Author Topic: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.  (Read 16443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2015, 12:17:59 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
I thought Dante Exum was absurdly overhyped going into the 2014 draft.  His rookie season sure didn't do anything to dispel that notion.

He could still turn into a decent NBA player, but "the next Penny Hardaway"?

Not so likely.


Unfortunately the knee injury actually makes the comparison more close.

Good point.  Although, Penny did have 3 or 4 years of playing like an NBA superstar before blowing out his knee.

Whether he recovers from his knee injury or not, Dante will most likely never be an NBA superstar. 
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2015, 01:25:24 PM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
He can't be a great NBA player unless he becomes a great decision maker when he gets in the paint. His record last year on that skill was historically bad. Very few NBA players have ever done worse. C's fans have always been frustrated by Bradley's terrible decision making at point guard. Exum was even worse than Bradley was as a teenaged rookie. He wasn't a young Chauncy Billups struggling to finish plays. He showed nothing. Like Bradley, he probably won't ever evolve into an acceptable point guard, much less a great one.

Fortunately for us, Bradley has the stroke to work out as a legitimate two way shooting guard. Exum is young enough to possibly become a shooter with a lot of hard work. Otherwise he's a spot defensive player and that's about it.

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2015, 01:56:58 PM »

Offline Hemingway

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1181
  • Tommy Points: 123
No to every Bradley trade unless we get a star. AB is not a star but he's not that far off.

IF we can get 4 guys with good D that are at least decent on O and get one pure scorer we will be fine.

Let's not discount D.

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2015, 03:30:24 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8635
  • Tommy Points: 1136
Bradley is solid but he's far away from being a star like really really far.

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2015, 03:41:06 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
I thought Dante Exum was absurdly overhyped going into the 2014 draft.  His rookie season sure didn't do anything to dispel that notion.

He could still turn into a decent NBA player, but "the next Penny Hardaway"?

Not so likely.


Unfortunately the knee injury actually makes the comparison more close.

Good point.  Although, Penny did have 3 or 4 years of playing like an NBA superstar before blowing out his knee.

Whether he recovers from his knee injury or not, Dante will most likely never be an NBA superstar. 
not to mention Penny gave us Li'l Penny. 



Exum will never give us Li'l Dante

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #65 on: August 07, 2015, 05:18:45 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
So Zach Lowe said so, basically? That's not too bad, you could do way worse.

Interestingly, the only way you could say that Utah had the best defense in the league would be if you took opponents points per game as the only metric involved in it. The Jazz also played at the slowest pace in the league, which limits points on both sides of the board, but of course we won't mention that. The fact that they consistently stick to being a middling team that would rather fight for the playoffs than alienate their loyal mormons does not indicate 'trending up' in the slightest.

They're cut from the same cloth they've always been cut from -- they're going to hope that one of their draft picks hits and that they can pair him with a big who is passable as they scrape towards a seasonal record in the high forties. They'll cap out at, arguably, 50 wins in one season, and there will be much wailing when their new point guard of the future eventually bails. If that's 'competing', then sure.

Also, they have a very good coach? are you one of those people that was clamoring for Stevens to win COTY too?

Uh, no, not "cause Zach Lowe said so".  I was just using him as an example of a well-regarded media personality who agrees, the Jazz are ready to start competing.

And let me be clear, by competing I don't mean contend for a title. By "compete" I mean contend for a playoff spot in a brutal western conference. By compete, I mean allowing the young core they have already in place to improve to the point of a 7th or 8th seed. That doesn't in any way mean sacrificing long-term assets for short term improvements. That means allowing the guys they have to continue developing and only considering moves that can help in the short and long term.

I don't see how this is even debatable. They're not just "sticking to being a middling team", they have a very talented, improving core of young players who got considerably better as the season went along. Like us, they're now in a position where, if they don't plan on competing, they would have to take steps backwards on purpose (or get decimated by injury) to be in range for a top 10 pick. The fact they brought the whole team back is proof they plan on being more and more competitive as their young team grows. They're trending up because they have legit high-end young talent in Gobert, Hayward, Exum and Favors and showed the kind of elite defense you can build something with over a fairly decent sample size.

