We Need to Talk About Kevin

[freakazoid]

Did Big Amish see the RealGM discussion on Favors vs. Monroe vs. Cousins thread? Jazzfanz is banking on 3rd to 2nd team potential leading potentially good role players to a Detroit fairy tale.

Yep, saw it. One thing about realgm, though, is most of those guys never see a Jazz game, other than when Utah plays their team, and even then, they probably don't pay much attention. I still have faith in Favors, and I'm fine with the fact that he's never going to be a scoring machine. I'd rather have a dominant defensive big man, and find our offense elsewhere. I feel pretty good about Favors and Hayward going forward. My biggest problem with the majority of Jazz fans, is the idea that we can just assume Burks and Kanter will work out, instead of having a backup plan or two.

As for the Detroit thing, it has become a red flag whenever a GM mentions them. Teams don't try and emulate the exception to the rule. Bringing up Detroit is just GM speak for "We know we don't have any great players, so we are going to try and do the best with what we've got."

 

[Deleted member 848]

LOL. There is no truth to that, but I really don't blame you for continuing to repeat it, as sticking to the truth hasn't exactly worked out too well for you lately.

That's a bit of an understatement, but I'll let it go for now. No need to dwell on it at the moment, as we'll have plenty of chance to do so.



I've already said that KOC has done a great job overall, and he deserves a ton of credit for where the team is at right now. Just the same, I still think our FO dropped the ball this year by not making a follow-up trade and accepting it as a rebuild, instead of denying it was a rebuild at all. I was also serious when I said I'm not even really sure KOC was to blame for that, or if it had more to do with ownership not wanting to risk a drop in ticket sales.



Let's hope they do more than just listen to offers, because if our FO doesn't trade one of our expiring big men, and instead make another run at a 7th or 8th seed with this roster, I think the writing will be on the wall as far as where the priorities are for this francise. If they do, then I will be first in line to give praise. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. My preference for missing the playoffs had just as much to do with my concern about the FO not wanting to trade starters after having made the playoffs, as it did with losing trade value with our assets. If they do trade one or more of our starters, then it makes this season less of a bad decision.

Yep, saw it. One thing about realgm, though, is most of those guys never see a Jazz game, other than when Utah plays their team, and even then, they probably don't pay much attention. I still have faith in Favors, and I'm fine with the fact that he's never going to be a scoring machine. I'd rather have a dominant defensive big man, and find our offense elsewhere. I feel pretty good about Favors and Hayward going forward. My biggest problem with the majority of Jazz fans, is the idea that we can just assume Burks and Kanter will work out, instead of having a backup plan or two.

As for the Detroit thing, it has become a red flag whenever a GM mentions them. Teams don't try and emulate the exception to the rule. Bringing up Detroit is just GM speak for "We know we don't have any great players, so we are going to try and do the best with what we've got."

Now now Amish Mafioso, all has not been lost. Yeah, tanking would've helped; yeah, losing that one game against Golden State could have had mass ramifications. Less and less people are disagreeing with you- I just feel like you should watch out before you get to the IGS level of repeating the same posts over and over again. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the minutes that Hayward, Burks, and Favors got against the Spurs. Im happy that they got their butts whooped, so they know how much harder they have to work. I feel like this first playoff series will be a memory that Hayward won't forget for the rest of his career, especially since he shot like 18% from three (or something terrible like that). This rebuild hinges much more on the development of our current four youngins, than a 14th pick and a greater chance at an 8th or 9th (which could have still slipped to top three).

 

[franklin]

Yep, saw it. One thing about realgm, though, is most of those guys never see a Jazz game, other than when Utah plays their team, and even then, they probably don't pay much attention. I still have faith in Favors, and I'm fine with the fact that he's never going to be a scoring machine. I'd rather have a dominant defensive big man, and find our offense elsewhere. I feel pretty good about Favors and Hayward going forward. My biggest problem with the majority of Jazz fans, is the idea that we can just assume Burks and Kanter will work out, instead of having a backup plan or two.

