What's new
By:

Read it and weep: on the failure of Tanking

doubledribble said:
It is too bad that the Mavs players in 2011 did not have the opportunity to read this wise post and, in their ignorance, defeated the mythical (and healthy) LeBron in 6 games. Ditto for the 2013 Spurs who were a lucky tip and a desperation shot away from beating the same LeBron in 6 games. Oh, and the Pistons in 2004 also totally did not get the message.

Poor schmucks.
Click to expand...

This is such a cute response. It sounds really, really nice, but it isn't that informed. Let's take a look at the "opportunity" to win an NBA title, shall we? Here are the teams that have won an NBA title (and their market size in parenthesis):

Boston: 17 titles (#7)
Lakers: 16 titles (#2)
Bulls: 6 titles (#3)
Spurs: 4 titles (#26)
76ers: 3 titles (#4)
Pistons: 3 titles (#11)
Warriors: 3 titles (#6)
Miami: 3 titles (#18)
Knicks: 2 titles (#1)
Houston: 2 titles (#10)
Bullets: 1 title (#9)
Hawks: 1 title (#8)
Sonics: 1 title (No Info)
Blazers: 1 title (#19)
Mavs: 1 title (#5)
Bucks: 1 title (#25)

So, in 65 title awarded years, the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Bulls and Heat have won 71% of the time. Crazy. 7 out of 10 finals have been won by 5 teams. Over 65 years. So, unless you had Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Jordan or LeBron, you had little to no shot of winning a title.

Let's look at teams that have won a title being in the bottom five markets in the NBA:

Bucks (#25)
Spurs (#26)

Wowza. And the Bucks won theirs before we were born.

So, small market teams have won exactly 8% of the time.

Now, I said that since 1991, you needed to have Jordan, Shaq, Duncan or LeBron to win a title. Let's look at who didn't have those guys, who they beat, and how often that happened:

Hakeem. #1 pick, #10 market, Jordan was retired.
Detroit. #11 market. 5 top 10 picks, including #3 Billups and #4 Wallace. They did take down LA, so they did slay the giant.
Boston. #7 market. Three Hall of Famers. One All-Star PG.
Dallas. #5 market. 7 top 10 picks. 2 Hall of Famers. 6 All-Star level players.

Which one of those teams looks like something Utah can accomplish?

So, what about those teams gives you hope that Utah can do what they have done? What type of resources, market pull, ability to bring in FA's, ability to have disgruntled players come to Utah and be happy does Utah have that those four teams have?

The ONLY team Utah can follow their model who has won a title and hope to have any type of remote success is SA.

That means, if Utah were lucky enough to draft the greatest player in the history of the NBA at his position, lucky enough to have one of the top 5 coaches in the history of the NBA, and a Hall of Famer to mentor that greatest player in the history of the NBA at his position, they would have a 6% chance of winning a title.

And Utah won't get any of those things. And Utah is in a worse market, with a HUGE stigma around it (Whitt has always said that the hardest job he has is getting a recruit to come to Utah. They have such a negative view of what it is like here. Same goes with NBA players).

So, while it is cute to say that the Mavs did it, and Detroit did it, so Utah can do it, if you look at history, history tells you that Detriot and Dallas are in another league, with a large lead in assets than Utah.

So, in reality, the only team Utah can hope to copy is OKC. Utah needs three top 3 picks, and needs to hit it out of the park on each one. The good news is, they have Favors, and they have Burke, and they have Hayward. They desperately need Jabari or Wiggins, and they desperately need them to end up the best at their position.

This is why this year was so important to tank. Because, the only slim chance they have at a title, involves getting Jabari or Wiggins and having them turn out to be amazing.

The good news is, if we lose to Orlando, we are only two games out of the third slot in the lottery.
 
For teams that have little more than the draft, I don't understand how they can 'bet too much on the draft'.
 
-Cap space only means anything if you are a team good enough and/or in a market that can attract free agents, so if you're not lucky enough to be those automatic 10 teams, you have to be good, which means you aren't rebuilding (doesn't apply to the Jazz), and also means that you probably don't have cap space.

