If the Clippers deal was true and the Jazz were the ones who didn't pull the trigger I would probably stop watching--you can't root for a team where your front office is working against you (see the Kings).
But I doubt it. It's hard to pin down the logic of the Jazz refusing that trade.
The only two reasons I can come up with have giant holes:
The Jazz don't like Bledsoe
Hole: it doesn't matter whether they like him or not. They can't deny he's an intriguing prospect with a high ceiling. Millsap is gone at the end of the year in all likelihood. You're not giving up an asset--you're getting something for a piece you're losing anyway. Carroll is a nice rotation piece but nothing more. If Bledsoe doesn't work out you deal with that later. With the Indiana deal, you've got to be sure on Granger because if not you've just sunk your franchise--that's the stakes; the Jazz of course weren't sure, and did the smart thing by turning the deal down. Bledsoe--there's no way that trade can bite you. If you decide Bledsoe isn't your guy, fine; trade him or let him walk.
And, this one seems (unfortunately) much more likely: The Jazz wanted to make the playoffs this year, thought the Clippers trade would have prohibited them from doing so (probably would have), and believe Bledsoe or a piece like him will still be on the table during the offseason (but what would the Jazz trade for him?).
This is the only logical explanation for turning that trade down, and it's not logical. It's horrible. You're not even making the playoffs with Millsap.
Still, I highly doubt the Clippers actually put this on the table. I have no doubt there was a conversation, but it makes no sense on the Jazz end to turn it down. Clippers probably wanted Garnett and were using the Jazz as leverage.