As for the Detroit thing, it has become a red flag whenever a GM mentions them. Teams don't try and emulate the exception to the rule. Bringing up Detroit is just GM speak for "We know we don't have any great players, so we are going to try and do the best with what we've got."

Realgm is an isolation of the intelligence of a market, but the market is still just that no matter how much we want the coasts to give Utah extra basketball attention. Look, I'm not condemning Favors here--guy is a stud and we're all riding hope on him. But we're also all riding hope on him alone. It's clear Favors lacks the offensive talent of a Cousins or an Amare... but Jazz fans are practically banking on the notion of Favors becoming the next Dwight Superman. I'm not saying that won't happen but it is realistic to put the odds closer to the 1 in 100 longshot that it is. He'll be good--he is good--but building the team on that as franchise is in no way a sound strategy for a GM, and I don't care how much fans disapprove of the implications in the short term.

Bottom line is Jazz terribly need an improvement strategy outside the young talent on roster. This is where we are all in basic agreement, and where we diverge on moving the chess pieces. I think Jazz need to get aggressive in acquiring a go to scorer to put along side Favors and any improvement shown among the heirs to every other position outside point guard.

 

[Brown Notes]

LOL. There is no truth to that, but I really don't blame you for continuing to repeat it, as sticking to the truth hasn't exactly worked out too well for you lately.

Don't get all political. You ARE MAD at KOC for not losing on purpose. You've posted about a hundred grumpy times about it over the last 3 months. I disagree with you on the tanking thing on a basic, fundamental level. I see it from an integrity of the game POV, you see it as a facts of life type of thing. That's why I offered to drop it a month ago. It's a tired, tired, sad, beat up dead horse.

I didn't bring it up to contest the point, but rather to nudge you into getting over it.

 

[freakazoid]

This rebuild hinges much more on the development of our current four youngins, than a 14th pick and a greater chance at an 8th or 9th (which could have still slipped to top three).

Look Dal, you da man and everything, but 4 games of getting your *** kicked = exactly 4 games of getting your *** kicked. It wasn't some profound learning experience that is going to kick the development of our players into warp speed. It was a nice memory, and barely that. The nice part ended about 3 minutes into the first game. We will just have to agree to disagree. It was a good experience for our young guys, but it came at the cost of building the team, and it was a high cost. I guess we'll just have to wait and see just how high.

 

[freakazoid]

I didn't bring it up to contest the point, but rather to nudge you into getting over it.

And you, my friend, are full of ****. You use the phrase "losing on purpose" to provoke a response. Sadly, I fell for it. I'm pissed that Utah squandered an opportunity to swing for the fences, and what they sacrificed it for, but it has nothing to do with losing on purpose. That's just a phrase you and your kind throw out as an insult, because sticking to the facts doesn't bode well for you. Either that, or you really can't comprehend the difference between losing on purpose, and rebuilding or developing younger players. Those things don't guarantee losing, so there is a difference. I'm sorry if your mind isn't capable of understanding the difference. All you really need to know is the team would have been better off.

 

[Dr. Jones]

And you, my friend, are full of ****. You use the phrase "losing on purpose" to provoke a response. Sadly, I fell for it. I'm pissed that Utah sqaundered an opportunity to swing for the fences, and what they sacrificed it for, but it has nothing to do with losing on purpose. That's just a phrase you and your kind throw out as an insult, because sticking to the facts doesn't bode well for you. Either that, or you really can't comprehend the difference between losing on purpose, and rebuiding or developing younger players. Those things don't guarantee losing, so there is a difference. I'm sorry if your mind isn't capable of understanding the difference. All you really need to know is the team would have been better off.

I am 100% aligned with Matt on this. The 'losing on purpose' is over-used, mis-used, irresponsible, and offensive (if I cared). Anyway, this ^^^.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So Freak, tell me, would the Jazz be better off if they missed the playoffs this season? It's something I've been trying to decide, and I can't quite make up my mind.

