It’s trade deadline eve in the NBA, and as we head down the home stretch toward the last deals of the 2015-16 season, SCH is here to take your questions.
Hit me up with questions about the salary cap, Utah’s money situation, trade rules, specific players and whatever else. You can submit your questions in the comments section below, or by Tweeting/DMing me at twitter.com/danclayt0n.
LKA: It would surprise me if Trey Burke and Booker do not get traded. Looks like the Pistons need a backup point guard. Sounds like home to Trey what do you think? Booker back to the Wiz??
Detroit could be interested in Trey, sure. He makes some sense for them since they just got thinner at the point. But let’s remember that they had a chance to take Trey when his stock was a LOT higher (fresh off winning Naismith Player of the Year) and they passed and took KCP instead. So would they be interested now, after his star has fallen to some degree? As for Book, the Washington rumor surprised me a bit, too, for the same reason: they already gave up on Booker once. All told, I think Booker stays unless his expiring salary is needed in a deal that brings back a player with salary into next season.
Run_Pappy: How does the new ownership model affect the decision making process regarding trades? How about other issues like the yet unchanged primary logo or improvements at ESA?
It used to be easy to gripe about the Millers, it’s much harder to make personal insults towards a board. :/
I’m sure the Board of Directors is disappointed.
Funny time to ask that question since management pieces are changing as we speak. To be honest, I don’t think the change has been that pronounced, except that it has made that team president role (Rigby) more of a decision-maker. When Frank Layden was team president, it was mostly ceremonial, because Larry Miller and Scotty/Kevin made basketball decisions. Rigby seems to have been much more involved in the entire business around the Jazz. I assume the same will be true of Steve Starks.
Having said that, I don’t think the BoD model is a bad thing. It allows the basketball people to run the basketball part of the house, and that’s usually a better recipe for success anyway.
@JazzProtector: (see comments section for full question) Coach Snyder is now in the 2nd year of a 3 year deal with a 4th year option held by the team. I am legit worried that Coach Snyder is going to bail after 4 years and never look back moving on to a bigger market. His history is what makes me worry. He has been everywhere and hasn’t stayed long… Do you expect Coach Snyder to stay with the Jazz after his contract, or do you see him heading out to coach for a bigger market team?
Well for starters, I think the ambulatory nature of his recent résumé was more about him wanting to amass a broad set of skills and experience so he could strengthen his candidacy for a HC gig. We don’t talk about it a lot, but remember that he had to rebuild his reputation a little bit after whatever led to the end of his Missouri job. So I think the decision to go spend time in LA, spend time with the Spurs, spend time in the D-League, with CSKA, etc… I think that was more about building a network and a résumé back up in a pretty strategic way. (I might be extrapolating here.)
But to your more pointed question… nah, I’m not worried about it. I think coaches generally prefer stability to looking around for a star gig, and if the Jazz are winning and developing, I think both DL and Quin will try to extend that stability. Remember, the model both guys subscribe to is the Spurs’ model, and Pop didn’t start looking for better jobs as soon as he had made a name.
@the6bees: Tibor Pleiss to
@wcknicks for Jimmer and whole team plus all future draft picks. Who says No?
For starters, the NBA, since the collective bargaining agreement prohibits trades across leagues. If the Jazz had interest in Jimmer, they could undoubtedly sign him to a minimum deal. I’ve never heard any indication that they’re interested.
Rodrigo: Clearly what’s lacking to this Utah’s team to take a step forward is a veteran PG. Do you think the FO will take a close look into this trade deadline and try to improve this spot? Or do you think they’re gonna wait on Exum to develop and keep Burke, sustaining a conservative aproach, like they’ve been doing until now?
First of all, Exum is definitely the top priority, for a number of reasons. Unless something major happens in the next 24 hours, this week’s SC7 will probably be focused on the reasons they still really believe in Exum, so keep an eye out for that. Beyond that, I think they realize that improving the PG spot would be the easiest way to take a definite step forward. Andy has reported that their interest in a “bridge PG” is real, and you can tell just from looking at the minutes column of Burke’s game log that Snyder is ready to look elsewhere, for whatever reason.
