What's new
By:

Loyalty

JazzMan4Life said:
I'm not sure if there is a post/rep limit for starting new threads, but I'd like to get JFC's opinion on loyalty and how it applies to our team and "Jazz DNA". Also if somebody smarter than me could post the Youtube link to Kendrick Lamar's - DNA (clean version) I'd appreciate it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbrJuXPCzR8). TIA
Click to expand...

Loyalty is a thing of the past, like men wearing hats, drinking at a local pub, opening doors for women, a living wage, job security, civil rights, meaningful human relationships, rock and roll and love. Life is cold, brutal and hard, imagine a mans head, stuck in a pool of mud getting stomped on forever, this is our future.
 
More than loyalty we need to look for good teammates, leaders, and players who play balls to the wall.

We need players who train, and socialize together. While we may not get long term loyalty we'll have a team that is close, and plays together now.

DM fits that perfectly. As do Rubio, and Sefolosha.
 
Last edited:
I believe strongly in loyalty because I think life, like politics, can be broken down to three values systems: the economic, the social, the moral. Generally speaking I think our country has veered significantly libertarian post WWII due to ideas like an invisible hand, free market economics are regarded as somewhat like a religion and therefore infallible, and immigration self selecting for people who are willing to leave everything and everyone they know for a chance at a better life in a country with relatively few social safety nets. Its no wonder then that you hear sentiments like, "you have to look out for number one", "everyone should care only about their own best interests", "there is no such thing as loyalty". These are sentiments that are common in a highly libertarian society without much regard for social and moral values or at least separate those values from business decisions. I myself dont tend to agree with that attitude and probably would have stayed. I believe the emotional investment fans have in the Jazz means something and shouldnt be minimized to "just feelings". I also think you can make an argument that the social good Hayward could have done in Utah exceeds that he could have done in Boston.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
And there is really no need to psychoanalysis the decision when it's super obvious.

He went to the better offensive team who has a clearer road to get to the finals and get multiple all-star appearances. That decision became even more apparent when Jimmy Butler and Paul George both got traded West along w/ Lebron James rumors that he will be moving West also. If Lebron leaves (which at least seems like a possibility) then the Celtics become clear favorites to get to the Finals for years to come.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think he went to be with stevens.
 
With the financial dynamic of the NBA and the CBA and the ecosystem that is created there, there has to be a mix of loyalty and making the tough business and personnel decisions that are not viewed as loyal. It is impossible for a team to be 100% loyal because of the nature and fluidity of teams, players, dollars, salary cap, contracts, etc. A team cannot draft 2 players every year, pay each the most possible, develop them all, and keep them all... forever.

The whole situation requires a balance of preparation, development, keeping the best players for your team and a mix of loyalty, realism, and making tough decisions. Sometimes loyalty to a player is not blocking an exit or facilitating helping them go. Sometimes loyalty is doing whatever it takes to keep them. Loyalty to each player could mean a different definition for each and even that could change year over year as circumstances change.

Loyalty, especially in the NBA is a fluid thing and is very hard to pinpoint. It often means, imo, wishing the best for a player, owner, coach, team, fan base, city and then doing what you can for them when the opportunity arises. When a choice is to be made and is possible, choosing them. Sometimes one or both sides sacrifice to make it happen out of loyalty.

The Hayward example is fresh for us. We feel he bailed on us, his team, ownership, coach, and community when the choice was presented. We feel his loyalty to Brad and easy all star nods was stronger than his loyalty to us. Did he feel loyalty was broken from the whole rfa situation years ago so he feels no obligation to stay?

Gobert has verbally shown more loyalty to this team than we have seen recently. Is it fair that it means more to us because he is better than other players? We let Diaw go. Were we not loyal, or loyal? It probably depends on the full situation.

