What's new
By:
Filters

On the record...

Handlogten's Heros said:
Nope... not around here... when Danny took over there was not one real poster saying we should trade those guys and rebuild. You are making up a narrative that did not exist. There is maybe one poster that would have loved to trade Rudy but he is the extreme outlier.

Being tilted towards the future isn't the same as saying - Danny's plan was always to tear it down - which is what you said... no idea if that's what you meant but its what you said.

Saying Don isn't a Danny guy is also just ignoring his track record. Went and got IT... also traded for Kyrie... Don is not a 3 and D wing but Danny has acquired and had success with those types. Danny isn't known as just a blow it up and tear **** down guy. He's known as the guy that isn't married to good and is willing to make big moves one way or another. Its revisionist history to say he was planning to blow it up all along.
Click to expand...

Trading future assets was met with heavy resistance here. To say Danny was totally dead set on blowing it up already was probably too much, but I definitely think he shared the strong reservations about investing more into Don/Rudy that were present here. It didn't take a pick to rearrange the pieces either. Like I said, it was some combination of guarding the future and guarding the players currently on the roster. It's the same result....we went into the playoffs with no hope and did not address the obvious weaknesses at all.

As far as saying Don isn't a Danny guy, I can only ask who said that because it definitely was not me. Don was a prospect Danny would have loved for sure. Rudy is a totally different story.
 
NUMBERICA said:
-in the process of passing on Bane and McDaniels, they drafted THE ONE GUY that anyone that knew anything could've told you was clear-as-day mistake. They followed that up with signing the corpse of Derrick Favors - a guy that the Jazz had an overabundance of knowledge of his health issues - for the full ****ing MLE THAT PLAYED THE SAME POSITION AS THE GUY THEY JUST DRAFTED. Then they had to trade a lightly-protected 1st to get rid of him which throws a wrench in all scenarios to come: rebuilding or retooling. The protections make it hard to trade later picks, but they are light enough to very realistically convey a lottery pick.
Click to expand...
And honestly part of my view was... once the quoted section happened they options got really limited... so what do you expect them to realistically try?

Prior to that it would be fair to say they could have done more. That was the set of things that happened that truly limited our ceiling while providing almost no real value.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Nope... not around here... when Danny took over there was not one real poster saying we should trade those guys and rebuild. You are making up a narrative that did not exist. There is maybe one poster that would have loved to trade Rudy but he is the extreme outlier.

Being tilted towards the future isn't the same as saying - Danny's plan was always to tear it down - which is what you said... no idea if that's what you meant but its what you said.

Saying Don isn't a Danny guy is also just ignoring his track record. Went and got IT... also traded for Kyrie... Don is not a 3 and D wing but Danny has acquired and had success with those types. Danny isn't known as just a blow it up and tear **** down guy. He's known as the guy that isn't married to good and is willing to make big moves one way or another. Its revisionist history to say he was planning to blow it up all along.
Click to expand...
But let's also run with the idea that Danny was gonna blow it up all along as an exercise. Would it make more sense to:
-Not give a **** how bad the team is and hang them out to dry as they languish? Or
-Have a successful end of the season and trade players at relatively significantly higher values?
 
KqWIN said:
Trading future assets was met with heavy resistance here.
Click to expand...
What future assets are you trading and for what players? And what happens when that duct-tape solution doesn't work and there is no choice but to bottom-out because you just ****ing suck in two years, but now the path to rebuilding is pocked with landmines?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
And honestly part of my view was... once the quoted section happened they options got really limited... so what do you expect them to realistically try?

Prior to that it would be fair to say they could have done more. That was the set of things that happened that truly limited our ceiling while providing almost no real value.
Click to expand...
What if you can use that pick to, you know, actually improve the basketball team? Or any of the 5 or 6 or 10 2nds they traded to dump salary?

The wallet was empty. All that was left was to push the deed to the house and the car keys to the middle of the table on a bad hand. That's just stupid ****.
 
NUMBERICA said:
What future assets are you trading and for what players? And what happens when that duct-tape solution doesn't work and there is no choice but to bottom-out because you just ****ing suck in two years, but now the path to rebuilding is pocked with landmines?
Click to expand...
Well if you make **** up... like we could have traded Royce to Nets for a first in season... then had enough time to figure out deals with other guys then you can make **** happen then its easy to see how we could have done deal xyz that would maybe move the needle a little.
 
