What's new
By:

Jazz rebuilt too fast

L

Lord of Turnovers

New Member
With Boozer gone and Okur very possibly having had a career-changing injury it is a good time to look back at the achievements of the first post-Stockton-and-Malone team. It was a good team, they were in the 3-5 range in the West for a while. However, they never went to the Finals and were in the Conference finals only once.

Why? Yeah, they had some injuries, but it was'nt anything on the scale of Houston. Every team has its share. Even when perfectly healthy the Jazz did not look as the team that was going to come out of the West. There was AK's contract, but, again, almost every team has some bad contract of this magnitude:, AK was a good, productive player, he was just overpaid by 5-7 million. Nothing on the scale of Curry.

I have my theory - the Jazz never became a serious contender because they have rebuilt too fast. Several teams in the league (the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Heat) can win by attracting star players via trades/free agency - big markets, good locations, storied past etc. Like the most of the teams the Jazz cant do that, so the only way for them to get top players is through the high draft picks.

Unfortunately, the Jazz rebuilt extremely fast, getting only one top-10 pick (Deron). Yeah, they got two decent bigs, that soaked up almost all their available money - Okur and Boozer. But they were unable to surround them with additional quality pieces, since all that they had were mid and late first-round picks. And Okur, Boozer and Deron are not the players that could carry the team with many holes on their own. The result: no servicable SG and no quality defensive big, despite all the Jazz' attempts to get them (Borchardt, Araujo, Koufus, Brewer, CJ, Almond...)

Many of the Jazz fans were proud how fast the Jazz rebuilt, but actually it was their biggest mistake. If you are a small market team and want to have a shot at the championship the only thing you can do is to stay really-really bad for 3-4 years (except for the lucky shots like SA drafting a one-in-a-generation big).

Look at the current most promising young teams: all of them were in the deep rebuilding mode for at least 3 years: Sonics/Thunder (2007 - 2 pick, 2008- 4, 2009 -3), Portland (2005 -3, 2006 - 4, 2007 - 1), Bucks (2005 - 1, 2007 - 6, 2008 - 8, 2009 - 10).

If the Jazz ever want to win a championship, there are only two options. The first is to hope that they can again somehow pull off the biggest all-times steals of the draft (Stockton and Malone). The other way is to go into the full-scale rebuilding, and stay at the bottom for 3 years accumulating high picks. Unfortunately, I know that the team's owner and management will never do it. That is why the Jazz are destined to always be in the playoffs... and never win it all.

P.S. Just think about it, had the Jazz spent one more year in rebuilding after drafting Deron, they would have had a shot at drafting Aldridge, Roy and Gay, one more year - Durant, Horford and Noah.
 
Clippers??? You don't want to be in the lottery every year because they are often crapshoots and KOC has found good second round talent. What the Jazz are guilty of more than any other team in this league is not taking chances on high risk/ high reward picks and FA's so they've been stuck in the good but not contending mode for about three seasons.
 
Last edited:
I completely disagree. Utah will still make the playoffs next year, and they have assests. They have a couple of TPE's, they have an expiring contract, they have a very talented seven footer, they have decent role players, and a couple of draft picks that look like they can be solid NBA players. Wait until after the lockout before you get disheartened. Let's hope the owners stay as pissed as they sound right now about the Miami Heat and player summitt and they might institute a hard cap, or more realistically, essentially the same thing with with very, VERY strict lux tax penalties (like a $3 per $1 over). If that is the case, then Utah becomes no less appealing than Green Bay, Kansas City, Tampa Bay in the NFL and they have no problem getting Free Agents.
 
Making the playoffs is more important than oxygen to some Jazz fans. I hate it when this topic comes up because "the Clippers" excuse comes up. No one thinks the Jazz will ever become the clippers but I would have been OK losing for three years to get more top 5 picks to build this team. I am sure OKC fans would agree with me.
 
The part that bugs me is look at all the teams that have been bad for the last forever. They have gotten all these high draft picks for years and where has is got them? Of Course the Clippers are used because they are the worst of the worst. For every OKC, Portland, and Milwalkee (see OP) There are the Warriors, Nets, Bulls, 76ers, Gizz, and Knicks. All of these teams have been bad for over 3-5 years and have multipule top 10 picks on there teams. Plus how many of those teams just mentioned have ether been sold or are up for sale because they have been bad for so long that they are losing tons of money. And were has that gotten them. More picks, Plus bad FA contracts. The Bulls may have a pretty good team going forward now. But It has 8 YEARS (1999-2007) of horrible teams to get there. The Jazz did a great job of keeping the team competitive and being in the playoffs. And by doing so make money. You can never say that being bad for 3-5 years is going to get you any place. Its a complete crap shoot in the draft.
 
