Future Free Agent Thread

[stitches]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

We need to address the obvious flaws with our roster, shot creation and shooting. If we sit pat and just ignore them in the name of friendship, that will be failure. Ultimately, the FO needs to open up avenues to improvement besides internal growth. That could mean getting a significant talent upgrade or getting significantly different talent. We have two great building blocks in Donovan and Rudy. The bare minimum would be building a team that fits around them.

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

I need to feel like the team has a chance to win a championship, even if it falls short. In that context, I'm pretty open in terms of how far the team goes. You can lose in the second round and feel like your team had a real shot at a ring (like the Rockets), and you can lose in the second round and feel like you have no shot (Jazz of the past few years). Or even the Blazers of this year. Yes, they made it to the WCF but that was due to favorable seeding. Once they met a real contender in the Warriors (and without Durant!) they were swept posthaste. If Blazers fans think that this season shows they are a real contender, they're going to be sorely disappointed. They are a similar team to the one that was bounced in the first round last season.

In many ways, the Blazers are at the same situation as we are, only with more young talent that can break out and eventually help the team take the extra step. In some ways, it's better we didn't make it to the WCF, so the FO can't spin it to say we're so close.

Give an example of the lower tier scenarios in that vein that you would consider successful off-season...

[Inigo Montoya]

Give an example of the lower tier scenarios in that vein that you would consider successful off-season...

The Jazz manages to bring a high-level talent in free agency and\or strikes gold in the draft, plus re-shapes the roster with players that fit the system better. The injury bug strikes in the regular season and impacts the team's playoff seeding, but when the roster is healthy the team looks formidable and with enough young talent that can still develop and improve over time. The team finished in the 6-8 range, and loses to the eventual champion in the second round in 6 or 7 games, each of them is close, is a series that proves to be the most difficult in that playoffs to the eventual champs.

[reapaman]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

Number 1 is that Gobert has to go. The top teams are high perimeter oriented teams and Gobert defense is ineffective in the playoffs versus those teams as seen with the Rockets the past two season for example. He also isn't a Scorer or a playmaker so all in all, he should not be taking up a significant portion of your cap because he can't do much on either side of the ball in the playoffs. If he's still on the team, then we are highly unlikely to have the assets/cap space to improve as much as we need to be championship competitive.

[KqWIN]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

Number 1 is that Gobert has to go. The top teams are high perimeter oriented teams and Gobert defense is ineffective in the playoffs versus those teams as seen with the Rockets the past two season for example. He also isn't a Scorer or a playmaker so all in all, he should not be taking up a significant portion of your cap because he can't do much on either side of the ball in the playoffs. If he's still on the team, then we are highly unlikely to have the assets/cap space to improve as much as we need to be championship competitive.

We turned the Rockets into the worst offense in the league, and the gameplan was highly reliant on Gobert. Don't know how you can come away from that series and think the number one priority is to get of Gobert because the defense wasn't good enough.

[reapaman]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

Number 1 is that Gobert has to go. The top teams are high perimeter oriented teams and Gobert defense is ineffective in the playoffs versus those teams as seen with the Rockets the past two season for example. He also isn't a Scorer or a playmaker so all in all, he should not be taking up a significant portion of your cap because he can't do much on either side of the ball in the playoffs. If he's still on the team, then we are highly unlikely to have the assets/cap space to improve as much as we need to be championship competitive.

We turned the Rockets into the worst offense in the league, and the gameplan was highly reliant on Gobert. Don't know how you can come away from that series and think the number one priority is to get of Gobert because the defense wasn't good enough.

The Rockets blew us out the first two games, and was on the verge of doing it in game 3 before they took their foot off the gas going into the 4th quarter, but they still manage to win. They had one terrible shooting night in the game they lost on the road and that had nothing to do with our defense since they were missing a bunch of wide open jumpshots something you can't count on with a team like that. We unfortunately don't play the Nuggets every series and it wouldn't be so bad if Gobert could average more than 11 and 10, but that is not the case.

[KqWIN]

Number 1 is that Gobert has to go. The top teams are high perimeter oriented teams and Gobert defense is ineffective in the playoffs versus those teams as seen with the Rockets the past two season for example. He also isn't a Scorer or a playmaker so all in all, he should not be taking up a significant portion of your cap because he can't do much on either side of the ball in the playoffs. If he's still on the team, then we are highly unlikely to have the assets/cap space to improve as much as we need to be championship competitive.

