You clearly have no grasp of the concept of asset management.
Asset management only works when you can actually attract good free agents, not overrated garbage like the Jazz tend to pick up.
You clearly have no grasp of the concept of asset management.
I'm not comparing our FO to anybody. I'm simply saying they aren't very good and expecting them to be capable of pulling an OKC is wishful thinking at best, when their track record in drafting more closely resembles teams that have been perpetually bad.
I still don't know where you're going with the Warriors - even without Barnes the talent level of their core is and always has been far above Utah's.
Asset management only works when you can actually attract good free agents, not overrated garbage like the Jazz tend to pick up.
I'm not comparing our FO to anybody. I'm simply saying they aren't very good and expecting them to be capable of pulling an OKC is wishful thinking at best, when their track record in drafting more closely resembles teams that have been perpetually bad.
I still don't know where you're going with the Warriors - even without Barnes the talent level of their core is and always has been far above Utah's.
Really? Having a starting five, that has four top 10 picks the last couple of years, a couple draft picks in the best draft since LeBron, and tons of cap space this summer is what a bad FO does?
#dumbass
LOL. What free agent will sign with Utah? The only star player Utah will get to sign a deal with Utah is the one they draft or have their restricted rights to. Wake up.
The Noob
I think he is auditioning for GVCs "**** on my lawn" thread.
Why don't you actually post something with substance? I realize it's hard to defend the Jazz nowadays, but if you aren't capable of it, resorting to trolling seems like a childish alternative.
Utah's FO has been extremely questionable ever since Larry Miller died - they're just lucky enough to have a fanbase that's willing to make excuses for them over and over.
And drafting Barnes had little to do with GSW's launch into contender status. I can't believe I even have to point that out.
I hate it when people compare us to OKC. For every OKC there are a dozen Washington Wizards or Charlotte Bobcats who get in the lottery for multiple seasons and don't have every single one of their draft picks end up being superstars. And the Jazz haven't exactly shown a knack for drafting superstars - our core has four players drafted in the top 10 and I think it's safe to say at this point that not a one of them is superstar material.
Hard to draft a superstar when you don't get picks inside the top 3. The one top 3 pick we had we spent on basically an all-star who couldn't get along with our coach.
And really it is hard to draft a superstar at all. How many legit superstars have there ever been in NBA history? Maybe the 50 they named as the top 50 with a few supplanted by more recent players? And how many draft picks have there been in NBA history? Several thousand, say maybe 3000 to round it out and being too lazy to google right now. So 50 out of 3000, or 1.7%. So the odds of picking a superstar AT ALL are incredibly slim. And as you pick later in the draft, even starting at the 5th pick, those odds change drastically. So after the top 5 the odds have to be somewhere in the .01% range, which is where we have picked every single year save one over the past 25+ seasons. Yet it is obviously the front office fault we haven't found the 1 in a million player over those years and then had the assets and positioning to trade into the right spot to draft said 1 in a million player. Stupid front office!
Yes, which is why picking in the top-5 in what is recognized by every expert as one of the best draft class in the last 20+ years is so important. Yes, I certainly agree Wiggins or Parker or Randle or Exum, etc. could turn out to be busts. But the Jazz have a much, much higher percentage of hitting on at LEAST a quality starter than in other years. And Utah, unlike Washington, Charlotte, etc. has done a pretty good job evaluating talent. OK, we drafted Hayward instead of George. BUST there, right? I'd say Kanter and Favors are on their way to becoming pretty good bigs, perhaps even all-stars some day. And Burks is showing some pretty good talent for a late-lottery pick. Please elaborate, NORM, on what superstars (except George) the Jazz missed out on with those picks. Well, delete Favors since he was acquired in a trade.Hard to draft a superstar when you don't get picks inside the top 3. The one top 3 pick we had we spent on basically an all-star who couldn't get along with our coach.
And really it is hard to draft a superstar at all. How many legit superstars have there ever been in NBA history? Maybe the 50 they named as the top 50 with a few supplanted by more recent players? And how many draft picks have there been in NBA history? Several thousand, say maybe 3000 to round it out and being too lazy to google right now. So 50 out of 3000, or 1.7%. So the odds of picking a superstar AT ALL are incredibly slim. And as you pick later in the draft, even starting at the 5th pick, those odds change drastically. So after the top 5 the odds have to be somewhere in the .01% range, which is where we have picked every single year save one over the past 25+ seasons. Yet it is obviously the front office fault we haven't found the 1 in a million player over those years and then had the assets and positioning to trade into the right spot to draft said 1 in a million player. Stupid front office!
Hayward is averaging 19-6-5. Burks is definitely good and enjoyable to watch. Enes is almost 19-9 per game. No problem with Favors.
So?
Do we have really have to win games?
You see the young core's production.
Talent is there. Plus, it's impossible to make playoffs in West for us. Yes we're 0-5 and I'm not upset. As long as the young guns play well. All we need is focusing on near future including the draft.
One last, We should watch this team with a healthy Trey before killing them.