Jazz schedule is out!\Should We Tank?

[Dry Fly]

What? No! A thousand times no! We've said it over and over again in this thread and others. It is NOT the only way. But it is the most feasible way for a small market team like the Jazz. Do I really need to sig this in order to avoid this false argument from coming up over and over?

So then what does "prove there is a reasonable method to contend that isn't tanking" mean? You have to admit, you set it up as the only reasonable way.

No, because:
1. I've said so repeatedly even before asking that question that it isn't the only way.
2. People keep saying no to tanking and yet offer no other solution other than hoping and praying. To this point, no one has yet to propose a path to contention without tanking, and certainly not one that is more likely to succeed. They just say it's possible and yet offer no feasible solution.

Damn dude... you make it hard to have an honest discussion when you constantly retreat behind stone walls. There have been multiple examples given... hell you even brought up the 04 Pistons. This reminds me of talking politics and religion. I smell dogma.

[uber_snotling]

[
No, because:
1. I've said so repeatedly even before asking that question that it isn't the only way.
2. People keep saying no to tanking and yet offer no other solution other than hoping and praying. To this point, no one has yet to propose a path to contention without tanking, and certainly not one that is more likely to succeed. They just say it's possible and yet offer no feasible solution.

There are two paths that I would agree are feasible for a tank.
1. Gobert has a season ending injury. Go for the tank.
2. Gobert states he doesn't want to stay in Utah. Trade Rudy for picks + players.

But if Gobert is healthy and wants to stay in Utah, you build around him. He's a superstar, top-10 player in the league. Any package we get will almost certainly not produce a top-10 player. So you don't trade him, you build around him.

I don't think the Jazz can contend this year, but the clearest path to contention is by evaluating the talent on the roster and making moves to bolster that talent as long as Rudy is on the team.

[KqWIN]

Question for stiches+IM. Two scenarios, which do you prefer?

1. Resign Gordon Hayward
2. Hayward leaves, Gobert gets traded for highest pick possible

I'd go with 2. I never thought we'll be a contender even if Hayward had stayed. My hope was that if he leaves, at least most of the fanbase will realize we're going no where and will be willing to tank or at least apply pressure on the management\ownership to be more aggressive and step it up if their goal is truly a championship and not just being a playoff participant.

Here's my opinion on that type of thinking:

Hayward and Gobert are both top 20 players. These are the players that you tank for. You already have two, and while two may not be enough, three would be. If three top 20 players isn't enough, become a fan of the Warriors. Getting from 2 to 3 is much easier than from 0-3 even with the advantage of selecting high in the draft. If you had 3 high draft picks in a row and drafted Hayward and Gobert you'd be coming out ahead.

The same thought process can be applied to our situation right now. Tanking is all about having the premium talent, and having a lot of it. Gobert is one of the top 15 players in the league, but he is not top 5. Trading him for a draft pick may increase your chances of a top 5 player, but a top 5 player doesn't win you a championship. You need a top 5 player and two more all stars.

If we're doing the math here, I'm not sure the probabilities are higher by trading Gobert and tanking. Especially if/when lottery reform comes.

[Inigo Montoya]

The basic premise is this: in order to content you need elite talent, and more than one. The best way to get said elite talent for a small market team is through the draft. The best way to get the best chance to draft said elite talent is by picking as high as possible.

That's it.

Are there other ways? Sure. Are they more likely to produce elite talents for a small market team? I'd say no.

[stitches]

Question for stiches+IM. Two scenarios, which do you prefer?

1. Resign Gordon Hayward
2. Hayward leaves, Gobert gets traded for highest pick possible

I'd go with 2. I never thought we'll be a contender even if Hayward had stayed. My hope was that if he leaves, at least most of the fanbase will realize we're going no where and will be willing to tank or at least apply pressure on the management\ownership to be more aggressive and step it up if their goal is truly a championship and not just being a playoff participant.

Here's my opinion on that type of thinking:

Hayward and Gobert are both top 20 players. These are the players that you tank for. You already have two, and while two may not be enough, three would be. If three top 20 players isn't enough, become a fan of the Warriors. Getting from 2 to 3 is much easier than from 0-3 even with the advantage of selecting high in the draft. If you had 3 high draft picks in a row and drafted Hayward and Gobert you'd be coming out ahead.

