BasketballInsiders: Rudy Gobert is Ahead of Schedule

[Stoked]

Ok are you absolutely positively sure the next Duncan, Jordan, Kobe or James is in the upcoming draft?

No, but I am absolutely positive that they are not coming thru free agency. I will take a a chance over no chance any day.

 

[Jamezz]

D'Angelo ****ing Russell

Thank you for providing a specific name. Guess I'll have to check him out if it's so 'obvious'.

 

[freakazoid]

Really! I get really weary of "Tank for player X" If you will all just re-read or remember all the posts about "tank for this guy, or tank for that guy" and realize that you were all wrong. Tanking is a state of mind that exists in the minds of average fans who are without any real talent for improving an NBA team. The Jazz players of last year and this year were not tanking nor will they be. When a team gets so bad that they lose any competitive edge or desire then the fans jump up and say they are tanking! Its a myth! And the league would frown upon such a thing if it could be proven, as they should.

Please refer to us as pro-winning culture fans instead please.
Thank you.

I don't believe that to be accurate. At best, you are the mediocrity culture fans, but since you prefer to lose a lot in the future just to get a couple extra immediate wins, it could be said that you are pro-losing in the future, or future losers.

 

[silesian]

Is there anyone who doesn't think Rudy is going to roll out a 10 foot jumper by the start of next season?

More excited about the jump hook

 

[Jamezz]

I don't believe that to be accurate. At best, you are the mediocrity culture fans, but since you prefer to lose a lot in the future just to get a couple extra immediate wins, it could be said that you are pro-losing in the future, or future losers.

Nice try Freak, you didn't come around soon enough to drop one of your 'gems'.

 

[hawkeye]

San Antonio acquiring Duncan.

Cleveland sucking to get LeBron, Irving etc.

New Orleans getting Davis after parting ways with CP3.

OKC continually sucking to get Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.

Every team sucked at some point to get their star players.

All these examples prove two things:

1. Sucking for a period of time does not create a losing culture that the team can't recover from.

2. Just about every team gets their franchise player via the draft, and usually toward the very top of it.

You could also add the clippers to that list to get Blake Griffin.

 

[Siro]

I don't believe that to be accurate. At best, you are the mediocrity culture fans, but since you prefer to lose a lot in the future just to get a couple extra immediate wins, it could be said that you are pro-losing in the future, or future losers.

Why stop with next year's pick? Why not tank for another year or two? Why is tanking for a higher lotto pick better than sticking with what we have and focusing on adding a couple of solid vets, or pooling our assets for an impact player? What if we tank for a player that doesn't pan out? What if an extended rebuilding process causes some of the players we developed to leave for greener pastures? There are a million what ifs, and I don't get your insistence that anyone who doesn't share your exact vision of the rebuild process is pro-losing . We already have a core that can develop into a contender, and the draft is not the only way to add the one or two players we still need to get where we want to be.

 

[Jazz4ever]

I don't really want Rudy shooting 10' jumpers, we've got enough poor 30-40% jump shooters already. He is basically at the rim with his reach, might as well develop a drop step or something to get there where he can also

a.) potentially get fouled
b.) get a rebound in case of a miss

 

[silesian]

I don't really want Rudy shooting 10' jumpers, we've got enough poor 30-40% jump shooters already. He is basically at the rim with his reach, might as well develop a drop step or something to get there where he can also

a.) potentially get fouled
b.) get a rebound in case of a miss

Why do you pose this as a choice between a 10 ft jump shot and a drop step. They are complementary. And why do you believe that he can't get his own rebound on a 10 foot jumper?

 

[silesian]

The Jazz players of last year and this year were not tanking nor will they be. When a team gets so bad that they lose any competitive edge or desire then the fans jump up and say they are tanking! Its a myth! And the league would frown upon such a thing if it could be proven, as they should.

You are altering the concept of tanking to support your argument. Tanking is when general management accumulates assets to win at some future point, and prioritizes future assets over putting assets on the floor in the current season, thereby accumulating future valuable assets via higher draft picks. Tanking is not players throwing games, so your argument is specious.

 

[silesian]

. We already have a core that can develop into a contender,./QUOTE] I

f you are correct, than we should follow your strategy. There are folks who think that your assumption is not a certainty.

 

[freakazoid]

You are altering the concept of tanking to support your argument. Tanking is when general management accumulates assets to win at some future point, and prioritizes future assets over putting assets on the floor in the current season, thereby accumulating future valuable assets via higher draft picks. Tanking is not players throwing games, so your argument is specious.

Please post more often.

 

[stitches]

San Antonio acquiring Duncan.

Cleveland sucking to get LeBron, Irving etc.

New Orleans getting Davis after parting ways with CP3.

OKC continually sucking to get Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.

Every team sucked at some point to get their star players.

All these examples prove two things:

1. Sucking for a period of time does not create a losing culture that the team can't recover from.

2. Just about every team gets their franchise player via the draft, and usually toward the very top of it.

You have to have talent to win it all in the NBA. For a small market team like Utah the draft is the only way they can acquire truly talented players. We've got some really nice young pieces, but adding more is only going to help. If losing three more games this season is going to be the difference between drafting Russell and drafting Winslow, then I'd rather lose a few more games. I'm not saying the coaches or players should try to lose, I'm just saying it's what would be best for the long term outlook of the team, and the FO should make moves to help that happen, if they present themselves.