Miami doesn't have the market size of LA or Chicago or even NY or Dallas but let's see what they did:

2003 -- Draft Wade 5th overall, build team around him
2006 -- Win championship
Late 2006 to early 2010 -- so-so years
2010 -- Re-sign Wade, add Lebron, Bosh, all through 2014, probably win championship(s)

Now that is a team that rebuilt 'too fast' and it hasn't been a bad thing.
 
I disagree. Gasol trade is what killed us. We definitely make the WCF and have a good shot at winning the west at least one of the past three seasons if not for that. The Lakers could have very well beaten us without Gasol though, but you figure with Bynum's injuries they get a lower seed and someone else takes them out.
 
if that was the case...let me think...the clippers play in a large market city....they haven't not won anything, golden state warriors haven't when rick berry was playing with them in the 70's, who else washington. these are team that play in a much larger market city so overall i think utah done very well for the smallest market city
 
The Jazz made good moves during their re-build. At the time they maxed AK, he was regarded as being a better player than Pau Gasol, so they gave him a similar contract. It turned out to be an oppressive contract, but AK could easily have been picked up by another team like Dallas, who was high on him. The Jazz targeted Okur as their big free agent, and when Boozer magically became available, the Jazz had to take him as a great, free asset.

Along the way, the Jazz parlayed Giricek into Kyle Korver, who helped dramatically for a year or two. They picked up Millsap, Miles, and Fess in the 2nd round, which wasn't bad. The Jazz couldn't have foreseen that AK would stop playing hard once he got his big contract or that Boozer wouldn't play hard and would sit out. They had higher hopes for Ronnie Brewer and CJ Miles, both were good athletes who have had some borderline all-star potential.

You can't blame them for signing high-character guys like Derrick Fisher and Matt Harpring to hold the team together during the process.

The Jazz blew their draft when they picked two lemons in Kris Humphries and Kirk Snyder. Morris Almond and Kosta Koufos could have turned out better, but I can't think of any obvious players the Jazz should have taken instead--maybe DeAndre Jordan?

There haven't been many big opportunities that the Jazz have missed out on, to be honest. It would be great if the Jazz got Pau Gasol instead of the Lakers, but there haven't been that many home-run trades available. If the Jazz had traded AK for Marion, who knows how well that would have worked out. Marion would have left after a year, and the Jazz would have chased other free agents.

The Jazz have a bit of a reputation for being the team that players go to when they need to prove themselves and raise their stock, then they get a big paycheck and go somewhere else. For a lot of players, they just don't want to play in Utah, so that weighs into just about every decision the Jazz front office makes. There are several players this applies to--Raja Bell, Shandon Anderson, Kirk Snyder and DeShawn Stevenson are examples. It's interesting that Boozer was willing to come back, but it was the Jazz that didn't make him an offer.
 
To those who mentioned the hopelessly stuck in the lottery Clippers and Warriors - yeah, I did not say that this way is without its pitfalls. Three (or even more) years of high picks do not guarantee the team a championship. However, it seems to be the only realistic road to the championship for the small-market teams. No pain, no gain. And the Jazz, unlike the Clips or Warriors had a commited owner and good organization, so their chances of falling off the map for a decade were pretty small.

To those who keeps thinking that the Jazz were ever among the West best, and only Gasol's trade prevented them from going deeper - you are dreaming. The Jazz were never better than the Spurs. And they would have probably lost to Dallas too. They were a team on the level of Houston and Denver, that why their meetings were so intense. The team built around Deron, Boozer, Okur and AK was simply not good enough to be a contender without several more good role players. And the late first round is not the place to draft good role players without some serious luck.

Now, just think if the Jazz had high lottery picks for 2 more years after drafting Deron - we could be talking about the starting five of Deron, Roy, AK, Boozer and Noah (with Okur off the bench), for example. This team looks like something.

Boozer was never good enough to be the big man that carries the team to the championship. Second-round (or even the late first-round ) picks simply are not good enough for it, unless you have a Jordan on your team. The sad part is that the Jazz learned nothing and they are as afraid of going into the rebuilding mode now as ever. We are looking at additional 4-5 years of second-round playoff exits, unless Deron bolts away.
 
The Jazz had 2 all-time great players playing together for more than 15 years. They made the NBA Finals twice, but typically lost in the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs every year. They didn't get past the first round for a few years until they brought in Jeff Malone and later Jeff Hornacek. I think Jazz fans are a bit spoiled. The Jazz used to sell out their arenas and fans would be excited about making the playoffs. Now the expectations seem to be higher all of a sudden, and everyone is disappointed unless the Jazz make the WCF or the Finals.