That defense, BTW, led the entire league in D-Rating after the ASG. Not just opposing PPG. And no, I didn't think Stevens deserved to win COY, but I thought he deserved some later votes. That he deserved to be in consideration. You don't have to have an incredible W-L record to do a great coaching job. What Stevens did with last years Celtics team was a prime example of someone doing a very good coaching job with a less than superior team. And yeah, Quin Snyder is a good coach. He has a great player development record including a large stint of time within the Spurs organization. He did a good job with that team last year. There has been a lot of very bad NBA head coaches, and Snyder did more with that team than a lot of other candidates would have. I didn't say he was great, I said he was good.

Frankly, your nearly constant condescending tone and your habit of questioning the validity of opinions that don't match yours takes away from the good things you contribute to the board.

Curious as to why aren't you critiquing the other posters who are disagreeing with your assessment? Because, you know, there's a possibility we're questioning the validity of your statements on the basis of their, well, validity. In fact, I would wager that pretty much every single conversation on CB is powered by at least two posters questioning the validity of opinions that don't match their own -- that's the root of disagreement. That's where the discussion comes from. Do you disagree?

Anyway, I am still waiting for someone to provide the numbers for DRtg after the All Star Break. You've said it twice now, but I have yet to see any data?

Well, they're all echoing what your saying, which was a flawed interpretation of what I was trying to say in the first place. Plus, I post from my phone and I work full time with two kids and a pregnant wife, so there's only so much time. I never said I thought Utah would do a Bradley/Exum trade, or that they were doing anything that sacrificed long term development for short term improvement. I actually had made a little trade idea involving Bradley, Sully and picks for Favors and Hood and was defending that, since obviously the idea of a Bradley for Exum trade straight up seems pretty ridiculous.

Rather, as I explained rather thoroughly in later paragraphs and posts, that I don't consider a team looking to "compete" the same as a team looking to contend. I believe that the Jazz have assembled a nice young core of guys under the age of 26 who have progressed to the point of being a playoff team. I believe the Jazz FO is excited and willing to allow that team to develop into a playoff team, and as such are ready to "compete" as opposed to aim for better draft position. Sounds reasonable, no? I'm not saying their looking to make "win now" moves, I'm saying that the current young core they've assembled is ready to be a legit playoff team in a crowded western conference.

I also believe that as a team who's core is developing to playoff-level, the Jazz FO will be interested in moves that address weaknesses, allow the pieces they have to fit better, and make sense in both the short and long term. Potential moves they could make with us (as well as other teams) fit that profile. Just because a team is looking to develop it's own talent, doesn't mean they won't make any moves, especially when they become good enough to be a playoff team and their strengths and weaknesses as a team become more apparent.

There's good evidence that the Jazz are ready to take the next step in their rebuild, I.e. Compete for a playoff spot, and I'm certainly not the only person that thinks that. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, it's an opinion. Speculation on a season of games that has yet to occur. But just because I don't agree with your opinion of the Jazz' trajectory doesn't make your opinion any less valid. I can not agree with it, which I don't, but it's an opinion with merit that can be explained with reasoning, just like mine is. 

But when you basically ignore a whole three or four paragraphs of reasoning I gave and say "So, because Lowe said so, basically?" just cause I mentioned a few interesting tidbits from his podcast, It sounds like your really questioning my ability to form my own thoughtful, reasoned opinions which I think I've proven repeatedly on this forum is certainly not the case. More so, you spent a whole paragraph saying I was wrong calling them the best defensive team post-ASG without bothering to check that they did, in fact lead the league in D-rating in that time. Making the assumption I thought Stevens deserved to be COY was nice too, since that's obviously a poorly supported opinion based purely on homerism but there's a valid argument he deserved a place in the conversation. He did as good a job with our team as all but a handful of guys did with theirs. It just goes back to your lack of respect for my ability to form a reasoned opinion.

But that's kinda your thing, I guess. You routinely make snarky, sarcastic comments about opinions you find hyperbolic, too optimistic or otherwise disagreeable. Which I find petty, and I think it's a shame because otherwise your a well-respected veteran poster who has before and will continue to give valuable contributions to the board.

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #66 on: August 07, 2015, 05:31:31 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Exum = perfect Laker

Re: Avery Bradley for Dante Exum straight up.
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2015, 03:44:11 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
Would Exum even beat out Smart or Rozier for playing time?  I fail to see why we'd want him when he has been a flop so far?  If we are trading AB, we should be acquiring a player who would fill a need for us.