The Preseason Thread

[Catchall]

Gobert, Lyles and Exum should watch film of Tony Parker and Tim Duncan run high-low actions. Jazz look like they're running very similar sets.

[Stern Fixer]

That's as good a game as I've seen Exum play since he entered the league, hopefully it's a sign of good things to come.

Three's accounted for half his field goals his rookie year, and in that game he didn't make one - in fact, he only had 1 jumper at all, that little mid-range one. He's made great progress in terms of being aggressive and utlizing his tools, and while he's got a while to go to show that will be consistent, I don't think I've really seen the flashes as well as I have that game. His handle looks better too.

I'll admit, I was worried that Exum was going to underwhelm - he was just so raw coming out. I'm starting to see the sort of potential that can really turn him in to a pivotal player though.

My thoughts exactly. As you say, he was raw and struggled in his first year. Had one of the worst +- that year of any guard, but he always had a knack for defense. And he was young so in that sense we always had hope. Not his fault having been drafted out of high school and not in the American system either (which is much more rigorous). Did cross my mind though, did we make a mistake taking this green kid at #5. Nothing but raw potential. But it was an incredibly week draft so we had that to fall back on. It was a total crap shoot, one that now in retrospect looks ready to pay off with a long and prosperous run.

Don't think it was a weak draft, still value after Exum but he will defintiely be top 10 in this draft.
1. Wiggins
2. Parker
3. Embiid
4. Gordon
5. Exum
6. Smart
7. Randle
13. LaVine
16. Nurkic
19. Harris
25. Capela
41. Jokic
45. Powell
46. Clarkson

Not to be contentious but I can't see anyone in that draft class that's had the impact of a CJ McCollum or a Steven Adams or a Rudy Gobert or a Victor Olidipo from the previous year. Then you got starters like Plumlee and Crabbe in the second tier. I mean we know we blew it that year trading Shabazz Mohammed and Giorgi Deng for Burke AND having Minn take him for us ahead of CJ McCollum and Steven Adams. I never felt that way about the Exum pick because the guys behind him like Smart, Randle and Lavine haven't done squat. Smart can't shoot, Randle is undersized and Lavine has been inconsistent. Even the guys ahead of him have been crap shoots with Embiid and Parker going down. As somebody else alluded to with win/shares, a good case could be made that Hood is the best player to come out that year. Of course that story is still unfolding.

[zimpy27]

My thoughts exactly. As you say, he was raw and struggled in his first year. Had one of the worst +- that year of any guard, but he always had a knack for defense. And he was young so in that sense we always had hope. Not his fault having been drafted out of high school and not in the American system either (which is much more rigorous). Did cross my mind though, did we make a mistake taking this green kid at #5. Nothing but raw potential. But it was an incredibly week draft so we had that to fall back on. It was a total crap shoot, one that now in retrospect looks ready to pay off with a long and prosperous run.

Don't think it was a weak draft, still value after Exum but he will defintiely be top 10 in this draft.
1. Wiggins
2. Parker
3. Embiid
4. Gordon
5. Exum
6. Smart
7. Randle
13. LaVine
16. Nurkic
19. Harris
25. Capela
41. Jokic
45. Powell
46. Clarkson

Not to be contentious but I can't see anyone in that draft class that's had the impact of a CJ McCollum or a Steven Adams or a Rudy Gobert or a Victor Olidipo from the previous year. Then you got starters like Plumlee and Crabbe in the second tier. I mean we know we blew it that year trading Shabazz Mohammed and Giorgi Deng for Burke AND having Minn take him for us ahead of CJ McCollum and Steven Adams. I never felt that way about the Exum pick because the guys behind him like Smart, Randle and Lavine haven't done squat. Smart can't shoot, Randle is undersized and Lavine has been inconsistent. Even the guys ahead of him have been crap shoots with Embiid and Parker going down. As somebody else alluded to with win/shares, a good case could be made that Hood is the best player to come out that year. Of course that story is still unfolding.

Well your team has to get wins to get a decent win share. Hood just happens to have starter minutes with an experienced team. I agree though, Exum and Hood were a great haul from the picks the Jazz had.

[stitches]

BTW, 5 days until we can renegotiate and extend Favors. Countdown is on...

[KqWIN]

Our two favorite experts (House and Simmons) seem to be heating up on the Jazz. They spoke very briefly about us, but they've gone from "that Vegas line way too high", to "I don't know how to feel about it yet". All it took was reading out the new additions aloud!

