Jazz schedule is out!\Should We Tank?

[Inigo Montoya]

I don't know what you're expecting. I literally just told you the plan, and it's not any less detailed than your plan. What do you want me to say?

Donovan Mitchell turns into a star, then they draft Mikal Bridges and he turns into a star?

I can't tell you what player on roster is going to become a star, but I will tell that one has to and that it isn't completely unrealistic, especially in this context. Winning a championship at all is unrealistic to begin with regardless of strategy.

In the same way, I can't tell you who the draft sleeper is going to be. I can't tell you which superstar will become disgruntled. I can tell you that there will be a draft sleeper and a star who wants to change teams.

One player on our roster has to become a star? Why is that? Yes, in order to contend, it will have to happen. But it doesn't mean one of our players will emerge as a star just because it has to happen for us to be able to compete. It's like saying that I have to win the lottery because I have to, otherwise I won't be able to pay my bills. Doesn't make it anymore likely for me to win the lottery because of that.

Trades for stars and picks. Forget who we draft with those picks, because like you said, we can't know that in advance. But we know who's playing in the league and what assets the Jazz own. Let's see who we can realistically get, how much we'd have to give for them. Will we be contenders after we'd give up those assets? Is the other team likely to accept our package? Are we likely to be able to swing such a trade, as a small market team? Let's see some examples.

[KqWIN]

I don't know what you're expecting. I literally just told you the plan, and it's not any less detailed than your plan. What do you want me to say?

Donovan Mitchell turns into a star, then they draft Mikal Bridges and he turns into a star?

I can't tell you what player on roster is going to become a star, but I will tell that one has to and that it isn't completely unrealistic, especially in this context. Winning a championship at all is unrealistic to begin with regardless of strategy.

In the same way, I can't tell you who the draft sleeper is going to be. I can't tell you which superstar will become disgruntled. I can tell you that there will be a draft sleeper and a star who wants to change teams.

Again, if you want real world example. Real world success. Just look at the best teams in the league. This is how championship teams are made. You have to nail these moves or else you won't win a championship.

Trades for stars and picks. Forget who we draft with those picks, because like you said, we can't know that in advance. But we know who's playing in the league and what assets the Jazz own. Let's see who we can realistically get, how much we'd have to give for them. Will we be contenders after we'd give up those assets? Is the other team likely to accept our package? Are we likely to be able to swing such a trade, as a small market team? Let's see some examples.

That's just as unpredictable as the draft. You don't think stars will want to move teams? I don't know which star will become disgruntled, but I know that someone will.

If that's not clear enough, you're being ridiculous because it's not any less clear than the tanking plan. Point is you have to nail every move. Doesn't matter what it is or how high the pick is. There will be opportunities and you have to hit on them. The best teams do and that's why they are contenders.

[Inigo Montoya]

That's just as unpredictable as the draft. You don't think stars will want to move teams? I don't know which star will become disgruntled, but I know that someone will.

Of course I think stars will want to move from teams, we already agreed on that. But you know the realities of a small market team--how likely it is that stars will want to go to the Jazz, or that the Jazz, as a small market team, will be able to swing that trade? Or be able to have the assets for the trade, or that the other team will accept? This is harder for small market teams to do.

If that's not clear enough, you're being ridiculous because it's not any less clear than the tanking plan. Point is you have to nail every move. Doesn't matter what it is or how high the pick is. There will be opportunities and you have to hit on them. The best teams do and that's why they are contenders.

I don't think it's helpful to say others are being ridiculous and unfair. I happen to think to think the Jazz is more likely to succeed through obtaining high draft picks than via trades and free agency. You think the opposite, and that's ok. I'm not saying you're being unfair because of it. Let's not go there.

To your point though, yes, contenders become that in large part because they nail all\most moves. But opportunities are more bountiful for some teams than others. Big market teams have more of them. So not only do the Jazz have to hit on every opportunity, but they will also have less of them, for reasons that you had raised yourself in the not too distant past. We know who's playing in the league and we know the assets the Jazz have. Let's see some trade proposals that make sense for both teams.

[Dry Fly]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

If you were trying to be funny... this would have been hilarious.

Instead, I think you are bored and sadistic.

[Inigo Montoya]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

If you were trying to be funny... this would have been hilarious.

Instead, I think you are bored and sadistic.

Guilty.

But still, no one brought any specifics about trades that can make us contenders. Just saying it's possible to trade for a star without bringing forward a realistic trade scenario that make sense for both teams is a copout. We can trade for Lebron and become contenders. It's possible.