The same thought process can be applied to our situation right now. Tanking is all about having the premium talent, and having a lot of it. Gobert is one of the top 15 players in the league, but he is not top 5. Trading him for a draft pick may increase your chances of a top 5 player, but a top 5 player doesn't win you a championship. You need a top 5 player and two more all stars.

If we're doing the math here, I'm not sure the probabilities are higher by trading Gobert and tanking. Especially if/when lottery reform comes.

I agree with a lot of this. This is why I loved that Jazz team and I thought we were much closer to a 60 wins team than to a 50 wins team. We just got spectacularly unlucky. And if you are a 60 wins teams you are at the very least in the discussion for being a contender.

And this is why BTW, my second choice(the one you didn't give as an option after losing Hayward) would have been to tank with Gobert on the roster. Meaning - keep Gobert and tank. Don't get all those vets on 1+1, don't trade for Rubio.... give all the minutes to Exum and Mithell. Give a ton of minutes to Bradley. Give tons of minutes to other rookies and D-league type talent. Try to rehabilitate AB's value. Try to trade Ingles and/or Favors and/or Hood for future pieces, etc. I've written about it before... no need to repeat myself here. I think people underestimate how many games you can lose by simply giving carte blanche to players who still don't know how to win(rookies, Exum, etc.) and let them experiment.

[Inigo Montoya]

Damn dude... you make it hard to have an honest discussion when you constantly retreat behind stone walls. There have been multiple examples given... hell you even brought up the 04 Pistons. This reminds me of talking politics and religion. I smell dogma.

I don't think it is helpful to go that route. I was very consistent with my argument and reasoning, even if we disagree. stitches and I are making the same argument.

Not sure how the 04 Pistons somehow alters my argument. The argument about them was that they were the most rare of examples of a championship team that managed to win it without a true superstar and when trying to put together a team to win it, copying the most rare occurrence is extremely unlikely to yield the same result.

[KqWIN]

By the way, I think we're all underrating the ability to get a star player through trade. The issue there is keeping the player, but as we just saw keeping the player is difficult even if you were the team that drafted him. It might actually be the best way of acquiring a star.

[SoCalJazzFan]

Also, where does San Antonio fit in all this?

The Spurs did exactly what was proposed here--a targeted 1 year tank--to get Duncan.

After Robinson went down, and they totally lucked out in the lottery as well. Without looking it up, if memory serves me well they were not even in the bottom (or top depending on how you value it haha) half of the lottery. They were what #8?

I do think there would be consensus here that if Rudy goes down halfway in that we should tank.

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs

[stitches]

By the way, I think we're all underrating the ability to get a star player through trade. The issue there is keeping the player, but as we just saw keeping the player is difficult even if you were the team that drafted him. It might actually be the best way of acquiring a star.

The right word would be "renting a star", because I don't see a reasonable scenario where a star stay after being traded to Utah. Which of course makes trading for one not really an option because the team will never give up serious assets for rentals and thus will not be very likely to win the bidding war for a star.

[SoCalJazzFan]

[
No, because:
1. I've said so repeatedly even before asking that question that it isn't the only way.
2. People keep saying no to tanking and yet offer no other solution other than hoping and praying. To this point, no one has yet to propose a path to contention without tanking, and certainly not one that is more likely to succeed. They just say it's possible and yet offer no feasible solution.

There are two paths that I would agree are feasible for a tank.
1. Gobert has a season ending injury. Go for the tank.
2. Gobert states he doesn't want to stay in Utah. Trade Rudy for picks + players.

But if Gobert is healthy and wants to stay in Utah, you build around him. He's a superstar, top-10 player in the league. Any package we get will almost certainly not produce a top-10 player. So you don't trade him, you build around him.

I don't think the Jazz can contend this year, but the clearest path to contention is by evaluating the talent on the roster and making moves to bolster that talent as long as Rudy is on the team.

This is realistic. Most of this thread is not based in reality.

[stitches]

[
No, because:
1. I've said so repeatedly even before asking that question that it isn't the only way.
2. People keep saying no to tanking and yet offer no other solution other than hoping and praying. To this point, no one has yet to propose a path to contention without tanking, and certainly not one that is more likely to succeed. They just say it's possible and yet offer no feasible solution.