We turned the Rockets into the worst offense in the league, and the gameplan was highly reliant on Gobert. Don't know how you can come away from that series and think the number one priority is to get of Gobert because the defense wasn't good enough.

The Rockets blew us out the first two games, and was on the verge of doing it in game 3 before they took their foot off the gas going into the 4th quarter, but they still manage to win. They had one terrible shooting night in the game they lost on the road and that had nothing to do with our defense since they were missing a bunch of wide open jumpshots something you can't count on with a team like that. We unfortunately don't play the Nuggets every series and it wouldn't be so bad if Gobert could average more than 11 and 10, but that is not the case.

We were on the verge of getting blown out in game 3? The same game 3 in which we started the game 8-0, lead the game for 31 of the 48 minutes, and HOU's biggest lead was 5. Alright man.

Keep in the two blowout games. We still held the Rockets to a 108.3 ORTG. That would have tied them for 21st in the regular season and was 6.5 points worse than they were during the season. The Warriors held them to 112.1 ORTG. Over the last 3 games when we figured the gameplan, we held them to a 100.3.

I'm so glad you mentioned the three point shooting too, because the Rockets shot a blistering 45.1% on wide open 3's during the series against us. which would have been first in the league by a mile. On the other hand, the Jazz shot 23.6% on wide open 3's. The reason why we lost was because of offense, not defense. And the reason our offense was so bad was Mitchell + wide open shooting being horrible.

[sipclip]

2 of our 4 best assets (Ingles and O'Neale) were fliers they took in FA. I think Niang has a chance to be a player as well. We've also singed a lot of low potential vets, but they've been pretty good for the most part and we have had some success stories when we do venture out.

I don't know if I'd say a lot of their failures were short sighted, however. Hill, imo, was a worth while risk who didn't end up being the long term answer in part because he was too good. Rubio could maybe be seen as short sighted because of the Hayward reasoning (which was idiotic), but the main reason why he isn't the long term solution is simply because he's not the right player. Burke and Exum obviously cannot be seen as shortsighted, and those make up the 5 first round picks that have failed to amount to a single player we can count on and is the reason why we have no youth.

You mentioned 2 players over the last 5 years. Also those aren't really the guys I'm talking about. I'm more so talking about buying low on guys that were former 1st rd picks that physically have what it takes to be in this league but maybe aren't quite there skillset wise. Those are the types of guys that I feel like we should be going after to fill out the end of the bench. Guys that don't cost hardly anything that you can lock into contracts with multiple team options or standard 3yr contracts at reasonable numbers so that you can eat it if it doesn't workout. Here are some of the guys that come to mind this offseason.

Stanley Johnson
Kaminsky
Chriss
Vonleh
Hezonja
Mudiay
Stauskas
Baldwin
Labissiere via trade

None of these guys are anything special but I think they all have the potential to be specialists at a certain aspect of the game or a solid overall bench player. These are the type of guys we have to take a shot at since we don't value 2nd rd picks in the draft and often trade 1st rd picks.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[KqWIN]

2 of our 4 best assets (Ingles and O'Neale) were fliers they took in FA. I think Niang has a chance to be a player as well. We've also singed a lot of low potential vets, but they've been pretty good for the most part and we have had some success stories when we do venture out.

I don't know if I'd say a lot of their failures were short sighted, however. Hill, imo, was a worth while risk who didn't end up being the long term answer in part because he was too good. Rubio could maybe be seen as short sighted because of the Hayward reasoning (which was idiotic), but the main reason why he isn't the long term solution is simply because he's not the right player. Burke and Exum obviously cannot be seen as shortsighted, and those make up the 5 first round picks that have failed to amount to a single player we can count on and is the reason why we have no youth.

You mentioned 2 players over the last 5 years. Also those aren't really the guys I'm talking about. I'm more so talking about buying low on guys that were former 1st rd picks that physically have what it takes to be in this league but maybe aren't quite there skillset wise. Those are the types of guys that I feel like we should be going after to fill out the end of the bench. Guys that don't cost hardly anything that you can lock into contracts with multiple team options or standard 3yr contracts at reasonable numbers so that you can eat it if it doesn't workout. Here are some of the guys that come to mind this offseason.