[Stern Fixer]

Don't think it was a weak draft, still value after Exum but he will defintiely be top 10 in this draft.
1. Wiggins
2. Parker
3. Embiid
4. Gordon
5. Exum
6. Smart
7. Randle
13. LaVine
16. Nurkic
19. Harris
25. Capela
41. Jokic
45. Powell
46. Clarkson

Not to be contentious but I can't see anyone in that draft class that's had the impact of a CJ McCollum or a Steven Adams or a Rudy Gobert or a Victor Olidipo from the previous year. Then you got starters like Plumlee and Crabbe in the second tier. I mean we know we blew it that year trading Shabazz Mohammed and Giorgi Deng for Burke AND having Minn take him for us ahead of CJ McCollum and Steven Adams. I never felt that way about the Exum pick because the guys behind him like Smart, Randle and Lavine haven't done squat. Smart can't shoot, Randle is undersized and Lavine has been inconsistent. Even the guys ahead of him have been crap shoots with Embiid and Parker going down. As somebody else alluded to with win/shares, a good case could be made that Hood is the best player to come out that year. Of course that story is still unfolding.

Well your team has to get wins to get a decent win share. Hood just happens to have starter minutes with an experienced team. I agree though, Exum and Hood were a great haul from the picks the Jazz had.

I was thinking about it and what I really wanted to say was that it was a disappointing draft (not weak), as it was projected to be a very good draft but didn't deliver (right away) as promised. Also I wanted to add, that after watching Exum's performance (against Phoenix), I really think he has a chance to end up being the class of that draft. He was raw coming out but what the scouts saw was that combination of blinding speed, length and court awareness. And we were all worried about the ACL tear but he hasn't lost a thing in that respect that I can tell. The only difference is skill set (not so right hand dominant), confidence and better understanding of the game.

[stitches]

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=17794706

Zack Lowe and JVG talking about the Jazz at about 46:50... Some interesting conversation there...

JVG:
- injury is big, but we got depth to withstand it
- mid-40s type team
- Quin some of the most underrated coaches
- likes the defense, "terrific defensive team"

Lowe:
- expects 50 wins.
- raises the question - can Hayward be the second best player on a championship team? Answer - depends on who's the best player. Lebron, Curry - yes.... this is why it's so depressing - unless you have one of the very best players it's really hard to be a championship team.
-Lowe says that in 2-3 years the upside of this team is the 2004 Pistons team.

If that's true - are we OK with that? Or would you be willing to sell out this team for picks and start rebuilding again before we even try contending with the current roster?

[Inigo Montoya]

I know the 2004 Pistons sounds tempting, since they were truly contenders and even champions. Having said that, they had a much easier path to the finals since the east was pathetic at the time. They are also the exception to the rule when it comes to championship teams, and I don't think modeling ourselves after the most rare example of a championship team gives us the best chance to become a championship team. It only worked once, that I can recall.

I know when you have a deep team with no clear superstar, the knee-jerk reaction is to bring up the 2004 Pistons, but really, that approach only worked for the 2004 Pistons in all of modern history.

Even with the balance of power within the west changing, I don't see a scenario where it is as weak as the east was when the Pistons had their day. There are other up and coming teams to consider.

However, I don't see many people willing to start rebuilding again now that this team is close to (some) success, and aware I'm in the minority. Having said all that, if one thinks this team can truly contend for a championship by molding itself after said 2004 Pistons and be the contemporary incarnation of such a team, then I guess one would go with that. Personally, I have my doubts.

[sipclip]

I know the 2004 Pistons sounds tempting, since they were truly contenders and even champions. Having said that, they had a much easier path to the finals since the east was pathetic at the time. They are also the exception to the rule when it comes to championship teams, and I don't think modeling ourselves after the most rare example of a championship team gives us the best chance to become a championship team. It only worked once, that I can recall.

I know when you have a deep team with no clear superstar, the knee-jerk reaction is to bring up the 2004 Pistons, but really, that approach only worked for the 2004 Pistons in all of modern history.

Even with the balance of power within the west changing, I don't see a scenario where it is as weak as the east was when the Pistons had their day. There are other up and coming teams to consider.

However, I don't see many people willing to start rebuilding again now that this team is close to (some) success, and aware I'm in the minority. Having said all that, if one thinks this team can truly contend for a championship by molding itself after said 2004 Pistons and be the contemporary incarnation of such a team, then I guess one would go with that. Personally, I have my doubts.

You are missing the 2013 and 2014 spurs. They also won without a superstar and in an extremely deep western conference.