There are two paths that I would agree are feasible for a tank.
1. Gobert has a season ending injury. Go for the tank.
2. Gobert states he doesn't want to stay in Utah. Trade Rudy for picks + players.

But if Gobert is healthy and wants to stay in Utah, you build around him. He's a superstar, top-10 player in the league. Any package we get will almost certainly not produce a top-10 player. So you don't trade him, you build around him.

I don't think the Jazz can contend this year, but the clearest path to contention is by evaluating the talent on the roster and making moves to bolster that talent as long as Rudy is on the team.

This is realistic. Most of this thread is not based in reality.

Most of this thread is theoretical. None of us actually thinks in the situation we are right now tanking is viable/possible.

[KqWIN]

By the way, I think we're all underrating the ability to get a star player through trade. The issue there is keeping the player, but as we just saw keeping the player is difficult even if you were the team that drafted him. It might actually be the best way of acquiring a star.

The right word would be "renting a star", because I don't see a reasonable scenario where a star stay after being traded to Utah. Which of course makes trading for one not really an option because the team will never give up serious assets for rentals and thus will not be very likely to win the bidding war for a star.

Keeping a star is difficult even if you draft him. We couldn't even keep Hayward, and while that was a result of conference imbalance, it does reflect well on our ability to keep stars even if the were drafted in Utah.

[SoCalJazzFan]

There are two paths that I would agree are feasible for a tank.
1. Gobert has a season ending injury. Go for the tank.
2. Gobert states he doesn't want to stay in Utah. Trade Rudy for picks + players.

But if Gobert is healthy and wants to stay in Utah, you build around him. He's a superstar, top-10 player in the league. Any package we get will almost certainly not produce a top-10 player. So you don't trade him, you build around him.

I don't think the Jazz can contend this year, but the clearest path to contention is by evaluating the talent on the roster and making moves to bolster that talent as long as Rudy is on the team.

This is realistic. Most of this thread is not based in reality.

Most of this thread is theoretical. None of us actually thinks in the situation we are right now tanking is viable/possible.

I'll agree with that.

[Dry Fly]

OKC. I thought they were on the path to a dynasty... but screwed up by trading Harden. They had 3 MVP level talents on their roster. I think if Philly plays its cards right they might get there too.

The problem is... not many have tried it. And especially not to the level of Hinkie so it's hard to draw any conclusions based on that. Purely analytically and mathematically though, this should be a no-brainer. Again - the reason they are trying to cut it out right now is because IT WORKED. And it worked spectacularly well. Even the biggest proponent among NBA GMs for lottery reform has said the exact same thing - tanking works and that's why it should be stopped, because teams will start doing it en masse(the second part is conjecture on my part, not his words, but it's obvious that this is what NBA officials fear).

This is where it breaks down because there is no pure analytical or mathematical formula regarding the almost infinite chaos involved in going from draft to champion. You have admitted yourself that "management" is even a bigger factor and that you could pick the generational superstar and still screw it up.

Granted, the premise of if you pick first, you have the best chance. Agreed.

The real question is whether the cost of acquiring that best chance is counter productive to the goal. That is the question you need to internally explore thoroughly before concluding "it's so obvious this is the path that it's painful" or whatever you said. Just relying on the simplicity of the first pick advantage to form a castle is not nearly comprehensive enough to make it anything more than a sand castle.

The first rule of analysis is not to make premature conclusions and interject personal bias into the analysis. I've been there done that a thousand times already. It is a good lesson to learn... granted this isn't rocket science... this is a basketball forum so not a big deal. I just like the stalwart Stitches. It gives you gravitas.

[SoCalJazzFan]

By the way, I think we're all underrating the ability to get a star player through trade. The issue there is keeping the player, but as we just saw keeping the player is difficult even if you were the team that drafted him. It might actually be the best way of acquiring a star.

The right word would be "renting a star", because I don't see a reasonable scenario where a star stay after being traded to Utah. Which of course makes trading for one not really an option because the team will never give up serious assets for rentals and thus will not be very likely to win the bidding war for a star.

Keeping a star is difficult even if you draft him. We couldn't even keep Hayward, and while that was a result of conference imbalance, it does reflect well on our ability to keep stars even if the were drafted in Utah.

I believe that is another wrinkle in the tanking approach- you need to draft a superstar who will be impactful at least during his second contract, if not his first. Run of the mill All Stars often take into their mid or late 20s to rise to that level, at which point they might move on to greener pastures.

