This franchise doesn't want to win a title

[Eminem]

Wow, please, GET OVER WES MATTHEWS ALREADY. He's good, but his numbers are higher due to Roy's injury. Even Aldridge is beasting it in his absence. He wouldn't be getting that many PPG here. Sloan's offense was never built around a player like him, and if you need further clarification of that then you must not be paying attention.

AMazing post. I love you. no homo.Someone with a brain and sports knowledge finally.

 

[NUMBERICA]

When Sloanfeld makes more sense than vj_74 and JAZZFAN_2814, something is wrong.

 

[vslice02]

Wesley is the same player. He is getting more mins, more chances and his stats are obviously affected positively by this. His efficiency, impact is the same. Get over Wes obsession. This example does not relate your argument of the Jazz FO's not being aggressive enough.

+1.

 

[Sean]

Some Jazz fans are the dumbest clumps of human flesh I've ever come across.

Utah is swimming against the tide, folks. They've been doing it since the team relocated to Salt Lake City and that's always going to be the way it is because, in the end, the Jazz still play in UTAH.

Wake up and realize building a title contender in one of the smallest markets in the NBA is not something easily done. And don't use the ******** example of San Antonio. San Antonio is NOT Salt Lake City. Texas is NOT Utah. They're only comparable in one way - dumb hicks inhabit both states. That's it.

But at least the Texas hicks have the perception of knowing night life.

Utah is, and will continue to be, one of the hardest states to recruit NBA talent to and the fact the Jazz franchise has stayed relevant for most my lifetime is pretty damn impressive. To compare, teams like Sacramento, Indiana, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minnesota and Memphis - all roughly larger than Salt Lake, but similar, have been up and down and up and down throughout a similar stretch and absolutely none of those franchises has won a NBA title in the last 30 years.

That isn't a coincidence. And if you want to bring up San Antonio, so be it. But they obviously appear to be the exception to the rule. Because, outside the Spurs, the lowest media market to win a title since 1990 is Miami - and they certainly have more cachet than places like D.C., and Philadelphia, who are larger media markets.

Again, not a coincidence.

 

[gregbroncs]

I gave him a -4 to help balance it out.

I added mine to help as well.

 

[Headtrip]

So why support it?

This season:

Raja Bell
8.6 ppg. 2.5 rpg. 1.5 apg. 0.8 spg. 42.9% fg.

Wes Matthews
16.1 ppg. 3.1 rpg. 1.6 apg. 1.2 spg. 43.9% fg.

For the Jazz, it always comes down to this. When that extra money needs to be spent to make the Jazz a championship team, the owner flat refuses.

The Lakers won two championships, because their owner Jerry Buss was willing to pay the luxury tax. The Jazz owner? Not so.

Have fun getting KO'd again in the 1st or 2nd round. It's becoming a Jazz tradition.

I'll bet if the FO could have looked into your crystal ball and seen the production of both players, they would have made different decisions. I don't recall many people here saying Wes was a must keep, in fact I remember most people saying they thought Portland offered him way too much.

As It turns out, they got a bargain and we are playing like ***.

 

[D Will> CP3]

Sloanfeld- How is Wes not fit for a Jazz system. He was perfect IMO. He could slash, hit the open three when Booz was doubled, he could run in transition. I'd love to hear why you think it wasn't built for a player like him

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Dont quite get what you are trying to say.Are you saying that the Spurs, despite being a small market team(although it has been shown on this board that they are a bigger market than advertised) have the incentive to win while we dont? I am not talking about winning a title for winning sake or for pride sake. Iam asking what does Greg Miller stand to benefit $wise by going a couple more rounds deeper in the playoffs. Yeah ideally you cannot put a price tag on a championship. But then maybe for some businessmen it is the $$ that matters. And if so, does winning it all guarantee prize money?

Because the Jazz have already been going over LT the last 2 years and yet losing in the firts two rounds. why should they pay even higher LT unless winning it all guarantees big prize money?

I have always thought that the Jazz ownership have been smart and frugal spending-wise. But that was during LHM days. In the last 2 years they have been spending more to get the same, if not worse, results than they got in 2006-2007. That is not smart spending.

The Spurs are a unique case. San Antonio benefitted from two high lottery picks that yielded them David Robinson and then Tim Duncan. The only reason they got Duncan was that Robinson got hurt one year, and they tanked the season, and then won the lottery against high odds. They were damned lucky in these regards.

That said, they also drafted Ginobli and Parker, so give them credit for that. But without fortune smiling on them in ways unlikely replicated again, at least by Jazz, they would be mired in mediocrity like other small market teams.