So I think the answer to your question is “semi-conservative”: still very much centered on Exum, but willing to add help if available.
Agustín: Will the jazz have enough money/cap by 2019/2020 to have under max contracts Exum, Hood, Hayward, Favors and Gobert? Or at that point will it have to give up one/two of them?
Good question. The really tricky year will be 2018-19, when the cap and tax level drop back down. Staying under the $127M tax that year will require some creativity: renegotiate Favors now for a discount on his next deal, sign Exum to a Curry-esque deal, etc. The answer might be finding a new home for Burks by then, assuming that Hood is as good as he’s starting to look. But no reason they can’t keep the five you mentioned around, though not everybody can get the max.
Agustín: If you have to give up one of them in this deadline for a couple of (stupid) picks, who would that be?
Again, I think the most likely core player to move at some point is Burks. But we might be getting ahead of ourselves a bit, because it depends on a bunch of basketball that will be played between now and then.
mccaffreyjoshua: There is a lot of talk for the need to make a move, but what if they didn’t make any or just a small one? like a better back-up point guard or a improve 4th wing (with Alec coming back)? does this team still make the playoffs with these little or no tweets? I ask because I feel the Jazz are a still a young development team needing time not a change of personal.
Yes, I think as presently constituted, the Jazz are a playoff team, and most of the predictive models agree with me on that. The question, in my mind, is can you upgrade a few rotational spots in a way that makes this year’s Jazz AND the 2016-17 Jazz more competitive and interesting? An acquisition like (just to pick an example out of a hat) Hill might only be around for 112 games, but those 112 are pretty important when you think about Utah’s developmental goals over that period (giving there young guys a bunch of meaningful basketball games) and Hayward’s 2017 opt-out.
@khart1968: I know this is not the Jazz way but do you think Trey could have asked for a trade and that is why he was held out before ASB?
No, I think Trey legitimately had the flu. Like you say, it would be very unJazzlike to concoct that as a smokescreen, and I’m not sure what that would accomplish anyway. That said, Trey’s camp is obviously unhappy with his situation, and his role continues to diminish. So I think it’s safe to say his discontent has been registered, however formally/informally.
rvalens2: Dan, I want your best guess. Do you think we will be talking about a trade deal the Jazz made by this time tomorrow? There are of course different trade scenarios that could occur, but what I am asking for is a simple “Yes” or “No.”
Gut answer: Yes.
I think it’s pretty likely that the Jazz trade Burke and/or Booker. Somewhat likely that they trade Burks, just because anything that involves a real notable rotation upgrade probably requires the Jazz to give him up. And a 1% chance (“any chance rule” applies here) they trade any of Favors, Hood, Hayward, Gobert, Exum. But yet, I think it’s likely that we’ll have something to discuss tomorrow.
rvalens2: I know that when trading players, salaries have to come fairly close to matching. But what happens when you include draft picks and a player in exchange for another team’s player whose salary is substantially higher than the one you are trading? How are the draft picks’ value figured in such a trade?
Good question, and thanks for asking a cap / trade rules question! I like answering these.
Draft picks don’t count as salary in trades, unless you’re trading a recently drafted player who has already signed his rookie contract (and in that case you can’t trade him for 30 days). So no impact financially to deals by throwing in picks.
@Aheffy: What do you think the Jazz would ask for in return for taking Lawson off Houston’s books?
Well if Houston is desperate to trade Lawson, that probably means they have another deal they’re trying to pull off. They’ve spent $88.2M and are hard-capped at about $88.7M because they’ve used certain exceptions… so dumping Lawson probably means they’re trying to create wiggle room for a Dwight deal or something similar.
So I’d see if whatever they’re working on means one of their young bigs could be pried loose. Terrence Jones is probably the best, but he’s a bit duplicative of where the Jazz see Lyles’ role growing. DoMo is intriguing because he’s a 3-point shooting center, but he has health problems Utah would need to look into — and both of those guys are pending RFAs, so if they’re the prize for taking on Ty, you pretty much are saying you want to pay them this summer. Not sure the Jazz do. Dekker is a possibility, or Utah could ask for a pick. Houston can next trade a 1st in 2018 (or 2019 if they miss the playoffs this year), but teams don’t usually convey 1sts for dumping that amount of salary. The NY 2nd this year could be valuable, but does Utah need more 2nds?
