Future Free Agent Thread

[Luigi]

Again, I don't know how we're in a position where I'm supposed to defend Crowder or Exum. They are not good enough. I said this.

Improving the team is done piecemeal. It is reasonable for me to ask for a priority ordering. I think you have still ignored my argument, which is all about priorities. (I left out the first order argument about spacing vs inside-out play because we already know where we stand.) Saying it's about building around Mitchell and Gobert is a change of topic. What is better than adding Conley and keeping Favors? I even tried to judge that by your space-is-supreme metrics.

On the strawman claims, I was just trying to make sense of your position and its implications. If you deny them, that's fine.

[SoCalJazzFan]

Read on Twitter

If this is the case, and if the teams reported to be interested in DLo are the Jazz, Suns, Magic and Pacers, it would seem to me that the Jazz have a fighter's chance of getting him, which would IMHO be the best free agency outcome.

Conley would be great, perhaps the best, for making a push this next season, and possibly the following season if he doesn't opt out, if he stays healthy, but his age, size, and past injury history are concerning and even more troubling is where the Jazz will be post-Conley and after maxing out DM and Rudy. How many impactful free agent signings will the Jazz be able to make with the MLE and their picks in the 20s (assuming they don't continue to get traded away)?

My impression has been that DLo is a liability on defense, but makes up for it on offense, and that Conley is great on both sides of the floor. Well, this last year RPM shows that Conley was ORPM 3.61 and DRPM -0.47 for a net 3.14. DLo was ORPM 2.12, DRPM -0.61 for a net of 1.51. Conley is better, but the difference isn't as dramatic as I thought, particularly on defense.

I also wondered how Conley and DLo compare at the same point in their careers.
At year 4, Conley is somewhat/slightly better by the advanced stats- http://bkref.com/tiny/UY1fW
However, comparing them at same age (22) shows DLo as arguably the better player- http://bkref.com/tiny/KCYlL
In any event, they are close statistically, with DLo having the size we want next to DM.
Statistically, as a 4th year PG, DLo is in rare company.

I realize that grabbing Conley is a bird in the hand vs all the free agents in the bush move, but is it a wise move to grab the first bird you have an opportunity of catching, particularly if that bird might still be available once you've tried to catch the others?

[Luigi]

Read on Twitter

If this is the case, and if the teams reported to be interested in DLo are the Jazz, Suns, Magic and Pacers, it would seem to me that the Jazz have a fighter's chance of getting him, which would IMHO be the best free agency outcome.

Conley would be great, perhaps the best, for making a push this next season, and possibly the following season if he doesn't opt out, if he stays healthy, but his age, size, and past injury history are concerning and even more troubling is where the Jazz will be post-Conley and after maxing out DM and Rudy. How many impactful free agent signings will the Jazz be able to make with the MLE and their picks in the 20s (assuming they don't continue to get traded away)?

My impression has been that DLo is a liability on defense, but makes up for it on offense, and that Conley is great on both sides of the floor. Well, this last year RPM shows that Conley was ORPM 3.61 and DRPM -0.47 for a net 3.14. DLo was ORPM 2.12, DRPM -0.61 for a net of 1.51. Conley is better, but the difference isn't as dramatic as I thought, particularly on defense.

I also wondered how Conley and DLo compare at the same point in their careers.
At year 4, Conley is somewhat/slightly better by the advanced stats- http://bkref.com/tiny/UY1fW
However, comparing them at same age (22) shows DLo as arguably the better player- http://bkref.com/tiny/KCYlL
In any event, they are close statistically, with DLo having the size we want next to DM.
Statistically, as a 4th year PG, DLo is in rare company.

I realize that grabbing Conley is a bird in the hand vs all the free agents in the bush move, but is it a wise move to grab the first bird you have an opportunity of catching, particularly if that bird might still be available once you've tried to catch the others?

Wouldn't we know how likely it is we land Russell before pulling the trigger on Conley anyway? I think most of us would rather have Russell. But I'm taking this as a sign that we're not in the running. Let me be wrong though.