NUMBERICA said:
So your answer is hindsight? I'm asking about what the Jazz were supposed to do this offseason to even maintain pretender status. I can do hindsight all night long but that's not what we're talking about.

I also don't think they did a piss poor job building around Don and Rudy. I think Don and Rudy are kinda hard to build around; you need really specific types of pieces since Gobert couldn't do anything with a basketball in his hands (or at least wasn't allowed to) and Mitchell never developed and implemented the glue guy skills he needed to have at his size (most notably running an offense/passing the ball, and playing even good defense).

Around those two, Ingles is the most perfect guy they could've had. Full stop. Given the importance of the off-the-court dynamics, it's like he was made in a lab. Then they needed another scorer/legit star that was taller than Mitchell. They needed a legit point guard that was wing size. They needed a swing big that could guard on the perimeter, reliably space the floor, be an average rebounder, and be able to cover ground to block shots in a switch scheme.

Yeah, in hindsight, maybe blowing the wad on Conley and Bogdanovic wasn't the right call, but considering the difficulty in finding these very uncommon players above, maybe it was considering the difficulty in finding such specific pieces and the best window to acquire the best pieces they could was then. That was the offseason to make their move and so they made the moves they could. What that meant was, "**** it, we'll just get the best PG we can and the best spacing big wing that can masquerade as a PF and well just bomb away."

It could've gone way worse than it did, but the 2020 draft is really the deathblow of all of this and that bungle is the most unforgivable of the bad moves since in one offseason, they:
-passed on two of the rare specimens that could've actually been great pieces in a build around Don/Rudy
-traded out like 4 or 5 second round picks, further limiting their flexibility or ability to improve
-in the process of passing on Bane and McDaniels, they drafted THE ONE GUY that anyone that knew anything could've told you was clear-as-day mistake. They followed that up with signing the corpse of Derrick Favors - a guy that the Jazz had an overabundance of knowledge of his health issues - for the full ****ing MLE THAT PLAYED THE SAME POSITION AS THE GUY THEY JUST DRAFTED (and the same position/skillset as the guy they just spent the Superman on). Then they had to trade a lightly-protected 1st to get rid of him which throws a wrench in all scenarios to come: rebuilding or retooling. The protections make it hard to trade later picks, but they are light enough to very realistically convey a lottery pick.

But again, that's not the point of this exercise. The point is that the Jazz hit a dead end and the question is what to do next, not what should've been done in the past.
Click to expand...

My answer to what we should do now isn't hindsight, I wrote a long reply post to what I think we should have done this off season. It's honestly pretty much the same plan. Get a new coach, rearrange the pieces, and do better on the margins. It was a very easy decision to do it before. It's become a more difficult decision now, but I still think it would have been worth it to do those same things. Rebuilding is definitely better than what the Jazz had been doing, which was nothing.

The coaching was horrific and in a unique because Quin's roots were so deep. Likewise, I do think the Jazz did a horrific job at building around Don and Rudy. The biggest failures were the heavy investments in the backup C position and the complete disregard for perimeter defense. Those thing are pretty much independent of Don/Rudy. Obviously chasing a C and using all our MLE resources and then picks to get rid of them was not related at all to Don/Rudy. Having Rudy is the reason you don't do that. In terms of perimeter defense, every team needs good perimeter defenders. Having Don as crappy unwilling defender increased that need, but it was also a huge problem because there was no defenders outside of Gobert period. We had a gross surplus of guys who want to shoot and handle the ball, meanwhile there wasn't a single guy who stay in front of an average NBA PG.

You're never going to get me to disagree that Ingles was special. He was and he's not brought up enough in the larger context of the Jazz. I brought up the past to hammer in this point and not do a hindsight 20/20 take. Historically, the FO and coaching staff not valuing Joe enough was a mistake. His injury/age makes the decision to proceed with Don/Rudy much more difficult, but I think those two players are special enough to give them another shot with a roster that isn't so heavily tilted towards offense only players. Losing Joe is very valid concern, however.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I guess I just make **** up... IDK.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see how that might be confused haha. What I meant is that he didn't draft them. Ainge inherited this roster he didn't build it. That is what is meant in the first quote. The second quote is obviously about the type of player Ainge likes, not whether or not he acquired them.
 
NUMBERICA said:
What future assets are you trading and for what players? And what happens when that duct-tape solution doesn't work and there is no choice but to bottom-out because you just ****ing suck in two years, but now the path to rebuilding is pocked with landmines?
Click to expand...