[Daddy 801]

If trading Favs and Hayward meant getting a number one or two pick I think I would do it. Assuming that player was suppose to be a superstar. And, if we trade one I say trade both and get a couple young guys. Keeping the core of Gobert, Hood, Exum, and Lyles means we still have a very good core and adding a number or two pick plus whatever else was brought back in by trading Hayward and Favs means a couple more cheap contracts. I know that's totally rebuilding again, but for a spot entail superstar I would do it if I am DL.

It would be a hard pill to swallow.

[KqWIN]

If that's true - are we OK with that? Or would you be willing to sell out this team for picks and start rebuilding again before we even try contending with the current roster?

I would not, and much of that opinion comes from the fear of losing the Jazz. The Miller family has shown nothing but commitment to the team, but it's hard not to notice that the interest level has dropped significantly since the D-Will era. People just don't care about the Jazz in Utah. Maybe you can still make money in this league with an empty stadium, but it still worries me. Renewing the interest in the Jazz is my biggest concern right now, and you don't have to win a championship to do that.

As far as the 2004 Pistons thing, I've always thought it was overblown. They're the only example anyone every uses and I think that's just lazy. I get that they won the championship, but they're not the only team without a "true superstar" to have a shot at winning the championship. The recent Spurs are a much better example. Other than Kawhi last year, when was the last time a Spurs player had a better season than Ben Wallace in his prime?

Regardless, the flaw is that we are obsessed with result oriented thinking. When something occurs, the immediate reaction is that the opposite could have never occurred. That's how history is remembered and we forget about all the details. The Pistons are the only team that's get remembered, which is fair to some extent because they won, but I still don't like it. The year they won wasn't even their best chance of winning. Saying that we can do it because the Pistons did it or that we can't do it because only the Pistons is just really shallow in my opinion.

The NBA landscape right now is certainly unique, and it could change again once the CBA comes in. We have one great team, and another that could be the greatest team of all time. It could be a good time to rebuild and tank because the Warriors or Cavs are going to win anyways, but I can also see the other side.

You don't have to go through a gauntlet to make the finals anymore because there is only one elite team in each conference. There would still be favorites among the other teams, but anyone can beat anyone, and that means anyone can be just one series away from the finals. Easier said than done, of course, LeBron hasn't slipped up in 6 years, but a lot can happen in a 7 game series. You'll never get the chance to be opportunistic if you don't put yourself in the position to do so in the first place.

[stitches]

I know the 2004 Pistons sounds tempting, since they were truly contenders and even champions. Having said that, they had a much easier path to the finals since the east was pathetic at the time. They are also the exception to the rule when it comes to championship teams, and I don't think modeling ourselves after the most rare example of a championship team gives us the best chance to become a championship team. It only worked once, that I can recall.

I know when you have a deep team with no clear superstar, the knee-jerk reaction is to bring up the 2004 Pistons, but really, that approach only worked for the 2004 Pistons in all of modern history.

Even with the balance of power within the west changing, I don't see a scenario where it is as weak as the east was when the Pistons had their day. There are other up and coming teams to consider.

However, I don't see many people willing to start rebuilding again now that this team is close to (some) success, and aware I'm in the minority. Having said all that, if one thinks this team can truly contend for a championship by molding itself after said 2004 Pistons and be the contemporary incarnation of such a team, then I guess one would go with that. Personally, I have my doubts.

Damn, I agree with almost every word you've said here. Projecting outliers is the riskiest of businesses and a recipe for disappointments. It's the same when people mention how Jason Kidd became a good shooter after being horrible to start his career and projecting their favourite prospect to do the same. People need to understand that this is an outlier. This is not what you can expect from huge majority of situations. The 2004 Pistons are the outliers of outliers when it comes to championship teams.

I actually don't agree we look like the Pistons that much. But I think we have the potential to have something else that not many teams have had in the history of the league - top 6-7 players at all positions. Hayward is a top 6-7 SF, Favors and Gobert are close if not already there. Hood has the potential to be top 6-7 SG as soon as this year. For this thing to materialize we need Exum to become top 6-7 PG in the league and he's the biggest question in this equation. I think he might be the key to us becoming a real contender without actually having a true superstar.

Can you think of another team that has had this type of roster composition? Not even the Warriors have that(they have 4 players in the top 3 of their positions, which is better). Not even the Hawks from couple of years ago that was remarkably balanced team had that. I really can't think of one team with such concentration of high level talent, although without a clear-cut superstar.