Loyalty is a new definition of key pieces with each relationship, that is defined daily with each party in the NBA. You can only keep a handful of loyalty at a time I think. If you try to keep more, your grip on one of them slips and fails. This is why I think in the NBA loyalty can often mean honesty, and putting people in a position to succeed even if we have to let them go or if you are the one going.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
What is the "gangster" vibe?
Click to expand...

article-2487420-193127A100000578-697_634x503.jpg
 
Jazz Spazz said:
With the financial dynamic of the NBA and the CBA and the ecosystem that is created there, there has to be a mix of loyalty and making the tough business and personnel decisions that are not viewed as loyal. It is impossible for a team to be 100% loyal because of the nature and fluidity of teams, players, dollars, salary cap, contracts, etc. A team cannot draft 2 players every year, pay each the most possible, develop them all, and keep them all... forever.

The whole situation requires a balance of preparation, development, keeping the best players for your team and a mix of loyalty, realism, and making tough decisions. Sometimes loyalty to a player is not blocking an exit or facilitating helping them go. Sometimes loyalty is doing whatever it takes to keep them. Loyalty to each player could mean a different definition for each and even that could change year over year as circumstances change.

Loyalty, especially in the NBA is a fluid thing and is very hard to pinpoint. It often means, imo, wishing the best for a player, owner, coach, team, fan base, city and then doing what you can for them when the opportunity arises. When a choice is to be made and is possible, choosing them. Sometimes one or both sides sacrifice to make it happen out of loyalty.

The Hayward example is fresh for us. We feel he bailed on us, his team, ownership, coach, and community when the choice was presented. We feel his loyalty to Brad and easy all star nods was stronger than his loyalty to us. Did he feel loyalty was broken from the whole rfa situation years ago so he feels no obligation to stay?

Gobert has verbally shown more loyalty to this team than we have seen recently. Is it fair that it means more to us because he is better than other players? We let Diaw go. Were we not loyal, or loyal? It probably depends on the full situation.

Loyalty is a new definition of key pieces with each relationship, that is defined daily with each party in the NBA. You can only keep a handful of loyalty at a time I think. If you try to keep more, your grip on one of them slips and fails. This is why I think in the NBA loyalty can often mean honesty, and putting people in a position to succeed even if we have to let them go or if you are the one going.
Click to expand...

A corollary to this is that the current money situation in the NBA has created a new dynamic. In the past loyalty was often purchased. Some players (notably in our case Stockton) took less money to stay in the situation they were in, whether through loyalty to the organization or their fellow players or because they felt it was in their best winning interests can be debated. But now that money is really no longer an issue, when scrub contracts are more than Stock ever made in a single season, and players realize they can live pretty much just as comfortably on 100 mill as 120 mill you see where loyalty has gone. It no longer follows the money. It now follows the easy path to the ring. This is the new NBA. Ludicrous amounts of money everywhere means players feel more free to just pick and choose. If the Jazz has been able to offer Hayturd 100 mill, but the most the Celts could offer was say 50 mill I think he would have stayed, NAMBLA relationship with Stevens or not. But when the "home" team can't really offer substantially more, players feel much more free to chase their dreams, so to speak (in Hayturds case spooning with Stevens) because one single contract like that sets them and their families up for life, and taking 10 or even 20 mill less has realistically no impact.
 
millenials arent brand loyal guys, there's been 100 studies on this. As one myself, i can confirm, the "company man" is dying.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
With the financial dynamic of the NBA and the CBA and the ecosystem that is created there, there has to be a mix of loyalty and making the tough business and personnel decisions that are not viewed as loyal. It is impossible for a team to be 100% loyal because of the nature and fluidity of teams, players, dollars, salary cap, contracts, etc. A team cannot draft 2 players every year, pay each the most possible, develop them all, and keep them all... forever.

The whole situation requires a balance of preparation, development, keeping the best players for your team and a mix of loyalty, realism, and making tough decisions. Sometimes loyalty to a player is not blocking an exit or facilitating helping them go. Sometimes loyalty is doing whatever it takes to keep them. Loyalty to each player could mean a different definition for each and even that could change year over year as circumstances change.

Loyalty, especially in the NBA is a fluid thing and is very hard to pinpoint. It often means, imo, wishing the best for a player, owner, coach, team, fan base, city and then doing what you can for them when the opportunity arises. When a choice is to be made and is possible, choosing them. Sometimes one or both sides sacrifice to make it happen out of loyalty.

