RealGM

I've been an observer of the Jazz for more than 25 years, and so I've seen a lot of players come and go. The Jazz, as an organization, do a lot of things right. There is one thing they do a lot of, though, and it drives me crazy: They expect a team to get better by "growing up." They expect their players to go from "good" to "great."

I love to watch Gordon Hayward, but I don't care how much experience he gets, he's never going to be Kevin Durant. Alec Burks is not going to magically transform into into Kobe Bryant. Enes Kanter is not going to wake up one morning with moves like Olajuwon.

In my opinion, "greatness" is already evident in a player before they make it to the NBA, or certainly within their first couple of years. I hate to be cliche, but guys either have the Eye of the Tiger, or they don't. As much as I love our "young guys," I'm not sure any of them has that Eye of the Tiger.

Which brings me to the poll question: if you were running the Jazz, how willing are you to trade some, any, or all of these guys to get someone great? Championships are are not won by a large collection of "good" guys. They are won by one or two "GREAT" players who will their team to victory. I think the Jazz should do whatever it takes to secure at least one of these "great" players by any means necessary. Otherwise, our collection of "good guys" will doom us to perpetual mediocrity.

Why would another team trade a "great" player for our young players?

There are all sorts of reasons "great" players get traded or move: Conflicts with other star players/coaches (Shaq to Miami, Amare to NYK), salary cap/luxury tax (Steve Nash in Dallas), ability to resign (aka Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Carmelo) GMs that want to prove they are smarter than everyone else, etc. The Grizzlies DID trade Paul Gasol, after all.

JDubJazz wrote:There are all sorts of reasons "great" players get traded or move: Conflicts with other star players/coaches (Shaq to Miami, Amare to NYK), salary cap/luxury tax (Steve Nash in Dallas), ability to resign (aka Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Carmelo) GMs that want to prove they are smarter than everyone else, etc. The Grizzlies DID trade Paul Gasol, after all.

In those situations, what value/potential are the other teams seeing in the "young" players that you are not?

Secondly, are there any current opportunities like the one that you describe above, because that is the only way that we are getting a great player for young players and picks.

Rondo is not a great player IMHO.

1. He has moments of greatness, but they are too few and far in between.
2. He has seriously strained relationships with prominent team mates.
3. He is a poor shooter on average.

Not to mention, it creeps me out that he never ever smiles. Not even once.

^I think Rondo's performance in ECF disagrees with you. He wasnt doing this against chumps either. He had one of the greatest performances ever by a guard in the playoffs. I am no Rondo fan...but do say he is not a great player is an incorrect statement.

finnegan wrote:

JDubJazz wrote:There are all sorts of reasons "great" players get traded or move: Conflicts with other star players/coaches (Shaq to Miami, Amare to NYK), salary cap/luxury tax (Steve Nash in Dallas), ability to resign (aka Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Carmelo) GMs that want to prove they are smarter than everyone else, etc. The Grizzlies DID trade Paul Gasol, after all.

In those situations, what value/potential are the other teams seeing in the "young" players that you are not?

Secondly, are there any current opportunities like the one that you describe above, because that is the only way that we are getting a great player for young players and picks.

Rondo is not a great player IMHO.

1. He has moments of greatness, but they are too few and far in between.
2. He has seriously strained relationships with prominent team mates.
3. He is a poor shooter on average.

Not to mention, it creeps me out that he never ever smiles. Not even once.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but Rondo IS the only guy in NBA history with multiple game 7 triple doubles. I would argue that he DOES have the Eye of the Tiger that I'm talking about, but I don't know that he's good enough to be the lead dog on a championship team.

Players who might fit the bill (not a comprehensive list) from the top of my head:
- Pau Gasol, Lakers are looking to shake things up and prepare for life "post-Kobe"
- James Harden (next year when the Thunder realize they probably can't afford 3 or possibly 4 max players)
- Dwight Howard (yeah I know he's not signing here) for obvious reasons.
- Bosh or Wade (if Miami falls short again)
- Kevin Love (will he resign with Minny?)

JDubJazz wrote:...
Players who might fit the bill (not a comprehensive list) from the top of my head:
- Pau Gasol, Lakers are looking to shake things up and prepare for life "post-Kobe"
- James Harden (next year when the Thunder realize they probably can't afford 3 or possibly 4 max players)
- Dwight Howard (yeah I know he's not signing here) for obvious reasons.
- Bosh or Wade (if Miami falls short again)
- Kevin Love (will he resign with Minny?)

