What's new
By:

Off-Season Rumblings

infection said:
Combining these two into one response. In relation to the first one, I have an eternal frustration with our direction since 2017 in regards to draft picks. Also it's a need for recognition of how we ended up in the position we're in and acknowledging what we thought would happen when we made initial decisions vs. how it played out and how we think about it now. I know that's a bit of a run-on sentence that's pretty vague but I'll try to clarify. The first part is a dead horse I've beat for some time, that in 2017 we desperately wanted to hold our pick because we just landed Donovan with a pick and we believed we had a shot at Doncic. The reality was that it was time for our mindset to pivot from collecting assets to building a contender. Our hopes of Doncic became Grayson Allen. We continued to hold on to our picks and DL "keeping the powder dry" thought he could just run it back. Back when Hayward left, we then started looking toward future free agents and our cap space timing and we'd talk about maybe we could land Klay or Kawhi the year they would be free agents (which is obviously laughable in hindsight). So now we know that Donovan is going to be a really good player and we continue to "keep the powder dry" until we reach a dead end (a cap space dead end with guys whose extensions will kick in) and we end up exchanging that for Conley. The Conley dead was fine, which isn't my point, but when people talked about keeping the powder dry (picks and cap space), they would have never imagined it was for Conley. We eventually got to that point as we accepted the reality (frog in slowly boiling water) but our continual justification for the "powder" being dry was for someone we believed to be a much bigger name than Conley.

So fast forward to when we blow up the team and everyone is excited for what's believed to be a treasure trove of assets. The great thing about assets is that they could be anything, like a asking a kindergarten class what they want to be when they grow up, because they have their whole future ahead of them and can shoot for the sky. We have thoughts of trading for the next disgruntled super star, or that we would be in the discussion for a Luka or a Giannis. A good encapsulation of that feeling is Ryan mentioning the KD deal and saying, effectively, "oh yeah, well we can do that deal 2 or 3 times." So as time has moved on more, we've pivoted from the idea of trading for a super star as I believe most people are recognizing that won't happen. So we then pivot to the idea of having to draft one. In conjunction with this, many are realizing that, from this vantage point, there's a pretty good likelihood that none of these picks we got end up being top 10 picks (and to speak about enthusiasm for top ten picks, look at the enthusiasm we have this your or about last year's #9 pick). I understand your position about not being able to control the fate of the other picks and thus we need to control what we can, make a sacrifice for the next two years, and try to secure, as much as possible, picks in the next two drafts that yield us the best chances at drafting guys who will be difference makers. What I would caution against is the tendency for this to appear like a desert mirage. Fast forward two years and (in this hypothetical) we haven't really done much structure building for the team, we see that we don't have enough fitting pieces to start to make a push, and perhaps we're underwhelmed by our draft results up until that point, and in a way that would be consistent with a sunk-cost fallacy, we decide that we've already put enough into tanking that we may as well get more bang for our buck and continue tanking just a little bit longer because ______ [there will be logical reasons and arguments that arise to favor this].

My biggest thing is that we're going to reach a point where we will have to move forward. Where we differ is that you're approaching this from the angle of having the really good players in place first and then the secondary players later, but I believe the order of these will have to be reversed (not exclusively so but from a probability standpoint). I believe we'll have to move forward with talent and keep churning from there. It's not because I'm impatient in watching losing. I had plenty of enthusiasm and investment in the team when we were looking at the "core 4" and had a terrible coach (in addition to every single era we've thrown out since Stockton and Malone left). At least there was some semblance of knowing what we're trying to do, even if we didn't do it well. I can deal with losing. So the idea of grabbing a BI or whatever (not specifically him, but he's a good representative stand-in), for me, isn't about the idea that it's better to start being a fringe playoff team, it's that we need to actually build a team. DA had actually built a team before Tatum and Brown, even if none of those other guys are there now. Eventually we're going to have to make a move for a player with flaws, and I'm not talking about the John Collins type. We need actual talent on the team, and that will come with cost (and opportunity cost) but there's also an opportunity cost with staying in neutral. It reminds me of the partial lump-sum or full amount in installments with the lottery, and feeling like if we're patient then we can get the whole amount, when in reality the lump-sum gives us the opportunity to make more even if it's less up front. I'm ready to take the lump-sum.

