So to those that think we sold this build short:
Tell us what the Jazz were supposed to do. Realistically. Knowing Danny Ainge and that everyone would’ve wanted this year to go well - whether they were planning on nuking it this off-season ahead of time or not - are we to believe that he didn’t look for the deals to improve the team last season? We needed something for nothing and maximizing assets is what Danny Ainge does. Nothing was there
So, what were/are the Jazz supposed to do? And if just staying the course is the answer, what makes you think this team isn’t even worse in the years to follow?
The first thing they should have done is fired Quin after the LAC series. As flawed as the Jazz roster was, they coulda shoulda woulda won the LAC series and been in a good position to make the finals. We were clearly at a strategic and coaching disadvantage. I think very few coaches in the league would have lost that series and Quin could only do it because he engrained such bad habits into his players. I think the same could be said for the DAL series, but the entire team/franchise had already seemed to be checked out at that point anyways. Quin was a particularly bad coach for this Jazz team because he coddled the players and never challenged them. It's the reason they loved him, but a big reason why we never had a turnaround the way the Celtics did when Ime Udoka challenged his players. If the Jazz were anything but a historical failure on defense in the DEN and LAC series....they would have advanced easily but Quin could not change his way.
Having said that, the roster also had flaws that no coach could fix completely. The Jazz should have also flipped some combination of Conley/Bogey/Clarkson/O'Neale before the season. Really they should have done it years before, but trading those older vets for younger players and/or players who fit around Mitchell and Gobert was something obvious and better for the franchise no matter what direction they wanted to go. The roster as it stood was obviously flawed. We had lots of these trade discussions during the summer and throughout the season. It's debatable whether guys like Josh Hart, Derrick White, Kyle Anderson, Marcus Smart, Thad Young etc. would have produced better results. In a lot of the proposed trades, the Jazz would be getting what would be perceived as a worse player in favor of getting someone or who is a better git. The grass isn't always greener argument was brought up all the time whenever the proposition of trading one of flawed role players came up...but the grass was already as torched. The Jazz were horrendously stupid for sitting on their surplus of offense only, no defense players. It was obvious since Miye Oni was advertised as the solution to Jamal Murray torching us. I will die on this hill forever.
Staying the course was absolutely the worst thing the Jazz could have done. The Jazz obviously didn't do anything to improve, but that doesn't mean they exhausted every possibility. It doesn't matter to me if they tried look, but declined trades that would have been good. It's the same effect. I think it's most plausible that they overrated the players we had and there was also great hesitation because the FO was already leaning towards the huge overhaul that was heavily reported/speculated on by the beat reporters all year. The fact that nothing did happen certainly does not prove to me that nothing could have happened....but I would say that the inaction year over year does suggest that the Jazz FO did not take their flaws seriously enough. Hard for me to chalk it up to a tough trade market when there were multiple years of inaction.
Mitchell and Gobert are definitely flawed players, but they are also really freaking good. Last year was pretty close to worse case scenario outside of major injury issues....and yet they still had the 3rd highest SRS in the league. RS is not the same as playoffs, but they are still very special players who have had playoff heroics on their own. Get the right coach, get some youngish players who might be better fits, and maybe make a move on the margin or two that isn't horrible...Yeah I think those things are very doable and would make a big difference. Does this mean we win the championship? Probably not. Does having a bunch of picks mean we win the championship? Also probably not. Mitchell and Gobert are the guys you tank for and tanking is a permanently available option. The trade return on Gobert (especially) and Mitchell might not have been what we'd get now....but those two are good enough players where I would give them another chance with a different coach and a roster that is set up to fail do horrible roster flaws. Between better coaching, a more balanced roster, and better vibes there was a ton of room for improvement. Blow it up now, you probably get better stuff for them. But the opportunity cost is that you gave up on Don/Rudy forever, and I think that combo still had potential even if it was difficult to proceed.
My stance hasn't changed too much over time....but I will admit that it is a more difficult decision than it was after the LAC series. The coaching change and types of moves we should have been seeking are the same as they were now as they were a year ago. It would have still been worth it for me to do those moves and give it another go. Players like Rudy/Don just don't come around often, especially at the same time. The path with Rudy/Don is/was is increasingly more difficult, but it is also very difficult to build a title contender even if you have a bunch of extra picks. It's hard to get players as good as Rudy and Don in the first place.