The Jazz are actually in a pretty good position. They have decent players at every position. They have youth. And for the first time in years, they have a little financial flexibility. If the Jazz can pick up one or two key players, they'll be right near the top of the west.
 
Sloanfeld said:
I disagree. Gasol trade is what killed us. We definitely make the WCF and have a good shot at winning the west at least one of the past three seasons if not for that. The Lakers could have very well beaten us without Gasol though, but you figure with Bynum's injuries they get a lower seed and someone else takes them out.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That "gift" in the form of a trade shifted all the balance in the West, and even in the league. If Gasol is not wearing a Lakers uniform, maybe Boozer is not getting his head handed to him in every Lakers series on a platter.
 
ncoloradojazz said:
catchall...The goal every year needs to be to win a championship or you shouldnt even play the game
Click to expand...

Uhhh. I hope you're kidding. If you think like that, you end up like the NY Knicks, 100 million over the cap, with big names, and no real talent.
 
ncoloradojazz said:
catchall...The goal every year needs to be to win a championship or you shouldnt even play the game
Click to expand...

It takes years, skill and some luck to build and hone a championship-level team. You have to build the team piece by piece over several seasons, as opportunities to improve present themselves. Of course, teams try to build towards that, but any given year there are only really 2 or 3 legit contenders. Ninety-percent of teams in the league are not really contenders during any given season. Jazz fans used to get excited about winning a round or two in the playoffs. Now fans expect more because they've been spoiled by the Stockton/Malone era.
 
We mention the Clippers because it's extremely difficult to build a championship contender through the NBA draft lottery. Even Utah got to where it was contending in the west because of free agency (Okur and Boozer). Sure, there are times where you can luck out in the NBA Draft (the Jazz with Stockton & Malone, though neither were lotto picks and the Spurs with Robinson and Duncan), but overall, it's just not very common in the NBA. There is a reason many lottery teams remain in the lottery year in and year out and it's because more times than not, you're going to fail rebuilding that way.

Don't believe me? Look at the top-ten lotto teams this year and see how they've fared since 2000.

#1. Wizards - Washington has been in the lottery six times. Including two number one draft picks. Sure, they had a nice string from 2004-2007 where they made the playoffs. But what do they have to show for it? In 2005 they made it to the second round. Wow.

#2. Sixers - Philadelphia has been in the lottery five times. Since their Finals run in 2001, the franchise has hit the skids - only advancing beyond the first round once.

#3. Nets - New Jersey has been in the lottery only twice. So this is a team that has been fairly stable the last decade.

#4. Timberwolves - Minnesota has been in the lottery seven times since 2000. What's even worse? All seven lotto picks came after 2004.

#5. Kings - Sacramento has had a lottery pick in the last three drafts. Which is low, but when you consider their best era was from 2000-2006, you understand why.

#6. Warriors - Golden State has been in the lottery nine times in that span. What have they done with those picks?

#7. Pistons - Detroit has had four lotto picks since 2000. All but this year's pick came in the early part of 00. None of those three picks prior to their title contention actually had a major impact. We're talking Mateen Cleaves, Rodney White and Darko Milicic.

#8. Clippers - LA has had ELEVEN lottery picks since 2000. They were used as the example for a reason. What do they have to show for it?

#9. Jazz - Even Utah has had four lotto picks since 2000. Williams was a great get, but the others? Well I guess the jury is still out on Hayward. And Utah only got that pick through a trade and only drafted Williams because of a trade (more on that later).

#10. Pacers - Indiana has had four lotto picks since 2000. However, three have come in consecutive years (10, 09, 08). That's a franchise we should emulate!

So of those teams listed, half have had lottery picks five or more times since 2000. One only got that pick via trade and not sucking (Utah) and two others dominated a good portion of the 00s without the help of lotto picks (Sacramento and Detroit). That leaves the Nets, who were fairly consistent in being a playoff team out east. The rest were bad this decade, even with a boatload of lotto picks.

Why were they bad? Because there is no bigger crapshoot than the NBA draft. Every NBA draft has a few lotto busts. And it happens because it's extremely difficult to predict how a player will transition from college (and how HS) to professional ball. So most picks are a big gamble. Rarely will you find a sure thing and mostly that guy is gone after the first pick.

Utah lucked out. The Jazz traded up to get Williams. Had they sat at number six, they probably don't get Williams. Certainly not Paul, who would've been gone regardless. Maybe we would've been able to get Raymond Felton?

All that even though Utah finished with the second worst record in the west.

