What's new
By:

David Locke - Utah Jazz are NOT tanking

ONE LOVE said:
He didn’t have to say anything. He didn’t have to address it even. It’s his show he could talk about anything he wants. The Sexton injury. The plays.., etc..

But Andy Larsen wrote the Tank article so I guess he brought it upon himself to defend the Org and set the record straight I think.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's the most blatantly obvious storyline of the remainder of the season. It would be odd to talk about the Jazz and not talk about it. I just don't know what people expect....and honestly why does it matter? Do we need a team employee to say that the team is trying to lose/doesn't care to win for the rest of the year? It's his job to get people interested in the Jazz. He SHOULD be proactive against the narrative that the rest of the season doesn't matter. Of course he wants to set the record "straight".

Tanking is seriously such a crazy thing. Not saying it's wrong, but people do have to step back and realize what it is and how it lands with normal people. It's very backwards to even consider losing on purpose in a competition. I have no expectation that any team employee say that the team wants to lose. If you're wanting Locke to say, "yes the Jazz are taking" while the season is still going you'd have better luck looking for beachfront property in Kansas.
 
KqWIN said:
I mean, it's the most blatantly obvious storyline of the remainder of the season. It would be odd to talk about the Jazz and not talk about it. I just don't know what people expect....and honestly why does it matter? Do we need a team employee to say that the team is trying to lose/doesn't care to win for the rest of the year? It's his job to get people interested in the Jazz. He SHOULD be proactive against the narrative that the rest of the season doesn't matter. Of course he wants to set the record "straight".

Tanking is seriously such a crazy thing. Not saying it's wrong, but people do have to step back and realize what it is and how it lands with normal people. It's very backwards to even consider losing on purpose in a competition. I have no expectation that any team employee say that the team wants to lose. If you're wanting Locke to say, "yes the Jazz are taking" while the season is still going you'd have better luck looking for beachfront property in Kansas.
Click to expand...
Yeah but who is he though? He’s the radio play by play right? This YouTube thing is his side gig. Like someone else had mentioned in this thread the Jazz aren’t paying him to defend the Org.

The Jazz isn’t paying him to come on YouTube to say anything regarding the tank. He could have talked about a lot of other things. Yet he chooses to talk down to the fan base as if we don’t know what’s going on and slated Andy in the process.

I listen to the Hoop collective podcast by Brian Windhorst and co. quite a bit and at least they are honest about what’s going on a round the league without having an agenda.

But this isn’t the case with Locke right now.
 
Pinhead said:
Locke works for the Jazz and literally flies around with the team. If you are looking for a neutral or critical point of view then you are looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

He doesn’t present himself as such though. When he’s on YouTube it’s like he’s not operating in that capacity. So instead of getting the real analysis we’re looking for we’re not.

He also said right at the end that he had broke down with some “real analysis” as to why we’re not tanking.

I mean if we’re gonna continue to pretend Dok is an NBA player and that DA still needs to see him play to ‘assess’ him amidst a playoff push then yeah .. that’s some real analysis right there’s.. lol
 
I went back to check the thread and the conversation is all over the place. Lets focus on the trade though, as that seems to be the key piece of evidence that FO is trying to increase losses.

Since the trade deadline there is clear and undisputable evidence that we havent achieved that goal
  • our winning percentage has not gotten any worse... in fact it has gotten better despite playing 4 games on the road and 3 at home
  • our distance to the bottom has increased (means we are "losing in the tank race")
  • our best players are getting more minutes, opportunity, touches and shots and are piling up better stats as a result. Surely this was something they KNEW was going to happen (as it was the true primary goal of the trade)
Now again, the trade did make us worse by gutting the bench to some extent. But that was never the goal of the trade. The goal was that Lauri, Kessler, Ochai and Sexton get maximum opportunity going forward. 2nd goal was to add more assets. 3rd goal was to add future cap space. (order might be different)

However it took 3 additional injuries to the guard position for us to lose "due to the trade". Without those injuries, we would likely be 5-2 after the deadline.

Also you all are dodging the question... why are JC and KO here? Right now the word is we are gonna offer JC backup money and 6th man role, which means he is possibly going to say "no thanks" and walk for free. If that happens people will call it stupid that we didn't cash any assets off of him while we could. Why didn't we? Wasnt that the perfect tanking trade to make anyways, removing a 30 year old who has single handedly won us many games this year and is top 5 in NBA.com clutch ladder?
 
Its funny how everyone arguing for the tank keeps circling around the semantics of "then no one has ever tanked" or getting stuck on words like non-competive meaning you have to lose everything. That just tells me there are no quality arguments to be made to support the idea of us tanking.

You cannot produce any stats or anything resembling concrete evidence that we are actually significantly worse now than before the deadline. Making us insignificantly worse should for all intents and purposes be considered as "bad tanking effort".

I like Andy Larsen... but also what he argues in his article is mainly that Hardy is tanking. @Handlogten's Heros and @ONE LOVE you have both said Hardy is 100% trying to win and/or that coaches/players dont tank.
 
HermanG said:
Wasn't really intended as one. I thought you are flaming me on purpose.
Click to expand...