[Dry Fly]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

If you were trying to be funny... this would have been hilarious.

Instead, I think you are bored and sadistic.

Guilty.

But still, no one brought any specifics about trades that can make us contenders. Just saying it's possible to trade for a star without bringing forward a realistic trade scenario that make sense for both teams is a copout. We can trade for Lebron and become contenders. It's possible.

I know you probably are unaware of the flying spaghetti monster that lives in outer space, but he exists and can really play ball. He puts Lebron to shame. There is this little mostly unknown fact that during the transition from New Orleans to Salt Lake there came with it a note written on a cocktail napkin that insured the rights of the Monster to the Jazz.

I have personally heard recordings of a conversation DL had on shortwave radio communicating with the Monster asking him to come down to Earth and play for the Jazz.

Now the only way for the Monster to come to Earth is via a chemtrail and DL has conspired with Delta Air lines years ago to make this possible. In the process they unfortunately had a misunderstanding of payment and Delta split ways with the Jazz as you know.

So look out for the flying spaghetti monster to take Heywoods spot and lead this team to a title next year.

It's the ONLY reasonable way. Tanking just doesn't hold a candle to the Monster. Prove me wrong.

[Inigo Montoya]

This all proves the point. Yes, there are other ways other than tanking to build a contender. We are a small market team and there are certain realities that make it harder for us to build a contender by other means. Is it possible? Yes. Is more likely than tanking? I see a lot of reluctance to actually demonstrate a path other than saying that we can trade for a star or a draft pick (not asking anyone to say who we draft). We know who plays in the league and what assets the Jazz own and yet no one is willing to actually bring forward a realistic trade that works for both sides and makes us a contender. We see proposed trades by posters all the time and suddenly no one is willing to provide one. Shows how likely it is.

[MeestR]

I've avoided this thread for a while hoping it would go away because I think it is stupid and short sighted. But here it is still is at the top and people are still taking it seriously.

This whole "Championship or Bust" mentality is what is ruining pro sports these days. This is what started tanking. This is what started player collusions. What is wrong is good healthy competition every year and striving to do your best regardless of the outcome? I expect this team to represent the first part of the team name better than the names on their backs. If that wins a championship, then great. But to purposefully lose or bench players this year for the purpose of MAYBE getting a better player NEXT year is... weak in my opinion. (can't win - don't try?)

That being said, I don't think the Jazz NEED another player to compete at the level we want them to this year. Gobert is/will be an All-Star. Favors will turn some heads and get votes too (if not make the team). And who knows between Rubio, Hood, Ingles or even Burks who will emerge as the player opposing teams will have to gameplan for. And our Double-D's in Exum and Mitchell will be fun to watch grow. Jazz have the depth and stars already. Losing Hayward and Hill won't be as catastrophic as so many as our defeatist/professional victim fans think.

[uber_snotling]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

If you were trying to be funny... this would have been hilarious.

Instead, I think you are bored and sadistic.

Guilty.

But still, no one brought any specifics about trades that can make us contenders. Just saying it's possible to trade for a star without bringing forward a realistic trade scenario that make sense for both teams is a copout. We can trade for Lebron and become contenders. It's possible.

You are being unrealistic. Paul George just got traded to small-market OKC for peanuts to a team that was the 6 seed last year.
Jimmy Butler just got traded to a Minnesota team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade. Those are two all-star/all-NBA trades to small market teams just this offseason.

Why did they go? Because they wanted to win and saw potential with Westbrook/KAT. If Utah can win behind its defense with Rudy/Rubio/Favors et al., then all-stars are going to at least consider Utah as a place to play.

Now, Utah cannot get free agents if they can't win. Small-market Utah has only its tradition of winning to attract free-agents. That's why tanking is a self defeating strategy for Utah. It closes the options down, rather than opens them up.

[Inigo Montoya]

It's not about championship or nothing. It is perfectly understandable for a team to not be able to win it all. I'll speak only for myself, but I'd like to see the Jazz with at least a chance to win one, even if they don't end up winning it. I want to team that is able to contend, not just hover around the 1st-2nd round. I get that's not a priority for everyone, and that it's enough for some people just to see a team playing that plays hard, represents the city, state and the fans well, and is playoff competitive and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's where I'm coming from.

[Inigo Montoya]

You are being unrealistic. Paul George just got traded to small-market OKC for peanuts to a team that was the 6 seed last year.
Jimmy Butler just got traded to a Minnesota team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade. Those are two all-star/all-NBA trades to small market teams just this offseason.