[the above is a random assortment of thoughts I've put together piecemeal over the course of the day. It's not nearly as organized as I would like so I'm sure there are a lot of things in here I didn't flesh out very well... I'm not involved in whatever back and forth is going on currently...]
Click to expand...
Sir this is a Wendy’s
 
infection said:
Combining these two into one response. In relation to the first one, I have an eternal frustration with our direction since 2017 in regards to draft picks. Also it's a need for recognition of how we ended up in the position we're in and acknowledging what we thought would happen when we made initial decisions vs. how it played out and how we think about it now. I know that's a bit of a run-on sentence that's pretty vague but I'll try to clarify. The first part is a dead horse I've beat for some time, that in 2017 we desperately wanted to hold our pick because we just landed Donovan with a pick and we believed we had a shot at Doncic. The reality was that it was time for our mindset to pivot from collecting assets to building a contender. Our hopes of Doncic became Grayson Allen. We continued to hold on to our picks and DL "keeping the powder dry" thought he could just run it back. Back when Hayward left, we then started looking toward future free agents and our cap space timing and we'd talk about maybe we could land Klay or Kawhi the year they would be free agents (which is obviously laughable in hindsight). So now we know that Donovan is going to be a really good player and we continue to "keep the powder dry" until we reach a dead end (a cap space dead end with guys whose extensions will kick in) and we end up exchanging that for Conley. The Conley dead was fine, which isn't my point, but when people talked about keeping the powder dry (picks and cap space), they would have never imagined it was for Conley. We eventually got to that point as we accepted the reality (frog in slowly boiling water) but our continual justification for the "powder" being dry was for someone we believed to be a much bigger name than Conley.

So fast forward to when we blow up the team and everyone is excited for what's believed to be a treasure trove of assets. The great thing about assets is that they could be anything, like a asking a kindergarten class what they want to be when they grow up, because they have their whole future ahead of them and can shoot for the sky. We have thoughts of trading for the next disgruntled super star, or that we would be in the discussion for a Luka or a Giannis. A good encapsulation of that feeling is Ryan mentioning the KD deal and saying, effectively, "oh yeah, well we can do that deal 2 or 3 times." So as time has moved on more, we've pivoted from the idea of trading for a super star as I believe most people are recognizing that won't happen. So we then pivot to the idea of having to draft one. In conjunction with this, many are realizing that, from this vantage point, there's a pretty good likelihood that none of these picks we got end up being top 10 picks (and to speak about enthusiasm for top ten picks, look at the enthusiasm we have this your or about last year's #9 pick). I understand your position about not being able to control the fate of the other picks and thus we need to control what we can, make a sacrifice for the next two years, and try to secure, as much as possible, picks in the next two drafts that yield us the best chances at drafting guys who will be difference makers. What I would caution against is the tendency for this to appear like a desert mirage. Fast forward two years and (in this hypothetical) we haven't really done much structure building for the team, we see that we don't have enough fitting pieces to start to make a push, and perhaps we're underwhelmed by our draft results up until that point, and in a way that would be consistent with a sunk-cost fallacy, we decide that we've already put enough into tanking that we may as well get more bang for our buck and continue tanking just a little bit longer because ______ [there will be logical reasons and arguments that arise to favor this].

My biggest thing is that we're going to reach a point where we will have to move forward. Where we differ is that you're approaching this from the angle of having the really good players in place first and then the secondary players later, but I believe the order of these will have to be reversed (not exclusively so but from a probability standpoint). I believe we'll have to move forward with talent and keep churning from there. It's not because I'm impatient in watching losing. I had plenty of enthusiasm and investment in the team when we were looking at the "core 4" and had a terrible coach (in addition to every single era we've thrown out since Stockton and Malone left). At least there was some semblance of knowing what we're trying to do, even if we didn't do it well. I can deal with losing. So the idea of grabbing a BI or whatever (not specifically him, but he's a good representative stand-in), for me, isn't about the idea that it's better to start being a fringe playoff team, it's that we need to actually build a team. DA had actually built a team before Tatum and Brown, even if none of those other guys are there now. Eventually we're going to have to make a move for a player with flaws, and I'm not talking about the John Collins type. We need actual talent on the team, and that will come with cost (and opportunity cost) but there's also an opportunity cost with staying in neutral. It reminds me of the partial lump-sum or full amount in installments with the lottery, and feeling like if we're patient then we can get the whole amount, when in reality the lump-sum gives us the opportunity to make more even if it's less up front. I'm ready to take the lump-sum.

[the above is a random assortment of thoughts I've put together piecemeal over the course of the day. It's not nearly as organized as I would like so I'm sure there are a lot of things in here I didn't flesh out very well... I'm not involved in whatever back and forth is going on currently...]
Click to expand...
alright… I don’t disagree on the powder being dry issue. I’ve had lots of issues with Managment throughout the years including this regime.