Stanley Johnson
Kaminsky
Chriss
Vonleh
Hezonja
Mudiay
Stauskas
Baldwin
Labissiere via trade

None of these guys are anything special but I think they all have the potential to be specialists at a certain aspect of the game or a solid overall bench player. These are the type of guys we have to take a shot at since we don't value 2nd rd picks in the draft and often trade 1st rd picks.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

That's fair, but I'm not sure why it matters where they came from. It's rare to find a player from the trashcan that becomes a rotation player in the first place. We should got back to Europe more often as it's been more successful.

[TO11]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

I need to feel like the team has a chance to win a championship, even if it falls short. In that context, I'm pretty open in terms of how far the team goes. You can lose in the second round and feel like your team had a real shot at a ring (like the Rockets), and you can lose in the second round and feel like you have no shot (Jazz of the past few years). Or even the Blazers of this year. Yes, they made it to the WCF but that was due to favorable seeding. Once they met a real contender in the Warriors (and without Durant!) they were swept posthaste. If Blazers fans think that this season shows they are a real contender, they're going to be sorely disappointed. They are a similar team to the one that was bounced in the first round last season.

In many ways, the Blazers are at the same situation as we are, only with more young talent that can break out and eventually help the team take the extra step. In some ways, it's better we didn't make it to the WCF, so the FO can't spin it to say we're so close.

Rockets had a shot at winning the Championship? I couldn't tell.

[sipclip]

2 of our 4 best assets (Ingles and O'Neale) were fliers they took in FA. I think Niang has a chance to be a player as well. We've also singed a lot of low potential vets, but they've been pretty good for the most part and we have had some success stories when we do venture out.

I don't know if I'd say a lot of their failures were short sighted, however. Hill, imo, was a worth while risk who didn't end up being the long term answer in part because he was too good. Rubio could maybe be seen as short sighted because of the Hayward reasoning (which was idiotic), but the main reason why he isn't the long term solution is simply because he's not the right player. Burke and Exum obviously cannot be seen as shortsighted, and those make up the 5 first round picks that have failed to amount to a single player we can count on and is the reason why we have no youth.

You mentioned 2 players over the last 5 years. Also those aren't really the guys I'm talking about. I'm more so talking about buying low on guys that were former 1st rd picks that physically have what it takes to be in this league but maybe aren't quite there skillset wise. Those are the types of guys that I feel like we should be going after to fill out the end of the bench. Guys that don't cost hardly anything that you can lock into contracts with multiple team options or standard 3yr contracts at reasonable numbers so that you can eat it if it doesn't workout. Here are some of the guys that come to mind this offseason.

Stanley Johnson
Kaminsky
Chriss
Vonleh
Hezonja
Mudiay
Stauskas
Baldwin
Labissiere via trade

None of these guys are anything special but I think they all have the potential to be specialists at a certain aspect of the game or a solid overall bench player. These are the type of guys we have to take a shot at since we don't value 2nd rd picks in the draft and often trade 1st rd picks.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

That's fair, but I'm not sure why it matters where they came from. It's rare to find a player from the trashcan that becomes a rotation player in the first place. We should got back to Europe more often as it's been more successful.

There is usually a reason why these guys are 1st round picks in the first place. That is why those are the guys I would be targeting. Especially the players that were stuck in somewhat toxic or dysfunctional situations where development becomes difficult. Unfortunately alot of these guys never ever get that second chance and they end up going over to Europe or China for the rest of their careers.

In the end I don't really care where a guy comes from though as long as he has the potential to be a somewhat longterm role player and has a defined skillset that he brings to the table or potentially brings to the table with a little development. Hezonja and Kaminsky are the 2 guys that jump out to me the most. They both have underachieved as shooters but they have great shooting strokes and in the right situation I think they can thrive and I believe our team could be that situation.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[Inigo Montoya]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

I need to feel like the team has a chance to win a championship, even if it falls short. In that context, I'm pretty open in terms of how far the team goes. You can lose in the second round and feel like your team had a real shot at a ring (like the Rockets), and you can lose in the second round and feel like you have no shot (Jazz of the past few years). Or even the Blazers of this year. Yes, they made it to the WCF but that was due to favorable seeding. Once they met a real contender in the Warriors (and without Durant!) they were swept posthaste. If Blazers fans think that this season shows they are a real contender, they're going to be sorely disappointed. They are a similar team to the one that was bounced in the first round last season.

In many ways, the Blazers are at the same situation as we are, only with more young talent that can break out and eventually help the team take the extra step. In some ways, it's better we didn't make it to the WCF, so the FO can't spin it to say we're so close.

