be 3 off of the same end.) But agreed, that's not a ton for the total payroll. But it is a pretty big overpay for Exum by percentage.

Quick google search from last summer:
https://hoopshabit.com/2018/07/23/2018-nba-free-agency-5-worst-signings/3/
https://hoopshype.com/2018/07/09/nba-worst-contracts-free-agency/
https://247sports.com/nba/boston-celtics/ContentGallery/The-worst-contracts-signed-by-2018-NBA-free-agents-119843583/
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/nba-free-agency-grades-contracts-deals-reports-rumors

[KqWIN]

Front office made a lot of mistakes, but we also came pretty darn close to everything coming up roses too when we drafted DM and almost kept Hayward. If Hayward stayed and didn't get hurt (I am assuming he really was mulling the decision over till the final couple days), we would be a very serious contender for second in the west right now imo, and maybe even the second best team in the NBA, not because we would have had the very top elite offensive players in the league, but because we would have had very good, unselfish offensive players working in a system that produces good open looks, combined with the elite defense anchored by Gobert. Rubio would have been fine imo.

Losing Hayward was due to their own bad, very bad, blunder years before. Had they not been so cheap (I'm calling them cheap because otherwise they are dumb), Hayward never could have left for BOS.

Rubio was just dumb from the start because of how horrible of fit he is. To his credit, he's made the most out of it, but his offensive game didn't fit into anything we were trying to do. George Hill was perfect for our system. He was so good, it ended up resulting in him leaving. There could not be two more different PG's than Hill and Rubio.

[Wolverine]

Theres rumours that Ingram could be had for a first. Ingram if healthy would be great & cheap

[Luigi]

Theres rumours that Ingram could be had for a first. Ingram if healthy would be great & cheap

Hmm, that's interesting. I would expect the Lakers to move him in a trade for a big fish. Maybe his blood clots are serious. Source of rumors?