The concept of trading a pick was brought up a ton. Some people were more open to it, others not. There would be a made up trade that anyone would accept or decline, but the point is people had different feelings and tolerances to do so. Is it crazy to say Ainge was probably more on the side of being hesitant to trade the pick? I don't think it is.

I myself was not super enthusiastic about trading a pick, but trading our surplus of offense only players who were younger and/or different types of players was something I was totally in favor of. It could have been that these trades were never available and never existed. It could have also been that these trades were available and the Jazz FO just decided to pass on them like many here would have also passed on. Let's take Smart-Bogey for example. We don't know if that trade was on the table, but we discussed it. I definitely wanted that deal, others did not. The deal obviously didn't happen, but that doesn't mean the deal wasn't on the table at any time. It could have been the case that the Jazz FO did not want that deal, as many did here.

Truly, I don't think it's controversial to say that Danny aligned with opinions, I would say popular opinions on here.
 
KqWIN said:
The concept of trading a pick was brought up a ton. Some people were more open to it, others not. There would be a made up trade that anyone would accept or decline, but the point is people had different feelings and tolerances to do so. Is it crazy to say Ainge was probably more on the side of being hesitant to trade the pick? I don't think it is.
Click to expand...
It isn't crazy to say that... because he should be hesitant to trade a pick... but what was said/implied was not that at all. What was said was Danny wanted to rebuild this whole time and so he didn't try to make a deal to improve the chances around Don/Rudy. If "trying everything" means you trade players and picks/pick swaps in a YOLO fashion to try and get Smart/Roco/Powell/White... do we want a guy in charge that will "try everything".

Is it crazy to think that its much more likely that we tried to trade Bogey/Joe/JC/Royce etc. and there weren't any good deals out there? That their low trade value was a good part of the determining factor that there weren't a lot of ways forward outside of breaking up Don/Rudy?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
It isn't crazy to say that... because he should be hesitant to trade a pick... but what was said/implied was not that at all. What was said was Danny wanted to rebuild this whole time and so he didn't try to make a deal to improve the chances around Don/Rudy. If "trying everything" means you trade players and picks/pick swaps in a YOLO fashion to try and get Smart/Roco/Powell/White... do we want a guy in charge that will "try everything".

Is it crazy to think that its much more likely that we tried to trade Bogey/Joe/JC/Royce etc. and there weren't any good deals out there? That their low trade value was a good part of the determining factor that there weren't a lot of ways forward outside of breaking up Don/Rudy?
Click to expand...

I mean, I've clarified several times that I think Danny was tilted or leaning towards that direction. Simply put, if Danny (@bigmike) was on this forum.....bigmike would probably agree with the others who really didn't want to trade that pick. But trading the pick wasn't the only thing that could have been done. When I say trying everything, I certainly don't think that means every pick possible. Really, all I wanted was to trade an offensive player for a defensive player. I had been calling for that type of trade for years, and it's sad that the most concrete attempt at addressing the perimeter defense was Rudy Gay playing small ball 5.

What is a "good" deal is subjective. I thought Smart for Bogey was a great deal for us, many did not. If that deal was on the table and Danny declined, it doesn't suggest he was leaning towards rebuilding....but as I've said many times over, it could be one of many things. It's some combination of valuing our players highly or valuing the future assets highly. I don't necessarily think it was wrong to hold onto the pick tightly, but part of that reasoning is because I do believe something could have been done without the pick. Maybe I'm wrong and there really was nothing out there, but my desire for a defense/offense trade was huge. I would have been willing to take a worse player in a vacuum if that player happened to be a much better fit.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Well if you make **** up... like we could have traded Royce to Nets for a first in season... then had enough time to figure out deals with other guys then you can make **** happen then its easy to see how we could have done deal xyz that would maybe move the needle a little.
Click to expand...
Ehh. So one of the major problems here is that there are >20 teams in win-now mode which means getting win-now players is hard and getting future-facing assets is relatively easy.

Who is the trading partner and who is the player where we UPGRADE our win now talent (that are mostly dudes in their mid-30's)? We can probably get future-facing assets for them for teams trying to get over the hump, but I highly doubt we can just flip them for better and/or younger players, even with a late 1st.
 
