What's new
By:
Filters

Official Utah/Minnesota/Philadelphia Pick Watch

Handlogten's Heros said:
For the losing makes culture bad/good... please explain Devin Booker's career. Starts as a gunner... team loses all the time... toxic work culture. Monty comes in and things start to change... CP comes in and now they have one of the best records in the league and go to a finals. I would have thought the years of losing and toxic culture would dictate that they suck perpetually... cuz that's how it works.
Click to expand...

plus don't forget they have had a stinking awful owner as well through all this
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
For the losing makes culture bad/good... please explain Devin Booker's career. Starts as a gunner... team loses all the time... toxic work culture. Monty comes in and things start to change... CP comes in and now they have one of the best records in the league and go to a finals. I would have thought the years of losing and toxic culture would dictate that they suck perpetually... cuz that's how it works.
Click to expand...

Dude they're 8th and at present suck....
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
People prefer smart teams I guess that try to win 3-4 more games a year by trading for Vucevic, Gobert, and Murray. Winning as many regular season games each year is the ultimate goal ya know. No one more ants to be a team like Memphis that rebuilt and permanently damaged their culture. They will never recover.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. Memphis make a fantastic job after they move on from the 4 core players. And i won't be surprised if they win a championship in the next 3 years. Of course they have been lucky landing Ja but they still keep large part of their culture.
 
FrenchJazzFa said:
Totally disagree. Memphis make a fantastic job after they move on from the 4 core players. And i won't be surprised if they win a championship in the next 3 years. Of course they have been lucky landing Ja but they still keep large part of their culture.
Click to expand...
It was sarcasm. I'm with you.
 
sip said:
It is all about the talent. There are a ton of mediocre teams with good culture every year. There are also tons of winning teams that had a so called losing culture prior to the switch flipping for them because they finally acquired enough talent.
Click to expand...
No its not. I will make a list of factors that affect... and I will limit it to only word starting with C. And that excludes the biggest individual factor.. which is not talent, but luck.

Chemistry (personalities)
Clutchness
Coaching
Coherence
Compatability (skillsets)
Conditioning
Coping with pressure (ok this is a stretch for a C-word lol)
Culture

You are oversimplifying things. Life is not simple, people are not simple, winning is not simple.

Furthermore, talent is not a deciding factor since all teams are talented in the playoffs. You gotta have it, but the deciding factors are elsewhere.

Btw @fishonjazz you are usually a sensible guy.. but lately been liking stuff like this has me puzzled. Dont fall into the zealous train.
 
HermanG said:
No its not. I will make a list of factors that affect... and I will limit it to only word starting with C. And that excludes the biggest individual factor.. which is not talent, but luck.

Chemistry (personalities)
Clutchness
Coaching
Coherence
Compatability (skillsets)
Conditioning
Coping with pressure (ok this is a stretch for a C-word lol)
Culture

You are oversimplifying things. Life is not simple, people are not simple, winning is not simple.

Furthermore, talent is not a deciding factor since all teams are talented in the playoffs. You gotta have it, but the deciding factors are elsewhere.

Btw @fishonjazz you are usually a sensible guy.. but lately been liking stuff like this has me puzzled. Dont fall into the zealous train.
Click to expand...
Reason I liked it is because talent is the most important part.
Giannis, Lebron, Steph, etc. You have those dudes on your team and even if you had a losing culture prior to acquiring them suddenly you have a winning culture simply by getting one of them dudes. Talent is by far the most important part. Other things matter too but having an MVP caliber player is the first thing you want. Then you build the rest around that mvp caliber player. Having that player by itself isn't simply enough (see luka, and doncic) but having that player is the most important part.
For instance, Durant just got injured. There is a good chance they start losing games now until he comes back. Does that mean that suddenly their culture went from a winning culture to a losing culture and will suddenly switch back to a winning culture when he returns? Does it mean the coach got worse? The clutchness? The coherence, conditioning etc? Of course not. It just means that the team became less talented due to the injury.

Lebron is another example. Cleveland had a losing culture, drafted lebron and suddenly had a winning culture and made the finals, lebron left for miami and suddenly cleveland had a losing culture again, then lebron came back and suddenly they had a winning culture again and won a championship. Talent or lack thereof creates the winning or losing culture a lot of the time.
 