First of all I have never, and will never flame anyone on purpose. So please stop right there.

HermanG said:
Since the trade deadline there is clear and undisputable evidence that we havent achieved that goal
  • our winning percentage has not gotten any worse... in fact it has gotten better despite playing 4 games on the road and 3 at home
  • our distance to the bottom has increased (means we are "losing in the tank race")
  • our best players are getting more minutes, opportunity, touches and shots and are piling up better stats as a result. Surely this was something they KNEW was going to happen (as it was the true primary goal of the trade)
Click to expand...

Again, there are 3 elements to the team that I see as it pertains to this, the FO, the coach, the players.

The FO, in my opinion, clearly made the decision designed to make us worse off by trading away 3 starters as we approach the playoffs push in Vando, Beasely and Conley.

The Coach, in my opinion, has been told to coach the team to win every single game given the players he has. DA does this to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team. But by design, following the trade he has had less and less players to work with after the trade deadline.

The players, as it follows, have been told to play every possession and every game as hard as they possibly can. But again, there is less and less depth to work with following the trade deadline. Again, this is to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team.

So I think this is where the disconnect is between us. Some of us are looking at this and don't see that we're tanking, cos, as you've said, we've been winning, etc. But people like me, see the decision made by people at the top, i.e., the FO , Danny Ainge, as a decision to "tank" because it clearly made the team worse off by reducing depth.

Again, I'll say FO made a tanking decision, with the trade but the Coach and the players have been told to coach and play hard as to still preserve the "Winning Culture" DA wants to create going forward.
 
Last edited:
HermanG said:
Also you all are dodging the question... why are JC and KO here? Right now the word is we are gonna offer JC backup money and 6th man role, which means he is possibly going to say "no thanks" and walk for free. If that happens people will call it stupid that we didn't cash any assets off of him while we could. Why didn't we? Wasnt that the perfect tanking trade to make anyways, removing a 30 year old who has single handedly won us many games this year and is top 5 in NBA.com clutch ladder?
Click to expand...

The JC and KO decision, ok I'll address that now.

Rumors during the deadline had been that DA had been asking for at least a future first for JC alone. It seems like that's DA's bargaining tactic, and that's how he was able to get such a large haul for Rudy and Mitchell, by asking for the moon, and say we will stand pat if we don't get it. This is evident when we didn't trade Mitchell to NY. By all accounts the Jazz and NY were at a stand still playing a game of chicken, who would blink first? DA's threat would be only as good as his action and he didn't blink, but instead turned to Cavs when they offered an equally attractive package for him. Word is DA never went back to NY again and just executed the trade with the Cavs right then and there.

We can all agree JC was very valuable to a contending team at the deadline, equal to or more so than the Vando/Beasely/Conley package. So it could be that DA asked for a 1st round pick (or bust), and eventually at the deadline no team was willing to part with that package hence no trade was made. DA was not about to turn around and then offer JC for a bunch of 2nd round picks, because again, his threat is only as good as his action following it. By doing so would jeopardize other threats he make in the future during trade negotiations.

Why is KO still here? He wasn't playing good enough with the injury and whatnot. I think he clearly followed the JC/Vando/Beasly/Conley in the pecking order.
 
Last edited:
HermanG said:
You cannot produce any stats or anything resembling concrete evidence that we are actually significantly worse now than before the deadline. Making us insignificantly worse should for all intents and purposes be considered as "bad tanking effort".

I like Andy Larsen... but also what he argues in his article is mainly that Hardy is tanking. @Handlogten's Heros and @ONE LOVE you have both said Hardy is 100% trying to win and/or that coaches/players dont tank.
Click to expand...

Again, like some had said earlier in this thread, you cannot look at just the results alone, it's too simplistic. You have to look at the decisions made because as I've laid out there are 3 elements to this, the FO, the Coach and the Players.

And the 3 are separate entities, clearly because if you go look at the infamous JC press conference following the Conley trade, he was taken a back by Conley and Co. leaving big time. He just looked sad and disheartened, I don't think he saw that coming AT ALL.

Why? Because so far since the start of the season he had been told by the Coach to Win at all cost. But at the deadline, he now sees that the FO had made a tanking move and trade away 3 of the 5 starters. You cannot make a serious run at the playoffs with that kind of move.
 
Last edited:
ONE LOVE said:
First of all I have never, and will never flame anyone on purpose. So please stop right there.
Click to expand...
Cy doesnt count I guess? But fair enough, it works both ways. I will stop here.

ONE LOVE said:
Again, there are 3 elements to the team that I see as it pertains to this, the FO, the coach, the players.

The FO, in my opinion, clearly made the decision designed to make us worse off by trading away 3 starters as we approach the playoffs push in Vando, Beasely and Conley.

The Coach, in my opinion, has been told to coach the team to win every single game given the players he has. DA does this to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team. But by design, following the trade he has had less and less players to work with after the trade deadline.

The players, as it follows, have been told to play every possession and every game as hard as they possibly can. But again, there is less and less depth to work with following the trade deadline. Again, this is to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team.