KqWIN said:
I mean, I've clarified several times that I think Danny was tilted or leaning towards that direction. Simply put, if Danny (@bigmike) was on this forum.....bigmike would probably agree with the others who really didn't want to trade that pick. But trading the pick wasn't the only thing that could have been done. When I say trying everything, I certainly don't think that means every pick possible. Really, all I wanted was to trade an offensive player for a defensive player. I had been calling for that type of trade for years, and it's sad that the most concrete attempt at addressing the perimeter defense was Rudy Gay playing small ball 5.

What is a "good" deal is subjective. I thought Smart for Bogey was a great deal for us, many did not. If that deal was on the table and Danny declined, it doesn't suggest he was leaning towards rebuilding....but as I've said many times over, it could be one of many things.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused about this hypothetical deal. Whether there is draft capital included or not is not a detail, so are the Jazz sending a pick? Yeah, that's probably not the best use of the asset and it deepens the roster imbalance towards more guards. If you are saying Bogey for Smart straight across, then how would you characterize that as a move that tilts away from the future? If they blow it up, Smart probably is equal or greater value.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I'm a little confused about this hypothetical deal. Whether there is draft capital included or not is not a detail, so are the Jazz sending a pick? Yeah, that's probably not the best use of the asset and it deepens the roster imbalance towards more guards. If you are saying Bogey for Smart straight across, then how would you characterize that as a move that tilts away from the future? If they blow it up, Smart probably is equal or greater value.
Click to expand...

Bogey for Smart straight across is not a move that tilts away from the future. I’ve said this. It’s actually in the post you directly quoted.

If that deal was on the table and we didn’t take it, it’s because we overvalued our players and didn’t give enough consideration to the obvious issues on the roster.
 
KqWIN said:
Bogey for Smart straight across is not a move that tilts away from the future. I’ve said this. It’s actually in the post you directly quoted.

If that deal was on the table and we didn’t take it, it’s because we overvalued our players and didn’t give enough consideration to the obvious issues on the roster.
Click to expand...
Over-valuing our current players is very much a concern with DL. To think that deal was on the table and Danny passed is not super reasonable. He would be much more inclined to over value his guy over a guy that had been on the Jazz for a while.

I think the Boston talks were "hey we want Smart" and they were like "how about J Rich?". If you think Bogey for Richardson moves the needle and would qualify as passing on something we should have tried then fair... but I think those were likely the deal types that were on the table unless we threw a pick on the table. That pick would need to have VERY limited projections because of other obligations. We had no other real sweetners... couldn't even do a "we won't give you a first but we will do 3 seconds!"

Bogey and a 2018 first for Smart? Maybe that was on the table... and maybe we should have done it... but you have to recognize the big risk that would have been to try and save the sinking ship.
 
One Brow said:
In the board game world, where play-to-win is basically a raffle, and stores sometimes have raffles at their events.
Click to expand...
At a firm I worked with they had a Christmas raffle and there were some good prizes... you only got one ticket and there were 100 people and like 4 good prizes. Even then there were still like 25-30% of the people that made an appearance and left early... free booze and an ipod touch was not enough to socialize with co-workers outside of business hours.
 
KqWIN said:
Bogey for Smart straight across is not a move that tilts away from the future. I’ve said this. It’s actually in the post you directly quoted.

If that deal was on the table and we didn’t take it, it’s because we overvalued our players and didn’t give enough consideration to the obvious issues on the roster.
Click to expand...

If that deal was on the table Ainge would've jumped on it. I'm guessing the Celtics would've wanted a pick along with Bogey.
 
Once Danny took over the assets that DL had managed their value wasn't amazing. Maybe Quin was the real problem since he shut down an Ingles trade. I just have a hard time believing that since Danny seemed to really try and keep him but who knows.

I think once Danny took over and tried to trade our guys he saw the offers and was like "oh ****". When we flamed out (during the season and in the playoffs) it was obvious changes had to be made, but when he saw the player return for Rudy it was meh... and then he got a huge offer out of Minny. At that point I genuinely think he pivoted to preferring a full rebuild. That is when I think he said "well last season was zero fun... we have the guy who was a large part of that still on the roster... we have a pile of new picks... we have the opportunity to get another pile with Don... we have some vets to sell off... ya know Ryan we could really turn this thing around quick".

Ryan said "absolutley not we have an AS game and I have a new collection of backwards hats I can wear with the amazing new re-brand".

Danny said "let me show you how much money I can save you in this rebuild"

Ryan "oh... yeah... rebuild sounds great"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top