Last edited:
There's too much of a bias in determining which teams have talent and which don't. If the team is winning, it will be more favorably looked upon as having talent compared to teams that aren't winning (obviously good talent correlates with wins, too, but that relationship is so much muddier than we give it credit for). The late 90s and early 2000s Blazers had some of the most concentrated talent we'd seen in a long time on one roster but they never really did anything. Compare that to the first year of the post-Hayward Jazz and we didn't really have talent at all. The last couple years of the Jazz had more talent than we've ever had, yet we will forget about that because it didn't translate into the desired outcome. To use the Boston cliché again from last year where mid-season people would have said they lacked serious talent, but then magically had good talent when they were in the finals.
 
infection said:
There's too much of a bias in determining which teams have talent and which don't. If the team is winning, it will be more favorably looked upon as having talent compared to teams that aren't winning (obviously good talent correlates with wins, too, but that relationship is so much muddier than we give it credit for). The late 90s and early 2000s Blazers had some of the most concentrated talent we'd seen in a long time on one roster but they never really did anything. Compare that to the first year of the post-Hayward Jazz and we didn't really have talent at all. The last couple years of the Jazz had more talent than we've ever had, yet we will forget about that because it didn't translate into the desired outcome. To use the Boston cliché again from last year where mid-season people would have said they lacked serious talent, but then magically had good talent when they were in the finals.
Click to expand...
Ya I think the thing about the teams you mentioned (blazers and jazz), neither had an mvp caliber player. Lots of talent no doubt. No MVP's though.
 
fishonjazz said:
Reason I liked it is because talent is the most important part.
Giannis, Lebron, Steph, etc. You have those dudes on your team and even if you had a losing culture prior to acquiring them suddenly you have a winning culture simply by getting one of them dudes. Talent is by far the most important part. Other things matter too but having an MVP caliber player is the first thing you want. Then you build the rest around that mvp caliber player. Having that player by itself isn't simply enough (see luka, and doncic) but having that player is the most important part.
For instance, Durant just got injured. There is a good chance they start losing games now until he comes back. Does that mean that suddenly their culture went from a winning culture to a losing culture and will suddenly switch back to a winning culture when he returns? Does it mean the coach got worse? The clutchness? The coherence, conditioning etc? Of course not. It just means that the team became less talented due to the injury.

Lebron is another example. Cleveland had a losing culture, drafted lebron and suddenly had a winning culture and made the finals, lebron left for miami and suddenly cleveland had a losing culture again, then lebron came back and suddenly they had a winning culture again and won a championship. Talent or lack thereof creates the winning or losing culture a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
I also think that a guy having talent is more encompassing than just he is really good at basketball. I think it extends to leadership work ethic etc. So maybe we rephrase it to say... getting the most impactful players is the more important thing. You can have an amazing culture and if Fish and I are running pick and rolls you are screwed.

I just think people are hilarious in their anti-rebuild anti-tank rhetoric. Yeah intentionally losing is not great for culture... but that isn't what is really happening. The coach doesn't go out to lose... neither do the players... the front office removing a vet or two to give way to a developing player results in a few extra losses and you get a big boost in talent (impactful player) hopefully.

Culture is one component of building a winner... you hope your coach, front office, and most talented player all help develop that culture. Its something that can be lost quickly and transformed (as long as you don't have a ****** hands on owner). Its not something tied exclusively to striving for every last win every year. Again... Pop has a pretty amazing culture in SA and he is out developing guys this year... he's blatantly tanked before... if you are anti-tank or anti-rebuild I don't think culture is the best argument.
 
infection said:
There's too much of a bias in determining which teams have talent and which don't. If the team is winning, it will be more favorably looked upon as having talent compared to teams that aren't winning (obviously good talent correlates with wins, too, but that relationship is so much muddier than we give it credit for). The late 90s and early 2000s Blazers had some of the most concentrated talent we'd seen in a long time on one roster but they never really did anything. Compare that to the first year of the post-Hayward Jazz and we didn't really have talent at all. The last couple years of the Jazz had more talent than we've ever had, yet we will forget about that because it didn't translate into the desired outcome. To use the Boston cliché again from last year where mid-season people would have said they lacked serious talent, but then magically had good talent when they were in the finals.
Click to expand...
Blazers is an interesting one... cuz the culture there wasn't just not good... it was a full on **** show. They had a VERY talented Lakers team dead to rights before they came back. So I wouldn't say they did nothing. They desperately needed some adults in the room though.
 
fishonjazz said:
Reason I liked it is because talent is the most important part.
Giannis, Lebron, Steph, etc. You have those dudes on your team and even if you had a losing culture prior to acquiring them suddenly you have a winning culture simply by getting one of them dudes. Talent is by far the most important part. Other things matter too but having an MVP caliber player is the first thing you want. Then you build the rest around that mvp caliber player. Having that player by itself isn't simply enough (see luka, and doncic) but having that player is the most important part.
For instance, Durant just got injured. There is a good chance they start losing games now until he comes back. Does that mean that suddenly their culture went from a winning culture to a losing culture and will suddenly switch back to a winning culture when he returns? Does it mean the coach got worse? The clutchness? The coherence, conditioning etc? Of course not. It just means that the team became less talented due to the injury.

Lebron is another example. Cleveland had a losing culture, drafted lebron and suddenly had a winning culture and made the finals, lebron left for miami and suddenly cleveland had a losing culture again, then lebron came back and suddenly they had a winning culture again and won a championship. Talent or lack thereof creates the winning or losing culture a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
First off, the post said "it is all about the talent". It didnt say that talent is the most important factor.. it said that talent is by far most important.