That's the problem relying on the draft lottery. Not only do you have to hope your pick is correct (and don't Darko Milicic it), you've got to hope you get a lucky bounce here or there. Because even finishing with the worst record is no guarantee of getting the top pick.

Which ultimately means you'd have to tank on purpose and pray like the dickens you somehow ended up with the top-three and hopefully top-two.

Lota what ifs and reason why most teams that try to build through the lottery continually find themselves in the lottery. Because those picks are less tested and less a given than any trade or free agent could bring to an organization.

L.A. didn't win their titles because they drafted well. Neither did Boston or Miami or Detroit.

Phoenix didn't become an elite team in the mid-to-late 00s because they drafted Nash (okay, well you know what I mean!).

Sure, there are examples of teams doing it that way. But they're almost always the exception. If they were the rule, franchises like Clips and Warriors and Wizards would not find themselves in the NBA lottery year in and year out.

Which is why I have no issues with the way we rebuilt. It didn't net us a championship - but it provided some great memories after the worst stretch of Jazz basketball since before 1984.
 
Last edited:
Teams have to get lucky in the draft, whether they pick in the lottery or not. Once in every 2 or 3 years there's a player who is a sure-fire star--Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem, etc.--but they get picked #1. So as a team relying on the lottery, you have to hope that you get the #1 pick during one of those special years when a HOF player is sitting there for you. It's very rare, and there's no way you can count on it.

Every team needs a couple of foundational players. The Lakers have Kobe and Pau. Orlando has Dwight Howard. Phoenix had Amare and Nash. Miami had Wade. Etc. From there, it's a process of building on that foundation. Having one star player isn't enough to guarantee advancing in the playoffs--just ask Carmello, Dwayne Wade, Lebron, Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Dirk, etc.

As it stands right now, the Jazz, like other teams, really need another foundational star player. They have a full roster, but they need a big-time player to anchor the offense if they're going to become a true contender. Of course, that type of player is hard to get. The Jazz wanted to move up and draft Cousins, but weren't able to. Most teams get their 2nd foundational player through free agency--spending significant money on a proven player and attracting him to your team in part due to the ready supporting cast. This is how the Lakers got Shaq, and, of course, how Miami got Bosh and Lebron. The only alternative is to make a trade to acquire a disgruntled star player playing on a team that needs to blow up and start over. This is how the Lakers got Pau and how the Celtics got KG and Ray Allen. This is also how the Jazz got Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek.

Given that it's difficult for the Jazz to bring in big-time free agents, I think they are positioning themselves to make a trade for a star player that needs to be moved from his current team, like the Jeff Hornacek scenario. The Jazz have decided that they have Williams and a group of other solid players, that Boozer isn't good enough to be the second foundational star along with Williams, and now they have trade exceptions that will help a team that is floundering and wants the cap relief in a lopsided trade.

If the Jazz can bring Tomic over and make a good trade in the next year, they will have the foundation they need to make the WCF against either the Lakers or the Thunder. This year has to be the year of the trade. The Jazz have AK's expiring deal and the TPEs, both could help a team that needs to move a star player.
 
Unbelievable. A lot of you should stop being Jazz fans and try a new hobby.

This whole thread is ridiculous

The jazz went for it. In 03-04, they were going nowhere. They stunk. It seemed like the stock/malone days were far in the past and that the team would have no chance of being good again.
They went out and built a whole new team. Only missed the playoffs twice and then went to the conf finals, won 4 playoff series that everyone picked them to lose, and they basically destroyed the Houston franchise and pretty much ended the careers of TMac and Yao.

But that isn't good enough? The jazz should have just done nothing and tanked all of those years?
Like Porty, OKC and the Bucks?

How many playoff series have those teams won? None. How many will they win? Hard to say. I don't see Porty or the Bucks as any kind of threat. OKC is a popular upcoming team only because they got lucky and scored Durrant who is turning into a stud, but there are still major question marks there. OKC is hardly a major contender going into next year.

I do agree with the one poster that the jazz chances were killed by the Gasol deal, as were anyone else's chances in the west. That trade totally ruined the competitive ballance in the west, and it was done by underhanded design and blessed by Stern.
If that had not happened, I do think the jazz might have come out of the west once.

There are a lot of teams that have done worse than the jazz over the past 5 years. Telling me that OCK, Porty, and the bucks are teams we should be more like is beyond silly

Which teams have gone to the finals out of the west for the past 10 years? Lakers and Spurs. Oh, and Dallas one time.
Has any other team done that much better than the jazz in the west? Possibly Phoenix, but they have only been to the conf finals twice, and hardly had a chance to go any further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top