So yes, kudos to the Spurs, but acknowledge that they were also beneficiaries of extreme good fortune outside their control.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Sloanfeld- How is Wes not fit for a Jazz system. He was perfect IMO. He could slash, hit the open three when Booz was doubled, he could run in transition. I'd love to hear why you think it wasn't built for a player like him

I never said he wasn't a fit for the Jazz system. Please re-read my post then decide if you want to rewrite yours based on what you have re-read, then I shall respond.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

When Sloanfeld makes more sense than JAZZFAN_2814, something is wrong.

When has JF2814 ever made sense?

 

[zman1527]

The Spurs are a unique case. San Antonio benefitted from two high lottery picks that yielded them David Robinson and then Tim Duncan. The only reason they got Duncan was that Robinson got hurt one year, and they tanked the season, and then won the lottery against high odds. They were damned lucky in these regards.

That said, they also drafted Ginobli and Parker, so give them credit for that. But without fortune smiling on them in ways unlikely replicated again, at least by Jazz, they would be mired in mediocrity like other small market teams.

So yes, kudos to the Spurs, but acknowledge that they were also beneficiaries of extreme good fortune outside their control.

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

 

[LogGrad98]

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

The issue is not career accolades, the issue is putting a team around said pairing to get them to the next level. So yes, that in bold was correct, when it counted.

 

[vj_74]

zman will keep bitching about Sloan no matter how much facts you throw at him. In 98, after Malone who was a 27ppg guy, the next best scoring option the Jazz had was a bum-kneed Hornacek at 14ppg. And thats about it. Stock was always a reluctant scorer and Russel was just a so-so role player. It is not enough if you have couple of hall of famers on your team, because there might be other teams that can have the same and then more. zman will probably realize this sometime in his next life, when he would (hopefully) be reborn a Spurs fan.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

Unfortunately for them they came across Michael k
Jordan and the Bulls in their prime.
Who did San Antonio beat in finals? New Jersey and who else?
My point is that timing and luck have a lot to do
With it. San Antonio is exception not rule.
And it benefitted immensely from luck and good timing.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

The issue is not career accolades, the issue is putting a team around said pairing to get them to the next level. So yes, that in bold was correct, when it counted.

Well, that's convenient. Just as a base argument and viewpoint.

The Spurs, yes, are champions. But as to whether that proves Duncan and Robinson were superior to Malone and Stockton...well, I think the extrapolated logic dictates that you then believe that the former beat a 69-win Bulls team, while the latter lose to a Nets team that didn't even win 50 enroute.

So far as Robinson as a star player...he is one of the most ridiculous outliers for playoff failure I've ever analyzed. Losing? Okay. But it's the fact that the losses, in his prime and at his peak, so closely align with matchup meltdowns. This is known in regards to Hakeem, but the fact is that the much-maligned Karl Malone owned this guy over the course of 90s playoff basketball. Just decimated him, on both sides of the ball. Which is quite something, considering how much, for instance, Robinson's D is hyped to this day; in a man context (as opposed to...), I would argue very strongly that Malone was superior to Robinson there, as well.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

When has JF2814 ever made sense?

All those times you were busy avoiding (missing? Unrequited) reading comprehension.

And trying to get Darwin out of the classroom.

So far as a parallel (well, in your case, inverted) argument of evolution, the Nets are an interesting guideline. Just the overall understanding of roster building, but also how promotion, location and Q-rating move a team a lot closer to title contention. The Brooklyn move has already paid off handsomely, a priori, but it could bring the team titles by changing the perception of the franchise from the league office and media monopoly onward.

Careful not to hurt your knuckles when replying.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well, that's convenient. Just as a base argument and viewpoint.

The Spurs, yes, are champions. But as to whether that proves Duncan and Robinson were superior to Malone and Stockton...well, I think the extrapolated logic dictates that you then believe that the former beat a 69-win Bulls team, while the latter lose to a Nets team that didn't even win 50 enroute.

So far as Robinson as a star player...he is one of the most ridiculous outliers for playoff failure I've ever analyzed. Losing? Okay. But it's the fact that the losses, in his prime and at his peak, so closely align with matchup meltdowns. This is known in regards to Hakeem, but the fact is that the much-maligned Karl Malone owned this guy over the course of 90s playoff basketball. Just decimated him, on both sides of the ball. Which is quite something, considering how much, for instance, Robinson's D is hyped to this day; in a man context (as opposed to...), I would argue very strongly that Malone was superior to Robinson there, as well.

All I pointed out was that the thread is about winning a championship and the organization's commitment to do so. So yes that is the argument and viewpoint in the context of the thread (highlighted in bold). Sorry to bring logic into your very emotional response.

