I agree about AK although that was a different team. He was an all-star and really the only "star" level player on the team. It's easy to question that move now and maybe some had the foresight even then. Bottom line is that AK likely would have been signed to a max deal by another team and would have been gone. Maybe we like that idea now, but in a post-Stockton/Malone and pre-Boozer/DWill time, I find it understandable.
Like it or not, Okur has been a big part of our success the last several years. Maybe we extended him when we really didn't have to, but it wasn't a long extension and wasn't for an outrageous amount of money based on his productivity. Not like anyone knew he was going to have a devastating injury.
True centers ... or more specifically GOOD true centers ... are a rare commodity in this league. There are far few of them than there are teams that need them. I don't doubt for a minute that our management has spent countless hours during those six years to try to get one. We have tried drafting them. I'm sure that during trade seasons they are looking for one. And, of course, the established ones out there are not coming here. As a rare commodity, they often get to choose where they want to go. Until I see a big name player actually CHOOSE to come here, I'm going to assume it's never going to happen. Sure, we may get the right player someday, but experience has shown that it's not very likely. You act as if every other team in the league has 2-3 great centers and we're just choosing not to go after any of them. I would estimate that less than half of the teams in the league have a good or great center. Probably a quarter have a serviceable center that is just good enough to not be a liability. And, then the rest patch together whatever they can get. The Jazz actually not in the worst shape as far as that is concerned (at least prior to the Okur injury).
As for "possible deals" that are out there (such as Beasley, Jefferson to be topical), I hate that the assumption is that management is doing nothing. I have no doubt that they are out there every day trying to find a deal that makes sense. But we don't have a lot to offer right now. So there are going to be a lot of bad deals out there too. So we are going to find ourselves more often than not in the situation of 1) missing out on decent deals because other teams have more to offer, 2) taking on not very good deals because those are the only ones that fall to us, and 3) passing on those deals because they hurt more than help. You may call it doing nothing. I call it making a wise decision that will help us be positioned for when those truly good opportunities come around ... which isn't that often.
We can agree to disagree on giving up players like Maynor for saving money. Ultimately the NBA is a business. Not all teams run their finances as a sound business, but I think the Utah Jazz does. That has kept them as a financially stable business and has helped keep the team in Utah. Small market teams don't have the same realities as other teams. Would it be nice for the Millers to spend like the Lakers owner does? Sure. But it's not my money, it's theirs. And they have a right to expect a return on their investment on the team. I think the NBA would be a better league if all owners made decisions in this way. Hopefully, the next CBA will lead to a system that's a little more equitable in that respect. Anyway, I agree that Maynor was good and would have liked to keep him. But getting rid of Harpring's contract was also valuable, so I think it's fair to look at it either way.
Anyway, thanks for the post. I don't see things the same way, but at least you make an effort to prove your point instead of just more bashing the management.