[KqWIN]

Again, I don't know how we're in a position where I'm supposed to defend Crowder or Exum. They are not good enough. I said this.

Improving the team is done piecemeal. It is reasonable for me to ask for an ordering. I think you have still ignored my argument, which is all about priorities. Saying it's about building around Mitchell and Gobert is a change of topic.

On the strawman claims, I was just trying to make sense of your position and its implications. If you deny them, that's fine.

There is no ordering in which players you get rid of first. That's just not how I see things. If the Pelicans offered us the number one pick for Favors, I would not say no to that because there is someone higher priority to get rid of.

I don't really see getting rid of anyone in particular. What I do see is areas in the team we need to improve. I think Rubio is horrible fit. But in my mind, I'm not seeing that from the perspective that we need to get rid of Rubio really badly. I'm thinking we need to get a better guard. That's the priority, to get a better guard.

What comes first and foremost is who we're building around. That's why I brought up Mitchell and Gobert. The priority isn't necessarily to get rid of Favors. The priority is to find a better match with Gobert that will increase our ceiling as a team. It's not like we have a hitlist and once we take them out all will be solved.

[SoCalJazzFan]

Wouldn't we know how likely it is we land Russell before pulling the trigger on Conley anyway?

If the Jazz trade for Conley this week, we'll never know.

[KqWIN]

The only reason to do the Conley trade before the draft is if they really want #23. It's a bad draft, I don't think MEM would mind if we gave them next year's instead.

[Luigi]

There is no ordering in which players you get rid of first. That's just not how I see things. If the Pelicans offered us the number one pick for Favors, I would not say no to that because there is someone higher priority to get rid of.

I don't really see getting rid of anyone in particular. What I do see is areas in the team we need to improve. I think Rubio is horrible fit. But in my mind, I'm not seeing that from the perspective that we need to get rid of Rubio really badly. I'm thinking we need to get a better guard. That's the priority, to get a better guard.

What comes first and foremost is who we're building around. That's why I brought up Mitchell and Gobert. The priority isn't necessarily to get rid of Favors. The priority is to find a better match with Gobert that will increase our ceiling as a team.

Of course there is an ordering--that is almost trivially true. You write that you see areas where the team needs to improve. Surely some of those areas are more pressing than others, no? Aren't we looking at team building needs, current players, moves for new players, and realistic probability of those moves? Basically, we say something like: we want shooters. We ask whether we would rather have Russell than Conley. If that priority doesn't work, we look at some specifics of a Conley trade (since Durant is off the table ). We are asking about whether to include Favors in a Conley deal, or try to use Favors to get Gallo or something like that. These claims about what we should do make no sense without prioritizing needs.

So, my first claim was that Favors as a player presents us with a lower priority problem to be addressed than others do, even from a spacing standpoint (since we have so many non shooters on the floor at other positions). My second claim is that once realistic moves are considered to meet priority needs, I think we're better with Favors than without him. I can't really understand a response to this that doesn't prioritize needs, since that is in the essence of the claims I am making.

To even make these claims, I charitably adopted your perspective of the value of spacing (the claims follow much simpler from a less spacing centric model, but I worked in your boundaries for the sake of discussion). I can even adopt your team building philosophy: Build around Mitchell and Gobert for the best 5 man lineup (though I'll note that wins from Favors' minutes, wherever they are played, should count for more than you give them, but I'll bracket that too for the sake of conversation). So I am surprised about your evaluations of Favors. The best I can do is say that you must see a huge synergy to working with only one big on the floor and four shooters, even if they are mediocre (which I would have to say I don't see). Or else maybe you see a larger comparative drag from Favors and a lesser comparative (priorities!) drag from Rubio because he can shoot 30ish%, which would mean you are further along the space-is-supreme path than I can really concede for the discussion. Just trying to see practically, in terms of priorities for changes, how you place Favors so differently than I do.

[Luigi]

Wouldn't we know how likely it is we land Russell before pulling the trigger on Conley anyway?

If the Jazz trade for Conley this week, we'll never know.