If you would like to discuss largely arbitrary ranking as to "who owned whom" in various aspects of the game then feel free to start said thread. But to frame other posters comments in such a way as to fit your argument is just a straw man.

The Spurs have won championships, and we have not. They had Duncan and Robinson for part of that and others after Robinson left. And we had Stockton and Malone. The team the Spurs put together that won championships worked, our efforts did not. So in terms of winning championships TD+DR > JS+KM. Pretty straight forward.

Now going from the position of career accolades and head to head matchups you could really make a case that the reverse is true. Say, why don't you go ahead and do some research and start that kind of thread with some numbers and such to back your viewpoint and we can rip it apart then.

Mmmkay?

 

[cyclo]

As I write this, the Jazz are getting blown out in Boston.

Oh, and about Wesley Matthews last night...

28 pts. 3 rebs. 5 asts. 3 stls. (10-18 fg 4-4 ft 4-8 3fg)

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

All I pointed out was that the thread is about winning a championship and the organization's commitment to do so.

Yeah.

If it's about management, then leave it there. Don't blame the star players for that same management's ineptitude.

It seems that your too inept to, ironically, follow what this thread was about, even while trying to turn that same issue into pedagogic polemic. What an embarrassment especially since, as you pointed out, it was such a simple topic.

If team result is the only measure for a player, then perhaps Robert Horry>Jordan.

So yes that is the argument and viewpoint in the context of the thread (highlighted in bold). Sorry to bring logic into your very emotional response.

As far as I know, it was your lacking logic I was very directly replying to. Reading comprehension may help, as redundancy is becoming squared with (attempted) condescension from your side; by missing my point, the question becomes whether you've then missed your own.

Specifically, the reductive, as reductio ad absurdum, assumption that TD+DR>JS+KM because of championships.

By that reasoning, Chauncey Billups>John Stockton.

If you would like to discuss largely arbitrary ranking as to "who owned whom" in various aspects of the game then feel free to start said thread.

Arbitrary? Do you understand what that means, particularly when discussing individual players?

Conspicuously, you judge the worth of star players -- their overall skill and ability to effect a game -- through team result. The argument is contradictory, myopic and, in total, an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, you think that matchup battles, favoring one player to a ridiculous degree over another, are..."arbitrary".

Congratulations. You've shown the analytical ability of a bandwagoner attending a game 7 at Staples Center.

But to frame other posters comments in such a way as to fit your argument is just a straw man.

So individual greatness is beside the point.

OK. Then, by your own stated and implied standard, that then means that Luc Longley>>David Robinson.

Any other analysis would be both a strawman and emotionally capricious.

By having me argue within your, yes, convenient and capricious standards, it only becomes more obvious how ill-thought and implosive these elements are.

So, bravo.

The Spurs have won championships, and we have not.

Ginobli+Parker>David Robinson.

They had Duncan and Robinson for part of that and others after Robinson left. And we had Stockton and Malone. The team the Spurs put together that won championships worked, our efforts did not.

Note the bold. Still confused?

 

[jope]

Yeah.

If it's about management, then leave it there. Don't blame the star players for that same management's ineptitude.

It seems that your too inept to, ironically, follow what this thread was about, even while trying to turn that same issue into pedagogic polemic. What an embarrassment especially since, as you pointed out, it was such a simple topic.

If team result is the only measure for a player, then perhaps Robert Horry>Jordan.



As far as I know, it was your lacking logic I was very directly replying to. Reading comprehension may help, as redundancy is becoming squared with (attempted) condescension from your side; by missing my point, the question becomes whether you've then missed your own.

Specifically, the reductive, as reductio ad absurdum, assumption that TD+DR>JS+KM because of championships.

By that reasoning, Chauncey Billups>John Stockton.



Arbitrary? Do you understand what that means, particularly when discussing individual players?

Conspicuously, you judge the worth of star players -- their overall skill and ability to effect a game -- through team result. The argument is contradictory, myopic and, in total, an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, you think that matchup battles, favoring one player to a ridiculous degree over another, are..."arbitrary".

Congratulations. You've shown the analytical ability of a bandwagoner attending a game 7 at Staples Center.



So individual greatness is beside the point.

OK. Then, by your own stated and implied standard, that then means that Luc Longley>>David Robinson.

Any other analysis would be both a strawman and emotionally capricious.

By having me argue within your, yes, convenient and capricious standards, it only becomes more obvious how ill-thought and implosive these elements are.

So, bravo.



Ginobli+Parker>David Robinson.



Note the bold. Still confused?

can i have my thesaurus back?