 

[Brown Notes]

And you, my friend, are full of ****. You use the phrase "losing on purpose" to provoke a response. Sadly, I fell for it. I'm pissed that Utah sqaundered an opportunity to swing for the fences, and what they sacrificed it for, but it has nothing to do with losing on purpose. That's just a phrase you and your kind throw out as an insult, because sticking to the facts doesn't bode well for you. Either that, or you really can't comprehend the difference between losing on purpose, and rebuiding or developing younger players. Those things don't guarantee losing, so there is a difference. I'm sorry if your mind isn't capable of understanding the difference. All you really need to know is the team would have been better off.

I guess "your kind" just can't get over an issue for the purpose of a discussion. Super classy post big guy. **** off.

 

[Dr. Jones]

So Freak, tell me, would the Jazz be better off if they missed the playoffs this season? It's something I've been trying to decide, and I can't quite make up my mind.

Not Freak .. sorry for the intrusion. I think both sides have a fair and valid argument and there is no sure right or wrong answer.
For my taste, it's not just about having a lottery pick .. it's about getting our beloved and coveted core 4 more playing time and more of it playing TOGETHER. Preparing for the future. That, and a lottery pick, is more important than the 'winning culture' they experienced against the Spurs.

But I see the other side as well ..

 

[Dr. Jones]

I guess "your kind" just can't get over an issue for the purpose of a discussion. Super classy post big guy. **** off.

Hey kettle, this is my friend pot, pot, kettle.

 

[Brown Notes]

Hey kettle, this is my friend pot, pot, kettle.

Step 1. BN makes an assertion.

Step 2. Harp jumps on it as a soap box to bitch about missing picks.

Step 3. BN attempts to point out that Harp might be a little overboard on the matter, that it's not really what I'm talking about.

Step 4. Harp makes it a pissy catfight over something I don't even want to drag out again. Thread derailed.

Step 5. BN gives Harp the finger. Probably shouldn't have. Sorry.


Let's revisit this pile of steaming garbage again, for PKM's sake.

And you, my friend, are full of ****. You use the phrase "losing on purpose" to provoke a response. Sadly, I fell for it. I'm pissed that Utah sqaundered an opportunity to swing for the fences, and what they sacrificed it for, but it has nothing to do with losing on purpose. That's just a phrase you and your kind throw out as an insult, because sticking to the facts doesn't bode well for you. Either that, or you really can't comprehend the difference between losing on purpose, and rebuiding or developing younger players. Those things don't guarantee losing, so there is a difference. I'm sorry if your mind isn't capable of understanding the difference. All you really need to know is the team would have been better off.

This paragraph is so disingenuous, so hypocritical, it's hysterical. Harp has been not-so-subtly inferring that anyone against tanking is just denying reality, is stupid, doesn't know anything about how to build a team, etc. For MONTHS. He specifically called out the last game vs. GS as a must lose game that was a turning point. We all know GS put a tanking clinic on. In order to lose that game Utah would have had to do it on purpose. That's what tanking is. If Harp finds that fact offensive maybe he's the guy not willing to face reality.

The fact is, if Utah had played the young guys more and still won the same amount of games Harp would still be mad. It is not about developing anything, it's just about assets. He further fails to recognize that all the young players improved, particularly Favors, despite the idea that Corbs kept the leash so tight. We just had an excellent blog posted that was all about how great practice experience is and was for Kanter. There is a legit POV that refutes Harp's stance on tanking.

Finally, here he goes being a total douche in order to accuse me of being exactly that, when he's the guy that jumped all over me to begin with. All I ever said from the get go was that the team was in an excellent position to continue to get better roster wise, which is what evaluating the GM position is all about.

For the record, I loved Harp the player and enjoy his broadcasting personality.

 

[vj_74]

would the Jazz be better off if they missed the playoffs this season? It's something I've been trying to decide, and I can't quite make up my mind.

Yes of course they would be. Because it doesn't matter at all that they have already got 4 lotto picks.
It is that 5th lotto pick that was going to get them the championship that has been eluding them for what , about 30+ years now? Amazing how that works but that's how it is.The Jazz missed the bus bigtime. You will know it for sure when you see the Jazz not winning it all for the next 3 years.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hey kettle, this is my friend pot, pot, kettle.