Why did they go? Because they wanted to win and saw potential with Westbrook/KAT. If Utah can win behind its defense with Rudy/Rubio/Favors et al., then all-stars are going to at least consider Utah as a place to play.

Now, Utah cannot get free agents if they can't win. Small-market Utah has only its tradition of winning to attract free-agents. That's why tanking is a self defeating strategy for Utah. It closes the options down, rather than opens them up.

Trading for Lebron was obviously a joke. But other than that, why am I being unrealistic? When was the last time the Jazz traded for a star? It's not that the opportunities weren't there--you brought up some good examples. We could have probably beaten those offers. The Jazz have been a winning franchise for decades. If any star wanted to win and contend, he could have come to Utah. For a very long time the Jazz had a sort of team that if a superstar chose to go there, he'd have an excellent supporting cast and a chance to compete, yet no one comes. Is it that stars prefer to go elsewhere? Is it a management\FO approach that is too conservative to pull the trigger? The answer is probably a mix of both. Are we more or less likely to trade for a star because of it? I think the latter. The Jazz hasn't traded for a star in decades, and the latest allstar it had chose to leave--and I know we're supposed to trash him now, but it's not that he wasn't a competitive guy who didn't want to win.

[Daddy 801]

All of these arguments go away if the league just makes the changes they need to stop the incentive structures for players to collude and teams to tank. People will ALWAYS respond to the incentive structures they are given. Right now players collude and teams tank because it is the way to contend and it works, or it is perceived to work. This is basic econ 101 stuff. All the data in the world is not needed to prove this. It is basic human nature. Hate it, or like it, it is reality. Ignoring it is putting your head in the sand.

What I see is you guys arguing does it work or not. I'm sorry to say that doesn't matter. I am blown away by the effort and research done to prove IF it works. I am thankful for those doing the research. And as someone who likes a good debate is is fun to read. But really it doesn't matter or not IF it works. The process has a perception of possibly working. Time will tell, but it is perceived to work so teams/executives will do it. They have an incentive to do so. Hell, it is their JOB to do so.

Players KNOW collusion works so they do it. It has been proven to work and the last few championships have been won by players that colluded. So, we need to change the incentive structures and ability of players to collude.

League executives KNOW tanking gets top picks. That is step 1 in what could be a new method for winning a chip. Are we certain those picks will pan out to a championship yet...? The answer is obviously no in Phillys case (worked for the Spurs though), but we know that step one is acquiring talent. As of now, it doesn't matter if it will work for Philly because executives can see a path that MIGHT work. Again, take away their incentive structure and the "problem" of tanking will disappear.

If the league makes the changes needed (I've outlined my ideas already) then the incentive structure can change so that the teams who "do things right" like the Jazz will be rewarded. As of now even doing almost everything right means nothing to free agents in small markets. Eliminate collusion (without natural repercussions; NOT FINES), eliminate max contracts, eliminate the draft process as we know it. Reward good management, putting out a good product, and good scouting and things will change.

[eLo]

tanking was is and always will be bad/dumb etc. we tank for the first time in our present history and in reward we get what- Dante Exum, that show how dumb tanking is, last season was really good and we manage to get great prospect in Mitchel. If you have GM who knows what he is doing you dont need to tank, end of story

[Dry Fly]

If the league makes the changes needed (I've outlined my ideas already) then the incentive structure can change so that the teams who "do things right" like the Jazz will be rewarded. As of now even doing almost everything right means nothing to free agents in small markets. Eliminate collusion (without natural repercussions; NOT FINES), eliminate max contracts, eliminate the draft process as we know it. Reward good management, putting out a good product, and good scouting and things will change.

I agree 100% - but die hard basketball fans like us are in the minority. I think many "glitter" fans out there like a team of ringers. I think the media likes the easy narrative to ring in the ears of their big market consumers. These fans like the flash, they like high flying dunks and long 3's. Who can blame them really? It's entertaining... I love it too.

Socialized basketball is for Europe. The USA needs exploitable markets to create it's flashy and shallow product for the masses. The blood sweat and tears of basketball are going to be trampled in the dirt by a flashy looking monstrous glitter basketball branded shoe as it rises for a uncontested dunk. The Jazz are blood, sweat and tears, and you are never going to sell blood, sweat and tears to glitter fans.

[Daddy 801]

tanking was is and always will be bad/dumb etc. we tank for the first time in our present history and in reward we get what- Dante Exum, that show how dumb tanking is, last season was really good and we manage to get great prospect in Mitchel. If you have GM who knows what he is doing you dont need to tank, end of story

That is one perception. Others have a perception it does work (see spurs).