Gasol showed he couldn't carry a team back in the Grizzlies days. He wasn't the player he is until he was paired with Kobe and even Odom.
Harden is someone the Jazz absolutely should chase--though everyone else in the league is doing the same.
Dwight is a pipe dream.
Bosh again is a guy who couldn't be "the guy" until paired with Wade and Lebron.
Wade is a pipe dream.
Love -- he puts up big numbers on a team without stars...but I don't know that he makes you "great". That is the problem with trading your young players for "greats". All the obvious choices are highly sought or are a pipe dream for a small market team. Ask New Jersey how trading youth for stars is working out for them...

Fido wrote:

JDubJazz wrote:...
Ask New Jersey how trading youth for stars is working out for them...

Or ask OKC how NOT trading youth for stars is working out for them...

jazzrock wrote:

Fido wrote:

JDubJazz wrote:...
Ask New Jersey how trading youth for stars is working out for them...

Or ask OKC how NOT trading youth for stars is working out for them...

Or ask San Antonio how NOT trading youth for stars is working out for them...

What they said^^^

Plus, I thank that with a lucky draft pick next yr (or a trade into the draft this yr) and one maybe two good trades this summer, the Jazz could be right there. This team isn't that far away from being scary good. Then its just a little luck and the ball bouncing your way and your in the WCF. Then anything can happen...

JDubJazz wrote:if you were running the Jazz, how willing are you to trade some, any, or all of these guys to get someone great?

If I'm running the Jazz I do exactly what they always do: maintain a team that is "competitive enough" to keep fans coming to the games in as conservative a manner as possible. A team full of up-and-coming players who will never be great is a lot more safe to go with than trying to land a big name and putting yourself in a position of either cap-hell or being held hostage by a superstar. If a sure-thing comes along that doesn't cost me any assets (drafting a star PG, for instance) that's one thing, but right now the Jazz have 4 exciting young guys they can sell to the fans for a half-decade while making the playoffs and conference semis (maybe even conference finals). That's a pretty safe road, whereas trading 2-3 of them for a big name has a much higher risk that isn't worth the higher reward.

DiscoLives4ever wrote:

JDubJazz wrote:if you were running the Jazz, how willing are you to trade some, any, or all of these guys to get someone great?

If I'm running the Jazz I do exactly what they always do: maintain a team that is "competitive enough" to keep fans coming to the games in as conservative a manner as possible. A team full of up-and-coming players who will never be great is a lot more safe to go with than trying to land a big name and putting yourself in a position of either cap-hell or being held hostage by a superstar. If a sure-thing comes along that doesn't cost me any assets (drafting a star PG, for instance) that's one thing, but right now the Jazz have 4 exciting young guys they can sell to the fans for a half-decade while making the playoffs and conference semis (maybe even conference finals). That's a pretty safe road, whereas trading 2-3 of them for a big name has a much higher risk that isn't worth the higher reward.

Fiscally, this is ABSOLUTELY the "smart" thing to do. As long as the Jazz keep telling me (yeah, I know they are probably lying) that the goal is to win a championship; I have the right to expect something more that the great placebo of "our young guys are getting better, wait until next year."

We do have a great history of taking good players and making them great though.

It's not like Stockton was pegged as a great player coming out of college. AK was certainly never expected to be anything like he was during his prime. Deron was thought to be a bust by some. Even guys like Boozer and Memo came here and made big improvements. Hell, look at Hayward and Favors. Everyone thought Hayward was a sure thing bust and many thought the same about Favors after his first season... but now both are on the Olympic practice team.

I think because the Jazz have the patience and the belief in players that they can go from good to great that young players (and even older players) grow exponentially more here than they would otherwise. I'm really confident in our player development process and while I don't think it's possible to take a good player and make them into an all-time or elite player, I still think that we can take good players and make them great (if the player is willing to work, of course).

Personally, I value our young guys more than other organizations because I know they will continue to grow and improve the longer they stay with our franchise. They're already good players and they're only going to continue to improve, especially now since they'll have a real off-season, training camp, etc.