You know Pot?? REALLY?!?!

You really do have crazy connections. No-diggity.

 

[Stoked]

I am 100% aligned with Matt on this. The 'losing on purpose' is over-used, mis-used, irresponsible, and offensive (if I cared). Anyway, this ^^^.

Yeah they were irresponsible to do so and I ****ing hope those no good **********s are offended. The Tankers can blow me.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Yes of course they would be. Because it doesn't matter at all that they have already got 4 lotto picks.
It is that 5th lotto pick that was going to get them the championship that has been eluding them for what , about 30+ years now? Amazing how that works but that's how it is.The Jazz missed the bus bigtime. You will know it for sure when you see the Jazz not winning it all for the next 3 years.

Um, a single digit pick in a deep draft looks pretty good now compared to getting "playoff experience" vs. the over-the-hill Spurs.

 

[billyshelby]

Making the playoffs is better than not making the playoffs. Yes, I believe in culture and the experience it gives young players, but admittedly that's not quantifiable. The quantifiable reason is getting maximum value for assets.

This season, dealing Sap, Al, or Devin at the deadline would not have gotten us a high pick. Alternatively, playing Burks/Hayward/Favors/Kanter mucho minutes might have gotten us a better pick, but at the cost of devaluing Al and Sap.

Al/Devin/Sap have more value to other teams as expirings (Sap might have had a little more at last year's deadline). And as expirings, we have more leverage in deals since letting them simply drop off the books is an attractive option.

So what I see is KOC playing his hand very well, and making or missing the playoffs was incidental. But he's at the critical moment when he has to play his winnings into a jackpot. No one remembers the guy who almost scaled Everest.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Making the playoffs is better than not making the playoffs. Yes, I believe in culture and the experience it gives young players, but admittedly that's not quantifiable. The quantifiable reason is getting maximum value for assets.

This season, dealing Sap, Al, or Devin at the deadline would not have gotten us a high pick. Alternatively, playing Burks/Hayward/Favors/Kanter mucho minutes might have gotten us a better pick, but at the cost of devaluing Al and Sap.

Al/Devin/Sap have more value to other teams as expirings (Sap might have had a little more at last year's deadline). And as expirings, we have more leverage in deals since letting them simply drop off the books is an attractive option.

So what I see is KOC playing his hand very well, and making or missing the playoffs was incidental. But he's at the critical moment when he has to play his winnings into a jackpot. No one remembers the guy who almost scaled Everest.

Nor do they remember the team who got shellacked in the first round in the name of culture and experience

 

[orangello]

Nor do they remember the team who got shellacked in the first round in the name of culture and experience

This post wins.

 

[Brown Notes]

Making the playoffs is better than not making the playoffs. Yes, I believe in culture and the experience it gives young players, but admittedly that's not quantifiable. The quantifiable reason is getting maximum value for assets.

This season, dealing Sap, Al, or Devin at the deadline would not have gotten us a high pick. Alternatively, playing Burks/Hayward/Favors/Kanter mucho minutes might have gotten us a better pick, but at the cost of devaluing Al and Sap.

Al/Devin/Sap have more value to other teams as expirings (Sap might have had a little more at last year's deadline). And as expirings, we have more leverage in deals since letting them simply drop off the books is an attractive option.

So what I see is KOC playing his hand very well, and making or missing the playoffs was incidental. But he's at the critical moment when he has to play his winnings into a jackpot. No one remembers the guy who almost scaled Everest.

I wouldn't go so far as to call missing out on this year's picks as inconsequential, but not worthy of bashing the GM. There was very good value to be had with the GS one. Agree with all the rest though. Clearly a case can be made that Jeff should have been moved at the deadline but maybe there just wasn't enough compensation in the market at that time.

I do now believe Al must be moved sooner rather than later. I wouldn't wait until during the season even knowing his value will increase. It's time for the young bigs to take over.

Hopefully there is enough to get Rondo out of Boston. I think those guys are ready for a rebuild now that they are out.