Yep, very well said. Almost all teams acquire their franchise players through the draft or through trades at draftnight for rookies and most of them are acquired in the top 10. I did the calculations a while ago and the numbers were something like - 10 "superstars" in 1-3 pick, 7 in 4-6 picks, 6 in 7-10 picks and 4 for 11-60 picks...

The "losing culture" myth has absolutely nothing with reality. There is overwhelming evidence that higher picks give you higher chance to land a superstar and that winning depends on the talent you have, and not on the "culture". When you have good enough players you win, and it doesn't matter if you were losing in order to get those players.

 

[fishonjazz]

When you have good enough players you win

This, plain and simple.
Best way to get those players for a team like the jazz is via the draft

 

[Jamezz]

Okay

 

[Coach Ellis]

D'Angelo ****ing Russell

This is the kind of middle name that you get when the nurse is filling out the paperwork while mom is still in labor. . .

 

[b_line]

Hey guys, we drafted rudy at 27, so that proves that all good players come in the last three picks of the first round. It's a rule. Look it up. No need to get high picks or trade for them anymore.




Just patiently waiting for Miami to be title co tenders with that Napier kid they drafted, and that d leaguer okc picked up is gonna blow up the league real soon. Glad they dont have any losing culture to spoil them like we have with gobert.

 

[Grandpa Jazz]

Yeah. Duh. No one ever said that the players should try to lose.

This is a common misconception anti-tankers have about the meaning of the word "tank". Look at Philly. The players aren't going out there and saying, "Let's get this L, guiz", yet it's still one of the biggest tank jobs in history.

And your point about how we were all wrong about tanking for player X. Umm...pretty sure we'd all be pretty happy if we had Wiggins like we all originally wanted, and I'm pretty sure we're all happy we have Exum now (yes, we got him by tanking, whether you like it or not). And adding another player like Russell to the team would help us become contenders down the line, too.

So, then you are saying that "tanker" types are just fans of an absolutely awful franchise and say their team is "tanking" as a way of justifying being a fan of that team? Kind of like a synonym for re-building?

Many of you certainly do believe that tanking teams are actually trying to lose games (either players, coach or front office). All you need to do is re-read those threads. Far from everyone wanting Wiggins there was much disagreement about who we were tanking for and by the way as impressive as Wiggins skills are he is not yet a great player himself. Exum ( and Randle, and others ) could turn out to be the better player(s). The best thing that the Jazz have done to get better was Rudy Gobert (and the D-Will trade) and he didn't come from "tanking" in any sense he came from an astute gamble that seems to be paying off. I get tickled every time I think about how Denver must feel about that deal.

We really are both saying the same thing then. That "tanking" isn't a real thing, it is just a myth. Certainly a consensus opinion is that S.A. "tanked on purpose" to get Tim Duncan. I don't agree with that assessment either.

 

[fishonjazz]

So, then you are saying that "tanker" types are just fans of an absolutely awful franchise and say their team is "tanking" as a way of justifying being a fan of that team? Kind of like a synonym for re-building?

Many of you certainly do believe that tanking teams are actually trying to lose games (either players, coach or front office). All you need to do is re-read those threads. Far from everyone wanting Wiggins there was much disagreement about who we were tanking for and by the way as impressive as Wiggins skills are he is not yet a great player himself. Exum ( and Randle, and others ) could turn out to be the better player(s). The best thing that the Jazz have done to get better was Rudy Gobert (and the D-Will trade) and he didn't come from "tanking" in any sense he came from an astute gamble that seems to be paying off. I get tickled every time I think about how Denver must feel about that deal.

We really are both saying the same thing then. That "tanking" isn't a real thing, it is just a myth. Certainly a consensus opinion is that S.A. "tanked on purpose" to get Tim Duncan. I don't agree with that assessment either.

So forget the term "tanking" for just a minute.
Would you rather have the #1 pick or the #12 pick?
4th pick or 10th pick?

5th pick or 7th pick?

Most of us "tankers" simply are happy with losses because we know it increases our odds of getting a better pick and we think that better picks > worse picks.

 

[Jamezz]

So forget the term "tanking" for just a minute.
Would you rather have the #1 pick or the #12 pick?
4th pick or 10th pick?

5th pick or 7th pick?

Most of us "tankers" simply are happy with losses because we know it increases our odds of getting a better pick and we think that better picks > worse picks.

Ugh, when is this myth ever gonna stop. Look right down here kid, tell me what you see:

Kenneth Faried went 22nd in 2011.
Marc Gasol went 48th in 2007.
Rajon Rondo went 21st in 2006.
Tony Parker went 28th in 2001.
Manu Ginobili went 57th in 1999.
Kobe Bryant went 13th in 1996.
Steve Nash went 15th in 1996.
Shawn Kemp went 17th in 1989.
Karl Malone went 13th in 1985.
Joe Dumars went 18th in 1985.
John Stockton went 16th in 1984.
Clyde Drexler went 14th in 1983.
Alex English went 23rd in 1976.

You know, just to name a few...