It would take A LOT of value to convince me to part ways with our young guys. A guy like Rondo... ya, he's amazing at times. But is he worth two or more of our young guys? No, he's not. The combined value and potential of two of any of our young guys is more than Rondo's current value IMO. It's not like Rondo is LeBron, Durant or Kobe. He's not going to single handily lead our team to a championship. I mean, he couldn't even beat the Heat with a lineup full of Hall of Famers. He's got a terrible attitude to boot. He's just not that valuable to our team in comparison to the young core we already have established.

rondo wasn't a star his first few years in the league. decent numbers on bad celtics teams.

Its not a simple yes or no question. Its all in the details. Who do we get a shot at? Is he coming into his prime, or heading out of it? Past it? Is he a real, legitimate #1, or more of a #2 who will forever be miscast as a #1 (think someone like Chris Bosh, Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson)? If he is more of a #2, what are our prospects of acquiring another player of his caliber or maybe even better in a subsequent move? How does he fit with the remaining pieces on our team? Is he signed long term at a fair price? It not, what are the chances he will re-sign here/how long is he scheduled to be overpaid?

The questions go on and on.

Its a case-by-case basis. If we can get Dwight Howard signed to a long term deal straight up for Derrick Favors. Yes, we do that.

But if we have to trade Favors, Kanter, Burks and Hayward along with future assets to get him, and he's leaving the next year, anyways. Of course we don't.

The shades in between is where you win and lose.

Its not right or wrong to trade young for old, big for small, athletic for skilled, speed for power or any other variation of the theme. Its about getting the most talent on one team that also fits well one with another.

Yes, I am in favor of any move that does that, and yes the Jazz will consider any potential way.

Good lord I'm sick of people acting as if its the formula that wins championships. Whatever we have to do to win, we will do. Are we a risk-taking organization in general? Most here would say no. I'd say we are actually pretty close to the middle of that spectrum.


But if you don't have Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, Dirk Nowitzki.....those types of players on your team, I'm happy to be where we are. We have a guy or two who has a chance to make The Leap (both Favors and Kanter could still pan out that way) and we have a host of talent that gives you options. Options are what got Boston where they've been for the last 5 years. That's all you can ask for unless you are going to luck into a legendary player in the draft. I'll take it for now.

We pretty much know what Millsap is going to be. Do you count him as a young guy who's near the beginning of his development? I ask because the trade being discussed was Hayward/Millsap and you're referring to "two or more of our young guys."

There isn't much growing up after three years in the NBA. Maybe a little refinement but leaps and strides are done.

I see millsap as a player who can still grow hes continuing to improve every year I see him coming back with a more polish jump shot this year.

I would trade anyone on our team with the exception of Favors to get better players for the exact reason yoo stated OP, they aren't great material imo.

Now, there is an outside chance Hayward, Kanter and Burks could get there, but if they weren't showing it at 18, they probably won't start showing it now in their 20's.

The difference with Favors is that he did start showing it, and still does, he has best big in the league potential, and has shown flashes of it at times. He does things that maybe 1 other player in the league can do, and that guy is Dwight, and Dwight is certainly great.

Other than Favors though, for the right price everyone is for sale.

Well I think a team like the Jazz with no legit "superstars" need to use some of the money ball concepts. Not concerning too much about what a guy can't do but what can they do at a high level.

Take Kendall marshall. Sure he may be a defensive liability, he's not a good shooter, ect .... but what can he do? He has elite playmaking and leadership abilities. And what does every team especially without a superstar need to do to win? Keep everyone involved and get them good shot oppurtunities.

So how do we cover his weaknesses? Well on top of implementing better defensive schemes to help cover up holes in the defense, lets make sure the other guard is a really good defender and has a good outside shot. Hmmm Courtney Lee is a good defender who has a very nice outside shot (40% from 3 point land this season) and can be had for a good price.

Right there we got a nice cheap and realistic back court with two guys who have valuable high level skills. Then you got Favors with elite defensive skills but may not be good offensively, what do you do? Put him next to a guy you know that already has a developed offensive game such as Jared sullinger.

I can go on but the point is just right there you got 4 guys that can cover each other weaknesses and all that can do at least two things at a high level or in Favors and Marshalls case; an elite level. Add to them being cheaper than "superstar" talent and much better coaching and you can have you a really strong and well balanced team that could be a contender some day. At the very least they will provide a exciting and low risk team for fans.