The Hayward example is fresh for us. We feel he bailed on us, his team, ownership, coach, and community when the choice was presented. We feel his loyalty to Brad and easy all star nods was stronger than his loyalty to us. Did he feel loyalty was broken from the whole rfa situation years ago so he feels no obligation to stay?

Gobert has verbally shown more loyalty to this team than we have seen recently. Is it fair that it means more to us because he is better than other players? We let Diaw go. Were we not loyal, or loyal? It probably depends on the full situation.

Loyalty is a new definition of key pieces with each relationship, that is defined daily with each party in the NBA. You can only keep a handful of loyalty at a time I think. If you try to keep more, your grip on one of them slips and fails. This is why I think in the NBA loyalty can often mean honesty, and putting people in a position to succeed even if we have to let them go or if you are the one going.
Click to expand...

Gobert is the only player the Jazz FO has shown maximum loyalty to. They gave him the max extension w/ basically no bargaining done. They told Hayward to go find a deal because DL was haggling over a million dollar difference from what Hayward wanted.
 
Loyalty has limits for both the franchise and players. There is no absolute loyalty. Organizations and players are going to do what is in their best interest.
 
Loyalty in the NBA is tough. From a franchise stand point it includes treating players fairly and with respect. I think they do that very well. Yes, tough decisions have to be made, and sometimes they are especially hard, but you do it as up front and respectful as you can. Players need to do the same, and if they do they will be treated a lot better in the media, and on social media than elder Heywood has been treated.
 
fishonjazz said:
If slc also has stevens, sure.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt that's it. I think he goes to Boston even if they dont have Stevens.

Everything he said to the press is what he should say. Boston has a great team, Boston has Stevens, Boston has history, Boston is a great city, yada yada yada.

Real reason: 3 All-Stars left the East and LBJ is rumored to be leaving also. I will get 3 straight All-Star appearances and better offensive numbers in a more uptempo and spread offense. If LBJ leaves, this team will be the favorites to get to the Finals for 2 straight years at least.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Gobert is the only player the Jazz FO has shown maximum loyalty to. They gave him the max extension w/ basically no bargaining done. They told Hayward to go find a deal because DL was haggling over a million dollar difference from what Hayward wanted.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but at the same time did they lose loyalty in the equation with Hayward when they didn't keep Evans? Teams and players have more to think about than straight loyalty, they also have to think about skill, dollars, chemistry, and much much more. Money is not the only sign of loyalty. Hayward was not a sure fire all star in the making at that point. Nobody knew what he would end up being. AK was shown "loyalty" and he and the team got crushed after that.

Loyalty is a moving, living, breathing thing. It is complex, and money is only a portion of it. For some people the $ is 99% of the equation. For others it is only 50%.
DL took a calculated risk on the value of Hayward. He was an unknown still at that point.
 
What is the "gangster" vibe?
Click to expand...

Racist dogwhistle.
Click to expand...

Y'all are racist because this is the first thing that occurred to you. American gangs? lots of white ones. Then there is the Russian mafia, the Italian mob, the Japanese Yakuza, and frankly, all of the middle east terrorist groups have a gang mentality. get out of your local obsessive focus and look around the world.

What is the gang vibe? Good question. The funny thing is that if you look into gangs, there is actually a lot of 'loyalty' in gang culture, so that makes it tough. The aspect that I was referring to is the overly testosterone aspect of players that feel entitled and want to have the world and their team revolve around them without having the team oriented part of their game that gives back to his teammates. This attitude shows in these peoples way of handling women, looking at them as assets instead of people, that drives me nuts. Enes Kanter (white, not black) oozed this, with his tweets about wanting random girls to come to him at a restaurant, and his feeling that he didn't need to play defense made it more obvious. I realize that there is still some disconnect here, but that's where i was going.
 
JazzMan4Life said:
I'm not sure if there is a post/rep limit for starting new threads, but I'd like to get JFC's opinion on loyalty and how it applies to our team and "Jazz DNA". Also if somebody smarter than me could post the Youtube link to Kendrick Lamar's - DNA (clean version) I'd appreciate it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbrJuXPCzR8). TIA
Click to expand...


Lmao only a jazz fan, not a fan of any other team in league, would ask for a clean version of a song lmao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top