Is it possible that this might shoot us into contention? Not having weak links is extremely important in a playoff type scenario. I don't think we will have a chance for several years until the Warriors fall off or disband, but this team might be onto something if we somehow manage to to keep everybody together and Exum gets to where we envisioned him when we drafted him.

I think I do want to give this a try. I'm not ready to give up on this experiment. And if it fails miserably I'll be ready for Hinkie.

[stitches]

You are missing the 2013 and 2014 spurs. They also won without a superstar and in an extremely deep western conference.

They had like... 4 future hall of famers on that team. True, not in their prime, but this is still huge.

[KqWIN]

I don't think looking at the past is necessarily the best way to model your team for the future, but the 13-14 Pacers (before they started hating themselves) is a recent one that makes some sense. This is an example of a team that I think gets forgotten about because they never did what they were capable. If they kept the chemistry together that was a championship level team imo. PG is at another level than Hayward for sure, but let me ask you guys this fundamental question...

Can the difference between PG and Hayward be made up for in other parts of the roster, or does PG cross an arbitrary line that you must have in order to win?

[stitches]

PG is better defensive player than Hayward. Are we sure he's better offensive player?

[Inigo Montoya]

You are missing the 2013 and 2014 spurs. They also won without a superstar and in an extremely deep western conference.

I know Duncan isn't flashy and was old even then, but I still consider him to be a superstar, even at that time. And as mentioned by stitches, they had 4 future HOF players, so I don't think there is a strong correlation between the two teams. Still, even if we say your example is right, that still only gives us 2 teams instead of one, which are still the rare outlier.

[Inigo Montoya]

Damn, I agree with almost every word you've said here

Please don't be so disappointed...

Can you think of another team that has had this type of roster composition? Not even the Warriors have that(they have 4 players in the top 3 of their positions, which is better). Not even the Hawks from couple of years ago that was remarkably balanced team had that. I really can't think of one team with such concentration of high level talent, although without a clear-cut superstar.

Those are not exact comps, but I think about teams like the Nuggets after the Melo deal, or Atlanta of 2015 that won 60 games, or Memphis of the last decade. I know where their players ranked in comparison to ours isn't exactly the same, but from time to time, a few teams emerge where they don't have a superstar but a lot of secondary players. Unfortunately, it never really works in regards to a championship and frankly, those teams usually don't even last long before they start shuffling their roster around because they know they can't get there.

Is it possible that this might shoot us into contention? Not having weak links is extremely important in a playoff type scenario. I don't think we will have a chance for several years until the Warriors fall off or disband, but this team might be onto something if we somehow manage to to keep everybody together and Exum gets to where we envisioned him when we drafted him.

I think the only possible way it shoots us into contention will be not that our team will be championship good, but that the west weakens, which will open us an easier way into the higher stages in the playoffs where we'll only have to deal with one really good team and we might luck out with them being a favorable matchup. But I just hate this idea, that we'd have to rely on the weakness of an entire conference in order to be considered a contender--that's just not good for basketball.

[uber_snotling]

Top 10 players in the league don't grow on trees. The Cavs have 1. The Warriors have 2 or 3. OKC has Westbrook. The Clippers have CP3 and Blake. Kawhi is one. AD may be one. KAT may be one. Boogie? PG? Harden?

Can the Jazz get a superstar (current top 10 guy) via free agency? No.
Can the Jazz trade for a current top 10 guy? Almost certainly not. Top 10 guys don't want to come to Utah. Top 10 guys are usually not available via trade. And if they are available via trade, it would cost us way too much to get a top 10 guy.
Can the Jazz trade for unprotected lottery picks that might be top 10 guys? Tough to do without giving up a very good known quantity player like Hayward or Favors. And even so, you are then rolling the dice with the lottery and draft.

So, the Jazz are very unlikely to get a top 10 guy in any scenario other than drafting them. So either the Jazz tank for another 5 years Philly style or you roll with the deep talented team you have and hope for some lucky breaks during the playoffs.

[KqWIN]

PG is better defensive player than Hayward. Are we sure he's better offensive player?

I think he is, but this year's Jazz team will be better on offense than that Pacers team. Does it really matter that PG is better than Hayward if the Jazz are as good on defense and better on offense? It doesn't imo.

[Inigo Montoya]

Not Jazz related, but rumors of MCW for Tony Snell trade being discussed. I know MCW's value has declined over the years, but I think he's worth a bit more than that. Maybe there will be some picks involved as well? We'll see.