In short, I can’t find a GREAT asset that makes a ton of sense for the Jazz. Maybe Capela, but that seems like a reach, and then the Jazz have just added another non-shooting big. It’s an option, but I think the Jazz can find other ways of shoring up PG.
Scott: Do you like Ryan Anderson? Any chances there? Does it fit, and if so, for what?
The problem with Anderson is that NOP is asking a lot in exchange for a player who can walk this summer. I don’t see the Jazz meeting that asking price, especially given that their big situation is such that they’re not going to be interesting in paying him what it would take to keep him past June 30. Plus, there are real basketball concerns. Yes, he’s a great shooter, but does he fit with the team’s defensive identity? I just can’t see this one happening.
@JazzProtector: Prefer Teague or Hill? Pros and cons. What do we need to give up to get one? Is it skipping steps?
Hill over Teague, for sure. Better defensively, without leaving too much on the table on O (although Teague is quicker, especially with the ball). There are others in that tier that I view as similar value with this year + next left. Sounds like Jrue is unavailable, but by many measure, Collison belongs in that conversation. Calderon is similar, but I think his age and injury history make his asking price lower.
And no, I don’t think it’s skipping steps. I touched on this earlier, but I think the Jazz would be smart to make moves that will allow guys like Exum, Hood, Rudy, etc. to be in as many meaningful basketball games as possible. A Hill or Collison type makes them better, increases the developmental value of the next 112 games for other guys, and (importantly) helps convince Gordon Hayward that the Jazz are going places.
@JazzProtector: if we did trade for Teague or Hill and sent Burks what do we do to shore up shooting guard position without Burks? Is C. Johnson good enough to take Burks roll over? I don’t think so, not or a playoff run. Do we trade for a backup SG too? if we so trade for a SG back up what do we send to get the deal done? Who do we target? Adding 2 new players could mess up chem?
A lot to tackle here, so this will probably be it for this session.
No, I don’t think Johnson is good enough to see an increased role. With all due respect, I’m not sure he’s good enough at this point for the role he’s played with Burks out. Both he and Ingles are specialists, so they’re guys that in certain situations, you’re glad you have around as a 4th wing option. But the Jazz would need to get better.
I’m not 100% sure where they’d look, but that’s where the contracts of guys like Burke and Booker could come in. For instance, the Jazz reportedly have liked Garrett Temple, and the Wiz may or may not have asked about Booker. Or maybe that’s why the Jazz were connected to Josh Childress by an Aussie outlet — I’m not 100% convinced on that specific rumor, but it could be a sign that Utah is sniffing around for unsigned wing help in case they do make a move that necessitates reinforcements.
They do worry about the chemistry thing, but this team definitely could stand to get deeper. Winning is a great elixir when it comes to chemistry, so I think if they address the talent issue, they can figure out chemistry.
Update: Added one more question. From CW: Dan, who out of Hayward, Favors, or Gobert is going to accept less than the max? I think they can all get the max somewhere and I don’t think anyone is going to give a discount to play on the this contemporary version of the jazz.
When I said “not everybody can get the max,” I meant out of G, Fav, Rudy, Hood, Exum. Although I do think there’s hope that the Jazz can use the renegotiate + extend tool to give Favors a raise in 2017-18 in exchange for a discount on his next three years. Point is, there are some ways you can finagle it. Thanks for asking the clarifying question, though.
That’s about all I have time for today. I think if Utah can get to one of those PGs in the Hill/Teague/Collison/Jrue tier without giving up more than Burks and some other stuff, that’s the most likely “big” deal they’ll make. I’d put the chances of that pretty low right now, but either way I expect some trades that will aim to make the rotation a little stronger, particularly at PG. Should be a fun one, Jazz fans!