What's new
By:
Filters

Do you want our pick to convey this year?

Do you want our pick to convey to OKC this year?

  • Yes, and hopefully make some noise in the play in/play offs

    Votes: 40 41.7%

  • No, I want a Top 10 pick this year!

    Votes: 35 36.5%

  • Undecided/No Strong Preference

    Votes: 21 21.9%
  • Total voters
    96
silesian said:
Been through this before but I'll give it one more try.....

Were there better offers that would have helped the team more than the one Danny accepted? I tend to think Danny knows more than I do about this so I'd say that it is highly unlikely that he had a bias so strong for 2024 draft that he would reject better offers. Picks in the upcoming draft historically have more value than later drafts, partially because GMs like to keep their jobs, partially because fans are impatient, and partially due to the "time value" (a win this year is more valuable than a win in 5 years). So the idea is not crazy.

The crazy part is the expectation that this would be much more than a "tie breaker" between similar value offers.

Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than an unprotected 1rst from the Warriors 2025? probably not. Danny would probably take the Warrior's offer

Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than highly protected 2027 pick from the Nuggets? Probably. Danny would probably reject the Nugget's offer.

The problem is that you have nothing but guesswork that better offers were available and guesswork is the entire foundation of your argument.
Click to expand...
The Jazz wanted picks in 2024. They wanted skin in the game come draft day so they could get action.
 
HermanG said:
Future picks (can hold on to them longer for trade purposes) or young players who are closer to useful than next years rookies were options that I would have preferred to target.
Click to expand...
I don’t think future picks were an option. We were getting the worst of 3picks. Detroit wasn’t giving us one of their picks that will most likely be very good picks over the next few years.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The Jazz wanted picks in 2024. They wanted skin in the game come draft day so they could get action.
Click to expand...
To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?

Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
 
Tanktastic said:
To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?

Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Click to expand...
Yep. Pretty depressing. You should probably just give up on the jazz and move on

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Tanktastic said:
To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?

Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Click to expand...
Help next years pick be a top 3 maybe we can tank properly this time. Lol
 
Tanktastic said:
To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?

Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Click to expand...
Thats not the only path. Rookies/sophomores can be used as trade bait if there is a team that "blows it up" and wants to chase Flagg and Boozer.

So getting a guy like Caruso is on the table if Chicago decides to tank as they owe their 2025 FRP to Spurs with top 10 protection on it. Plus whoever the mystery guy is (I dont think Caruso is "left field" enough to be that guy, even if we werent connected to him).

However if there are no trade opportunities out there, DA has put us in position to pivot as well.
 
silesian said:
No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.
Click to expand...
So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?

I thought we just argued for about 2 pages where I said "preferences" and you said "value". Color me confused.
 
I just saw this: " The Jazz have allowed Otto Porter to return home to contemplate where he wants to finish the season, sources tell Tony Jones of The Athletic. The team is willing to negotiate a buyout with Porter, Jones adds, but it will have to be completed by March 1 to make him eligible for the playoffs with another organization."
 
HermanG said:
So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?
Click to expand...

Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.
 
homeytennis said:
I just saw this: " The Jazz have allowed Otto Porter to return home to contemplate where he wants to finish the season, sources tell Tony Jones of The Athletic. The team is willing to negotiate a buyout with Porter, Jones adds, but it will have to be completed by March 1 to make him eligible for the playoffs with another organization."
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm sure we'd rather use the spot for someone with some upside and I'm sure if he's healthy he'd rather not ride the pine. Ryan and Danny will need their pound of flesh while OP jr.'s agent looks around for a suitor.
 
silesian said:
Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.
Click to expand...
Ok now you are being next level delusional. But you dont have to re litigate.... I'm going to do it for you. Lets show everyone who got dismantled.

You started your initial response by challenging the whole concept of optionality, and made silly narrative that DA is sabotaging the organisation if he isnt taking the best value. I tried to make you understand that face value and type of value are two different things, and told you in multiple posts that my main issue was always in the type of return.
silesian said:
The problem with this “instead of” argument is that it assumes we had optionality.
Click to expand...

Then you went on to argue that there is "no way we rejected better offers":
silesian said:
This idea that the Danny/ Z had superior trades that they rejected is very strange.
Click to expand...
silesian said:
You think Danny rejected better offers from better teams.
Click to expand...

And then you went into sarcasm...
silesian said:
Okay, I give in. Danny desperately wanted 2024 late firsts and early seconds and he spurned numerous other better offers
Click to expand...
... only to come out a hot second later suddenly admitting that they did prefer 2024 picks:
silesian said:
No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.
Click to expand...

I on the other hand have never been nothing but consistent with my claim that we wanted 2024 picks and that was my gripe. Its the main point I make throughout our conversation. These 3 and the 2 below are from 5 separate posts, so over half of what I posted.
HermanG said:
The far superior logic is they preferred 2024 picks and valued them higher than their face value.
Click to expand...
HermanG said:
It was a choice to get only 2024 picks and expirings.
Click to expand...
HermanG said:
i merely pointed out the fact that they prioritized 2024 picks instead of players or future picks.
Click to expand...

I even tried to desperately make you say if we prefer/target/favor/prioritize 2024 picks... and you wouldnt. Until you did in your response to Cy.
HermanG said:
So which one is it? Have the guts to commit to a take:
Did our FO target/favor 2024 picks or get two of those by coincidence?
Click to expand...
HermanG said:
But stop diverting attention away from it and answer this question finally:

Did we get the best/only deals or did we prioritize 2024 picks?
Click to expand...
 
silesian said:
Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.
Click to expand...



HermanG said:
I even tried to desperately make you say if we prefer/target/favor/prioritize 2024 picks... and you wouldnt. Until you did in your response to Cy.
Click to expand...


So from my agreement that we "want" 2024 picks, you logically conclude that we "prefer/ target/ favor/ prioritize" 2024 picks.


Similarly, let's say I want a chocolate bar. From this you would obviously conclude that I prefer chocolate bars to ice cream. And I would give up a quart of ice cream to get a bite of chocolate.

Do they teach logic in Finland?

This is as productive as talking to a piece of belly button lint.
 
silesian said:
So from my agreement that we "want" 2024 picks, you logically conclude that we "prefer/ target/ favor/ prioritize" 2024 picks.
Click to expand...
Ehh... yes? I mean..... are you setious here?

silesian said:
Similarly, let's say I want a chocolate bar. From this you would obviously conclude that I prefer chocolate bars to ice cream. And I would give up a quart of ice cream to get a bite of chocolate.
Click to expand...
And again you backtrack to the "best value" assumption and try to bloat the difference.

silesian said:
Do they teach logic in Finland?

This is as productive as talking to a piece of belly button lint.
Click to expand...
Those types of derogatory comments only make you look worse.
 
Spaniard said:
4 pages and counting? Your poor life partners
Click to expand...
Fair point. When you get to the point where one party insists that "want" equals "prefer" we are debating irrefutable facts about language and it is time to move on. Thanks for the prompt, my life partner is calling, ;-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top