So I think this is where the disconnect is between us. Some of us are looking at this and don't see that we're tanking, cos, as you've said, we've been winning, etc. But people like me, see the decision made by people at the top, i.e., the FO , Danny Ainge, as a decision to "tank" because it clearly made the team worse off by reducing depth.

Again, I'll say FO made a tanking decision, with the trade but the Coach and the players have been told to coach and play hard as to still preserve the "Winning Culture" DA wants to create going forward.
Click to expand...
There is not a single piece of objective evidence here. Just your opinions. And I repeat, I do agree the trade made us worse. But not bad enough to fall significantly in the standings.

If it was a tanking move as you speculate it was a very poor effort in that. They surely knew who will get more minutes and shots after trading away those 3.
 
ONE LOVE said:
The JC and KO decision, ok I'll address that now.

Rumors during the deadline had been that DA had been asking for at least a future first for JC alone. It seems like that's DA's bargaining tactic, and that's how he was able to get such a large haul for Rudy and Mitchell, by asking for the moon, and say we will stand pat if we don't get it. This is evident when we didn't trade Mitchell to NY. By all accounts the Jazz and NY were at a stand still playing a game of chicken, who would blink first? DA's threat would be only as good as his action and he didn't blink, but instead turned to Cavs when they offered an equally attractive package for him. Word is DA never went back to NY again and just executed the trade with the Cavs right then and there.

We can all agree JC was very valuable to a contending team at the deadline, equal to or more so than the Vando/Beasely/Conley package. So it could be that DA asked for a 1st round pick (or bust), and eventually at the deadline no team was willing to part with that package hence no trade was made. DA was not about to turn around and then offer JC for a bunch of 2nd round picks, because again, his threat is only as good as his action following it. By doing so would jeopardize other threats he make in the future during trade negotiations.

Why is KO still here? He wasn't playing good enough with the injury and whatnot. I think he clearly followed the JC/Vando/Beasly/Conley in the pecking order.
Click to expand...
Why does DA not getting enough value work as evidence? If you tank, you get rid of the guy for the best value available. Trading JC is lose now. If we let him walk for free.. whats the excuse of not picking up those 2nd round picks in the deadline if we were looking to tank as well?

Also for KO... he has played more minutes per game than Vando and Beasley so argument that he was further down the pecking order is very subjective. Also has more PPG than Conley or Vando and only 1.7 less than Beasley. Still a guy who contributes to winning now... especially since the guy behind him in the depth chart is Rudy Gay.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Again, like some had said earlier in this thread, you cannot look at just the results alone, it's too simplistic. You have to look at the decisions made because as I've laid out there are 3 elements to this, the FO, the Coach and the Players.

And the 3 are separate entities, clearly because if you go look at the infamous JC press conference following the Conley trade, he was taken a back by Conley and Co. leaving big time. He just looked sad and disheartened, I don't think he saw that coming AT ALL.

Why? Because so far since the start of the season he had been told by the Coach to Win at all cost. But at the deadline, he now sees that the FO had made a tanking move and trade away 3 of the 5 starters. You cannot make a serious run at the playoffs with that kind of move.
Click to expand...
You use the plural "decissions", like there were multiple ones. Yet you judge them by 1 decission in this regard.

We also made another decission within 48 hours of that trade. That was to waive Leandro Bolmaro... who just wanted minutes. Was he too good and going to ruin the tank? What is the excuse we waive a bad player away instead of "evaluating" him if we are tanking. Bolmaro asks for minutes and FO says "bye bye". They had every right to go to Hardy and tell him we need to evaluate this guy before letting him go for free.

Also the non-actions like not trading JC and KO count as well. You know we had offers for both and could have taken them. That would be the sensible thing to do if losing is a priority.... but it wasnt. Or do you disagree?
 
We can debate for ages about the strategy. The only truth are the result. So we will see how we end in the next 2 or 3 years and only then we will see if the strategy was good or not.

My only concern for this year is that we end 11 at west just because there is 10 teams better than us. 11 is not a good spot and in this case, i would have prefer to tank and end 13 or 14. We will see in 20 games.
 
FrenchJazzFa said:
We can debate for ages about the strategy. The only truth are the result. So we will see how we end in the next 2 or 3 years and only then we will see if the strategy was good or not.

My only concern for this year is that we end 11 at west just because there is 10 teams better than us. 11 is not a good spot and in this case, i would have prefer to tank and end 13 or 14. We will see in 20 games.
Click to expand...
I agree. Its also a very semantic debate about the term and centered around the "intentions" of our FO which is likely to be revealed in a book released 10 years from now..
 
Geez, when i talked about trading conley earlier this year (i wanted more minutes for sexton) people acted like the team would fall apart without him. Like he was the greatest floor general of all time and no one else on the roster could do what he could do. That conley was the reason Lauri was playing so good and if conley were gone then lauri would fall apart. If we traded conley that would clearly show we were tanking.


Now im reading that trading conley (along with 3 other contributors) wasnt a good enough effort by DA to tank.

Again, we could trade Markennan for Lowry and if Lowry suddenly played great for us and we won some games against some mediocre teams then some people would say it wasnt a tank trade cause we still won games after the trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top