Rockets had a shot at winning the Championship? I couldn't tell.

They did, they just blew it. Last season they had a shot too and only an awful shooting in game 7 stopped them. If they beat the Warriors they would have gone all the way, imho. Maybe both times.

[stitches]

Donovan already recruiting:

[sipclip]

How in the hell did they make one of those things with the wrong jersey number for Mitchell.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[Rauxcee]

How in the hell did they make one of those things with the wrong jersey number for Mitchell.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Just goes to show nobody pays attention to us.

[CAE15]

How in the hell did they make one of those things with the wrong jersey number for Mitchell.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

It's his slam dunk contest winning bobble head where he donned Griff's jersey.

Sent from my SM-N950U using RealGM mobile app

[CAE15]

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

I would say bringing in at least 1 new starter and 2 more additional rotation players who bring shooting. On the low end of things, I would be happy with some of the vets around to fill out the team. Thad Young, Patrick Beverley, Jeremy Lamb, Al Farouq Aminu, Darren Collison. If we aren't able to land a big fish via signing or trade I would be interested to see how guys who fit our identity would do with some true defensive players. And I ad most people completely disagree that we move our most unique piece in Gobert. Having Gobert is what defines the jazz, what makes them different. You take away Gobert and the jazz turn into what the Heat? The Bulls? Suns? Gobert is worth sooooo much to us, it can't be overstated. He is everything of what the jazz do. If you trade him you're changing your unique style of play and you become just another team with a high volume scorer. The warriors are great because they're unique and provide something other team's can't. Not saying jazz are the warriors but no one else is the jazz and they provide a difficult matchup for anyone in the entire league. If the jazz could hit their shots, who knows how that rockets series goes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using RealGM mobile app

[KqWIN]

Give an example of the lower tier scenarios in that vein that you would consider successful off-season...

It's all relative and given the reality of the situation, I'm not going to use the championship as a measure of success. I also think it's quite apparent that Favors will be brought back and Rubio will not return. Given that scenario, I think signing someone like Lamb is about as good as we can do. If we can sign someone of his level and a lower end guy with some upside would be alright. Many worse scenarios I can see happening.

A trade with Conley giving up just one first would be a success. Making a good pick would also be a success, but we won't know how that pans out until the future.

[sipclip]

Here is my ideal offseason.

1. Draft either Nwora, Bazley, Samanic,Kabengele, Windler or Porter. At least one of these guys should be around when we draft. Would love to somehow add another 1st or may 2nd rd pick to snag 2 of these guys. In the 2nd round I want either Lecque, Grimes or Oni.

2. Favors to the hawks for Prince and 35th pick in the draft. This is how I would go about possibly snagging 2 of those guys that I mentioned at with our 1st. If there are all gone there will still be plenty of solid guys to choose from. Okeke would be a player that I would target. I know we all love Favors but this gets us a couple assets for him and we have about 13mil in extra capspace. The reason for the hawks is that Favors steps in immediately as there starting center and provides a solid vet that is still young enough to grow with the young core.

3. Once free agency hits I have no interest in going after the guys that are talking the max. Julius Randle is my first phone call with a 4yr 70mil offer for him. Next phone call is to Brogdon with a 4yr 70mil offer sheet. The combined first year money on those 2 guys would be around 32mil. That leaves about 5 mil still in capspace to offer immediately. With that 5mil I offer Kaminsky a 3yr 14mil contract.

4. After 3 days we will know if we get Brogdon or not. If not then we have about 16mil left in capspace. With that money I make a 4yr 60mil offer to Terrance Ross. Then with part of the MLE sign George Hill to a 3yr 15mil contract. Probably do this under either scenario.

With Brogdon

C-Gobert, Kaminsky, Bradley
Pf-Randle, Crowder
Sf- Ingles, Prince
Sg-Mitchell, Royce, Allen
Pg- Brogdon, Exum, Hill


Without Brogdon

C- Gobert, Kaminsky, Bradley
Pf- Randle, Crowder,
Sf- Ingles, Prince,
Sg-Royce, Ross, Allen
Pg- Mitchell, Exum, Hill

Then there are the 3 draft picks. My dream draft would probably be Kabengele, Bazley and Lecque. I would also love to bring Udoh back to provide defensive depth up front.

[Luigi]

sipclip, I love your plan.

[KqWIN]

Like it, not sure how realistic it is though.