-In order to trade for a really good player (say, a franchise player/perennial all-star), you have to have a ton of assets. And usually, those teams are only willing to trade such a player because they're scared that the player will walk for nothing. So a bad team must gut itself of assets to obtain such a player that it cannot secure? That is clear-as-glass stupid, especially when considering the first point mentioned. (BTW, Harden had to sign an extension, and thus, was acting as a free-agent.)

-Maybe you land such a player in the draft by sucking (which is inevitable to a degree if the first two points don't work for you, which they don't for the Jazz), and maybe that player/those players are good enough to make you good enough to keep them and build around them. You also have them locked down for four years, and own their rights at that point (which effectively means you have them on a leash for 7 years), whereas you're likely to acquire a player in situations 1 and 2 for 4 years on the very high-end.

Those are the options. Cut-and-dry. You'll have to pardon those that think the third option is more likely than the other two, whoever-you-are.
 
Last edited:
I think the jazz are a pretty good organization
 
fishonjazz said:
I think the jazz are a pretty good organization
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The Jazz realize what they are, and they are trying to do the best they can with what they have. BUT, that being said, the Jazz will live and die by the draft. They have to hit grand slams in years like this, they have to get lucky with lottery balls, and they have to get lucky with future firsts (the GS 2017).

If the people that ran the Jazz instead ran the Knicks, NY would win titles every single year.
 
green said:
This is such a cute response. It sounds really, really nice, but it isn't that informed. Let's take a look at the "opportunity" to win an NBA title, shall we? Here are the teams that have won an NBA title (and their market size in parenthesis):...

So, in 65 title awarded years, the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Bulls and Heat have won 71% of the time. Crazy. 7 out of 10 finals have been won by 5 teams. Over 65 years. So, unless you had Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Jordan or LeBron, you had little to no shot of winning a title.
Click to expand...
I do not understand how the stories of the 1950-60s are even relevant to the current Utah Jazz. It was a totally different league with 8 teams back then and it would be pretty tough to have 10 teams winning championships in a 8-team league. What is relevant to the Jazz situation is the recent history, and in the 21 century there were 6 champions in 13 years - quite a bit of turnover. Three of those champions (Detroit, Dallas and Boston) were the teams that became champions not through landing superstars in the draft, but by creating a solid front office, winning culture, managing the payroll and being smart about the trades. Not a rocket science. If they did it the Jazz could do it as well.

green said:
Let's look at teams that have won a title being in the bottom five markets in the NBA: Bucks (#25), Spurs (#26)

Wowza. And the Bucks won theirs before we were born. So, small market teams have won exactly 8% of the time.
Click to expand...
Well, since you decided to look at the entire history of the NBA it does not look good not including the championships won by the Rochester Royals and Syracuse Nationals. Come to think of it, the Minneapolis Lakers, Baltimore Bullets and St. Louis Hawks were not based in the metropolises either.

green said:
So, what about those teams gives you hope that Utah can do what they have done? What type of resources, market pull, ability to bring in FA's, ability to have disgruntled players come to Utah and be happy does Utah have that those four teams have?
Click to expand...
The not-so-distant history of our own Utah Jazz is what gives me hope. In the 1990s Utah was able to build a contender by doing simple, common sense things: establish a good, stable front office, get a good coach, draft smart, let your core grow together, learn from your mistakes... The main reason why the Jazz never won a title was the unfortunate stinginess of their owner, which prevented the team from getting good 3rd and 4th options. By the time he realized his mistake and open the purse the window has already closed.
 
The anti-tank movement is astonishing to me. It completely goes against common sense. What's the other option? We continue to sign vets, overpay role players, and draft 4th or 5th options like Hayward?
 
The Thriller said:
The anti-tank movement is astonishing to me. It completely goes against common sense. What's the other option? We continue to sign vets, overpay role players, and draft 4th or 5th options like Hayward?
Click to expand...

The other option is to not mortgage your future on a ****ty pipe dream.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think the jazz are a pretty good organization
Click to expand...

The Jazz are certainly an above average organization. That's precisely why we've had so few lottery picks. Most lottery teams, and especially regular lottery teams, are bad organizations. That's why they're lottery teams.

What's crazy is why anyone would expect an organization that's been making terrible moves that led to the lottery in the first place to suddenly get competent and parlay that lottery pick into long-term contending. Suppose the Bucks get the number one pick(fairly likely, considering the odds). Does anyone actually believe they'd suddenly get smart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top