And then some of us believe it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, and it will have higher likelihood of working if you have good scouts/management and then the most important thing is if the team gets lucky.

None of that really matters though. All that matters is some people have a perception that it works and some teams will do it. The argument should not be if it works. The argument should be how do we eliminate the incentive structure for teams to do it.

[uber_snotling]

You are being unrealistic. Paul George just got traded to small-market OKC for peanuts to a team that was the 6 seed last year.
Jimmy Butler just got traded to a Minnesota team that hasn't made the playoffs in a decade. Those are two all-star/all-NBA trades to small market teams just this offseason.

Why did they go? Because they wanted to win and saw potential with Westbrook/KAT. If Utah can win behind its defense with Rudy/Rubio/Favors et al., then all-stars are going to at least consider Utah as a place to play.

Now, Utah cannot get free agents if they can't win. Small-market Utah has only its tradition of winning to attract free-agents. That's why tanking is a self defeating strategy for Utah. It closes the options down, rather than opens them up.

Trading for Lebron was obviously a joke. But other than that, why am I being unrealistic? When was the last time the Jazz traded for a star? It's not that the opportunities weren't there--you brought up some good examples. We could have probably beaten those offers. The Jazz have been a winning franchise for decades. If any star wanted to win and contend, he could have come to Utah. For a very long time the Jazz had a sort of team that if a superstar chose to go there, he'd have an excellent supporting cast and a chance to compete, yet no one comes. Is it that stars prefer to go elsewhere? Is it a management\FO approach that is too conservative to pull the trigger? The answer is probably a mix of both. Are we more or less likely to trade for a star because of it? I think the latter. The Jazz hasn't traded for a star in decades, and the latest allstar it had chose to leave--and I know we're supposed to trash him now, but it's not that he wasn't a competitive guy who didn't want to win.

Butler was traded to Minnesota on June 23rd. Paul George was traded to OKC on July 1st.

Haywouldya made his decision July 4th.

Why would we have traded for either of those two guys when we had a guy who played their position on the team who was an all-star?

The Jazz could have made those trades if Hayward had been forthright about his intentions. His dilly-dallying was obviously a contributing factor in missing out on those other guys.

[Inigo Montoya]

Butler was traded to Minnesota on June 23rd. Paul George was traded to OKC on July 1st.

Haywouldya made his decision July 4th.

Why would we have traded for either of those two guys when we had a guy who played their position on the team who was an all-star?

The Jazz could have made those trades if Hayward had been forthright about his intentions. His dilly-dallying was obviously a contributing factor in missing out on those other guys.

The SG and SF position on the Jazz are interchangeable, and both of them would have been a huge upgrade over Hood (PG13 could even play small-ball PF) and a good pairing with Hayward. You pull a trade like that, maybe Hayward stays? Who knows.

[uber_snotling]

First we have no assets, are a small-market team and can't trade for all-stars, so we must tank; all other paths are IMPOSSIBLE!

Then I point out that small-market teams were very successful in getting all-stars this off-season, you pull this out.

The SG and SF position on the Jazz are interchangeable, and both of them would have been a huge upgrade over Hood (PG13 could even play small-ball PF) and a good pairing with Hayward. You pull a trade like that, maybe Hayward stays? Who knows.

[Inigo Montoya]

First we have no assets, are a small-market team and can't trade for all-stars, so we must tank; all other paths are IMPOSSIBLE!

Never said it's impossible. I said other paths for the Jazz are less viable. Enough of this already.

Then I point out that small-market teams were very successful in getting all-stars this off-season, you pull this out.

You brought up examples of players and then argued against the Jazz trading for them....

The fact that trades for stars happen was never in contention. The question is how likely it is for the Jazz to get them. Why is it we didn't get them? They did not want to be traded here? Were we unwilling to pay the price? Were we unwilling to take the risk they'd leave once their contract is up (maybe they said so)? Did the Jazz think they didn't fit? All this only points to the limited possibilities we have. When was the last time the Jazz traded for a star?

[stitches]

The reason trading for a star is not realistic is the same reason it's unrealistic for the Jazz to sign a free agent - we cannot give up full value for a star because in overwhelming majority of cases that star is not staying past his current contract so we are talking about 1 or 2 years rental. We cannot and should not be willing to give competitive offer for another team's star because a star for us has inherently less value since we cannot keep them. Same with FAs - the cream of the crop will just never see Utah as a viable destination.