Secondly, to downplay the importance of other aspects is to say that the teams with the most talented top players in the league should win it every year. Sometimes very talented teams dont even survive to the 2nd round. Or in case of Lakers.. might not make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

Giannis, Steph and Lebron have many other aspects besides their obviously otherworldly talent. You can see it by comparing them to their peers. Also are they far superiorly talented compared to Kevin Durant, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Trae Young or many other superstars who either havent won or havent won without one of those 3? No. Yet Durant has had many superteams but only won with Steph. Harden hasnt won anything because he isnt clutch. Trae (the best example) is immensly talented but borderline toxic to good team basketball... up to the point where their roster keeps getting better and better but their performance keeps getting worse and worse. Embiid might not belong there since he really hasnt had a good situation at any point.. and that year when Simmons froze wasnt on him at all.

Hell how many top 5 picks do the Magic currently have? At least 2 #1s in Fultz and Banchero. Both playing good ball. Yet.. they suck at this thing called winning.
 
So Nets pick probably gets alot better, but then we end up getting Philly pick anyway. 25 is probably best case unless Philly has a key injury also.
The pick itself should just be attached to somebody outgoing in the next couple weeks to get upgrades
 
HermanG said:
First off, the post said "it is all about the talent". It didnt say that talent is the most important factor.. it said that talent is by far most important.

Secondly, to downplay the importance of other aspects is to say that the teams with the most talented top players in the league should win it every year. Sometimes very talented teams dont even survive to the 2nd round. Or in case of Lakers.. might not make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

Giannis, Steph and Lebron have many other aspects besides their obviously otherworldly talent. You can see it by comparing them to their peers. Also are they far superiorly talented compared to Kevin Durant, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Trae Young or many other superstars who either havent won or havent won without one of those 3? No. Yet Durant has had many superteams but only won with Steph. Harden hasnt won anything because he isnt clutch. Trae (the best example) is immensly talented but borderline toxic to good team basketball... up to the point where their roster keeps getting better and better but their performance keeps getting worse and worse. Embiid might not belong there since he really hasnt had a good situation at any point.. and that year when Simmons froze wasnt on him at all.

Hell how many top 5 picks do the Magic currently have? At least 2 #1s in Fultz and Banchero. Both playing good ball. Yet.. they suck at this thing called winning.
Click to expand...
Ya you have to draft the right player so orlando hasn't done that yet. Thing is if you dont have the #1 pick then there is a chance you dont even have the chance to draft the steph, lebron, giannis, durant (he belongs in that convo), luka, doncic, etc.
You look at all of the championship teams in history and like 98% of them had an mvp caliber player on the roster. Those guys typically aren't available for trade and aren't available in free agency and if they are they dont typically come to the jazz.
The best (maybe only) way to get a lebron, steph, durant, giannis, luka, doncic type player for the jazz is through the draft. Getting the best pick possible is giving your team the best chance to draft that dude. If you draft one of them dudes then your culture will be just fine they day you draft them even if it sucked before.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya you have to draft the right player so orlando hasn't done that yet. Thing is if you dont have the #1 pick then there is a chance you dont even have the chance to draft the steph, lebron, giannis, durant (he belongs in that convo), luka, doncic, etc.
You look at all of the championship teams in history and like 98% of them had an mvp caliber player on the roster. Those guys typically aren't available for trade and aren't available in free agency and if they are they dont typically come to the jazz.
The best (maybe only) way to get a lebron, steph, durant, giannis, luka, doncic type player for the jazz is through the draft. Getting the best pick possible is giving your team the best chance to draft that dude. If you draft one of them dudes then your culture will be just fine they day you draft them even if it sucked before.
Click to expand...
Only 1 of those you listed is a #1. Everyone picking #1 those years chose the wrong guy.... and were applauded by making the right choice.. until they werent.

Its a crapshoot. The higher you are the better the odds.. but thats it.

Developing players to maximum potential is just as important as drafting the right guy... who is rarely the #1 according to history.
 
HermanG said:
Only 1 of those you listed is a #1. Everyone picking #1 those years chose the wrong guy.... and were applauded by making the right choice.. until they werent.

Its a crapshoot. The higher you are the better the odds.. but thats it.

Developing players to maximum potential is just as important as drafting the right guy... who is rarely the #1 according to history.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The higher you are the better the odds. That is literally the point being made.
Drafting the right guy is the most important thing (or acquiring the right guy in free agency or a trade. which never ever happens for the jazz). Getting the best odds to draft that guy is what people want. Which makes total sense to me.
 
Not sure what happened to Ant but he only played 10 minutes first half... Pistons up on the wolves by 1 at half. Wolves looked awful without Ant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top