We won't, but I bet the front office will. And I bet they'd go for Russell if they had a decent chance. If we make the Conley trade, my guess is that the probabilities were pretty low. I think I'd risk a longer shot for Russell than management would. But I don't think we're that far off. Nets may even keep him if they only land Irving.

[Luigi]

The only reason to do the Conley trade before the draft is if they really want #23. It's a bad draft, I don't think MEM would mind if we gave them next year's instead.

Jazz might prefer the 2020 rookie so the contract stretches further into the post Mitchell Gobert max deal era. Memphis may not mind, but I bet they have a preference. But agreed, it's not huge.

[KqWIN]

Of course there is an ordering--that is almost trivially true. You write that you see areas where the team needs to improve. Surely some of those areas are more pressing than others, no? Aren't we looking at team building needs, current players, moves for new players, and realistic probability of those moves? Basically, we say something like: we want shooters. We ask whether we would rather have Russell than Conley. If that priority doesn't work, we look at some specifics of a Conley trade (since Durant is off the table ). We are asking about whether to include Favors in a Conley deal, or try to use Favors to get Gallo or something like that. These claims about what we should do make no sense without prioritizing needs.

So, my first claim was that Favors as a player presents us with a lower priority problem to be addressed than others do, even from a spacing standpoint (since we have so many non shooters on the floor at other positions). My second claim is that once realistic moves are considered to meet priority needs, I think we're better with Favors than without him. I can't really understand a response to this that doesn't prioritize needs, since that is in the essence of the claims I am making.

To even make these claims, I charitably adopted your perspective of the value of spacing (the claims follow much simpler from a less spacing centric model, but I worked in your boundaries for the sake of discussion). I can even adopt your team building philosophy: Build around Mitchell and Gobert for the best 5 man lineup (though I'll note that wins from Favors' minutes, wherever they are played, should count for more than you give them, but I'll bracket that too for the sake of conversation). So I am surprised about your evaluations of Favors. The best I can do is say that you must see a huge synergy to working with only one big on the floor and four shooters, even if they are mediocre (which I would have to say I don't see). Or else maybe you see a larger comparative drag from Favors and a lesser comparative (priorities!) drag from Rubio because he can shoot 30ish%, which would mean you are further along the space-is-supreme path than I can really concede for the discussion. Just trying to see practically, in terms of priorities for changes, how you place Favors so differently than I do.

I am prioritizing needs. I've been prioritizing needs this entire time. What I am not doing is prioritizing getting rid of players. Do you not understand the difference between prioritizing a list of needs and prioritizing a list of players you want to get rid of? Getting rid of Favors is not a need. He fills a need and does it well. Backup C is a need for everyone, and Favs does that for us. But it's not as important to me as other needs. If we miss out on all star shot creation talent that we desperately need for the sake of keeping a backup C, that's not good judgement.

Your hitlist concept of "I move Rubio, Exum, Crowder before I move Favors." doesn't resonate with me. It's not about moving one player before the other. It is about prioritizing one need over the other. Of course I would prefer to lose one player over the other. But it is not my end goal to move these guys in a certain order. My end goal is to build the best team possible.

Somehow, someway, you've come to the conclusion that I don't have priorities when I've been talking about priorities this entire time. And again you're asking me to defend Rubio when I have repeatedly said that he is a horrific fit. That's it, no more. You clearly cannot help yourself from strawmanning and making up things to argue against. Might as well bring up Tony Bradley or someone that isn't even on our team. The limits of making up things are endless. I have to stop taking the bait.

[Daddy 801]

I’d be happy to also throw Rudy Gay a two year contract. He would be a great 6-8 man in the rotation. He shoots well from 3 point land.

[Luigi]

I am prioritizing needs. I've been prioritizing needs this entire time. What I am not doing is prioritizing getting rid of players. Do you not understand the difference between prioritizing a list of needs and prioritizing a list of players you want to get rid of? Getting rid of Favors is not a need. He fills a need and does it well. Backup C is a need for everyone, and Favs does that for us. But it's not as important to me as other needs. If we miss out on all star shot creation talent that we desperately need for the sake of keeping a backup C, that's not good judgement.