We didn’t tank hard enough two years ago… I think it was a miscalculation. Part of my issue with the next two years and the direction of the team is any win now move that pushes our pick next year out of the top ten means we lose it. It’s truly going to be a great draft. Going from a decent shot to absolutely nothing sucks. I also look at the west and it’s really deep so any moves likely don’t push us to a playoff team unless they are pretty big. There are a few teams that are aging out though and the window to be a playoff team should open up a bit. Going to get BI or anyone on that level (aren’t many guys that are above that level that I think are or will be available) pushes us to Kings territory? I’m just not interested in that. Of others are that’s fine… but as you know that wasn’t the original idea.

I think it’s fine to hit the accelerator at some point I just think a two year pause is going to help things. You can supplement the rooks and Lauri with some vets with space if you set stuff and stick to a plan.

IDK to each their own but all this “this strategy never works” is what drives me nuts.
 
I think the Jazz will surprise this season. Remember Lauri was injured twice this past season thanks to Hardy being a dumb @#$#. Kessler battled the injury bug. Key, Tay Henny and Brice might surprise. Collins will be better and Clarkson or his replacement can't be as bad as last year's Clarkson. Add the No. 10 pick with the other two picks and there should be more talent next year than last year. I'm counting that we have seen the last of THT, Luka and Kira Lewis.
 
Elizah Huge said:
He quite literally has mentioned godfather offer multiple times. Interpret that any way you want.
Click to expand...
That’s what he’s worth. I wouldn’t trade him for less than a god father offer
Elizah Huge said:
We’re talking trade not sign
Click to expand...
Soooooooo we need to keep Lauri why? Trading Lauri means we have even more assets to trade and draft all the allstars and high level role players we need. Not sure we can without trading Lauri. Basically I’m where you are now. Keep Lauri unless we get what we are asking for. Jazz have already said they won’t trade Lauri unless they get 4-5 picks and a high value young player.
 
homeytennis said:
I think the Jazz will surprise this season. Remember Lauri was injured twice this past season thanks to Hardy being a dumb @#$#. Kessler battled the injury bug. Key, Tay Henny and Brice might surprise. Collins will be better and Clarkson or his replacement can't be as bad as last year's Clarkson. Add the No. 10 pick with the other two picks and there should be more talent next year than last year. I'm counting that we have seen the last of THT, Luka and Kira Lewis.
Click to expand...

I like the possibility of Brice coming back as a sophomore with a full healthy summer of work. He didn't have it last year.
 
Ferguson_Mellochill said:
I like the possibility of Brice coming back as a sophomore with a full healthy summer of work. He didn't have it last year.
Click to expand...
You can add Taylor to that as well. Having a full summer league of practices and play to go with a healthy summer could be big for those two.
 
Elizah Huge said:
That’s just not true at all but ok.
Click to expand...
OK, lets dig in the data to put away our biases. The nba.com gives the following list 7-footers who played>30 games at 10 MPG+ in 23/24: Wembanyama, Porzingis, Brook Lopez, Holmgren, Lively, Kornet, Ayton, Gobert, Hartenstein, Zubac, Poeltl, Embiid, Nurkic, Hayes, KAT, Markkanen, Mitchel Robinson, Queta, Mo Bamba, Kessler, Aldama, Nick Richards, 22 overall.

Now, according to basketballreference.com, Markkanen is the last, 13 out of 13 listed in DBPM (they have a high minute cutoff for these rankings). Also, Markkanen is listed there as 167 out of 185 total, he is surrounded mostly by offensive guards out there.

Now, lets look at the defensive estimated plus-minus at dunksandthrees.com: Markkanen is 20 out 22, with only Kornet and Nick Richards placing below him. Such defensive powerhouses as Lamelo, Duncan Robinson and the current version of Joe Ingles scored above him on D-EPM.

In short, different advanced defensive metrics list Markkanen as one of the very worst 7-footers getting consistent minutes. And the eye test is certainly confirming that.
 
@homeytennis "I think the Jazz will surprise this season. Remember Lauri was injured twice this past season thanks to Hardy being a dumb @#$#. Kessler battled the injury bug. Key, Tay Henny and Brice might surprise. Collins will be better and Clarkson or his replacement can't be as bad as last year's Clarkson. Add the No. 10 pick with the other two picks and there should be more talent next year than last year. I'm counting that we have seen the last of THT, Luka and Kira Lewis."

I get ya, but it is worth remembering that last year's injury bug isn't an isolated issue for Lauri. He has hit the 65-game award threshold only twice in 7 years, with those being 66 and 68 games respectively. He sat out more games than he probably needed the least two years to help the tank, but banking on 82 games from Lauri isn't a great bet
 
Last edited:
homeytennis said:
I think the Jazz will surprise this season.
Click to expand...
This is the requisite statement from every Jazz offseason in the last 5 years, with the Jazz predictably surprising first with first-round exits and, lately, with finishing deep in the lottery (but not deep enough to draft anyone meaningful).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top