Your hitlist concept of "I move Rubio, Exum, Crowder before I move Favors." doesn't resonate with me. It's not about moving one player before the other. It is about prioritizing one need over the other. Of course I would prefer to lose one player over the other. But it is not my end goal to move these guys in a certain order. My end goal is to build the best team possible.

Somehow, someway, you've come to the conclusion that I don't have priorities when I've been talking about priorities this entire time. And again you're asking me to defend Rubio when I have repeatedly said that he is a horrific fit. That's it, no more. You clearly cannot help yourself from strawmanning and making up things to argue against. Might as well bring up Tony Bradley or someone that isn't even on our team. The limits of making up things are endless. I have to stop taking the bait.

I mean, you said there is no ordering, so I tried to take it seriously. Is it the connection between needs and players that you object to? I don't see why, though. Surely needs are met by players. I can list it negatively (as a hit list ) or positively in terms of meeting needs, but it makes no real difference to the point I don't think. I think Favors provides more than you mention, but that's kinda why I'm trying to see it from your side in the first place.

Prioritizing the needs and how they get met would be enough for my claims about Favors though. I haven't really asked you to defend Rubio etc... I've only asked for a relative take on some on Crowder and Exum and Favors. I think the relative take is important to my claim. I don't understand how Favors (or what he provides) seems to rank relative to others on your list of meeting needs, even when I try to think of it in terms of your values. But happy to be surprised, nonetheless.

Sorry if you think I'm strawmanning you. I am seriously just trying to reason this out from your point of view. Either I'm starting from the wrong point (you don't believe x) or I'm making a mistake in the inference from that point (it doesn't imply y).

[Luigi]

I’d be happy to also throw Rudy Gay a two year contract. He would be a great 6-8 man in the rotation. He shoots well from 3 point land.

I like him for the right price. I don't know what that is.

[Daddy 801]

I’d be happy to also throw Rudy Gay a two year contract. He would be a great 6-8 man in the rotation. He shoots well from 3 point land.

I like him for the right price. I don't know what that is.

The Spurs are said to be signing him to a 10 million dollar contract. I think we have the midlevel exception if we trade for Conley. I’m under the assumption that will happen as the Jazz brass is too scared not to walk away with something and Conley is a sure bet. So I’m focused on who would be the best fit after trading for Conley.

Gay would be a MUCH better version of how we used Crowder.

[stitches]

Read on Twitter

[SoCalJazzFan]

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/jazz-the-frontrunners-for-mike-conley/ via @hoopshype

A second FRP reportedly involved? For a guy who might leave after one season?

[stitches]

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/jazz-the-frontrunners-for-mike-conley/ via @hoopshype

A second FRP reportedly involved? For a guy who might leave after one season?

I will be pissed off when this happens... I really hope this is MEM trying to entice other teams to outbid... We should already be looking for the next PG rental we can waste a 1st round pick for next year. Who's the next candidate?

[AingesBurner]

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/jazz-the-frontrunners-for-mike-conley/ via @hoopshype

A second FRP reportedly involved? For a guy who might leave after one season?

I will be pissed off when this happens... I really hope this is MEM trying to entice other teams to outbid... We should already be looking for the next PG rental we can waste a 1st round pick for next year. Who's the next candidate?

Chris Paul.

[Daddy 801]

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/jazz-the-frontrunners-for-mike-conley/ via @hoopshype

A second FRP reportedly involved? For a guy who might leave after one season?

I will be pissed off when this happens... I really hope this is MEM trying to entice other teams to outbid... We should already be looking for the next PG rental we can waste a 1st round pick for next year. Who's the next candidate?

If we can’t get a PG just trade for high level wings who can shoot the 3 and let Donovan run the point.

No idea why we would send out future picks for a one year rental.

[Rauxcee]

I'm generally a fan of DL and for the most part support the job he's done.

But if he trades 2 FRP for another 1-2 year rental of a PG, who may also spend time on the bench in a suit due to injury, I'm done. He needs to go.

This better be all talk and just Memphis trying drive up the price to see what they can get.