[Dry Fly]

Damn dude... you make it hard to have an honest discussion when you constantly retreat behind stone walls. There have been multiple examples given... hell you even brought up the 04 Pistons. This reminds me of talking politics and religion. I smell dogma.

I don't think it is helpful to go that route. I was very consistent with my argument and reasoning, even if we disagree. stitches and I are making the same argument.

Not sure how the 04 Pistons somehow alters my argument. The argument about them was that they were the most rare of examples of a championship team that managed to win it without a true superstar and when trying to put together a team to win it, copying the most rare occurrence is extremely unlikely to yield the same result.

Sorry, but no. If you don't see how the 04 Pistons, regardless of the rarity, doesn't provide an example that you deny has been provided, then it's some sort of cognitive dissonance? I don't know. It reminds me of dogma.

It is really frustrating, but I'm not pissed or anything.

[Inigo Montoya]

Keeping a star is difficult even if you draft him. We couldn't even keep Hayward, and while that was a result of conference imbalance, it does reflect well on our ability to keep stars even if the were drafted in Utah.

True. But if you draft him, in most cases you'll have him for 7 years before he'll be in a serious danger of bolting. If you trade for him, he could bolt much sooner, especially if\when a team like the Jazz wasn't his preferred destination, which it usually isn't.

[Inigo Montoya]

Sorry, but no. If you don't see how the 04 Pistons, regardless of the rarity, doesn't provide an example that you deny has been provided, then it's some sort of cognitive dissonance? I don't know. It reminds me of dogma.

It is really frustrating, but I'm not pissed or anything.

I never denied it is possible. Hell, I brought it up as an example of a no-superstar team that won a ring. What I said it is extremely unlikely to happen again, and advised again modeling a team after the rarest cases. Several times. Anyway, it is easily provable. Show me where I said that the only way to build a contender is by tanking. I just went through the thread. I didn't.

[stitches]

OKC. I thought they were on the path to a dynasty... but screwed up by trading Harden. They had 3 MVP level talents on their roster. I think if Philly plays its cards right they might get there too.

The problem is... not many have tried it. And especially not to the level of Hinkie so it's hard to draw any conclusions based on that. Purely analytically and mathematically though, this should be a no-brainer. Again - the reason they are trying to cut it out right now is because IT WORKED. And it worked spectacularly well. Even the biggest proponent among NBA GMs for lottery reform has said the exact same thing - tanking works and that's why it should be stopped, because teams will start doing it en masse(the second part is conjecture on my part, not his words, but it's obvious that this is what NBA officials fear).

This is where it breaks down because there is no pure analytical or mathematical formula regarding the almost infinite chaos involved in going from draft to champion. You have admitted yourself that "management" is even a bigger factor and that you could pick the generational superstar and still screw it up.

Granted, the premise of if you pick first, you have the best chance. Agreed.

The real question is whether the cost of acquiring that best chance is counter productive to the goal. That is the question you need to internally explore thoroughly before concluding "it's so obvious this is the path that it's painful" or whatever you said. Just relying on the simplicity of the first pick advantage to form a castle is not nearly comprehensive enough to make it anything more than a sand castle.

The first rule of analysis is not to make premature conclusions and interject personal bias into the analysis. I've been there done that a thousand times already. It is a good lesson to learn... granted this isn't rocket science... this is a basketball forum so not a big deal. I just like the stalwart Stitches. It gives you gravitas.

If your management suck you are not getting to a title no matter what you do and what path you take. Lets fix the management variable. We have a management and lets assume they are here to stay. With this current management - what's the best way to get to contention? This is really the question.

You need to build a team in both cases - if you tank and if you don't tank. Not tanking doesn't automatically absolve you of the responsibility of piecing together a cohesive unit. The only difference is that in one case you have 1 star(lets say Gobert) and you have to build a cohesive unit around him with little to no chance of getting another star and in the other case you have 3 stars and you have to build a cohesive unit around them. It's so much easier to build high end team around high end talent. I don't know why this is even contentious? Again - either way you choose to go, you still have to build your team and fill it with players that make sense. Just in one case you have much better high end talent.

[Dry Fly]

Sorry, but no. If you don't see how the 04 Pistons, regardless of the rarity, doesn't provide an example that you deny has been provided, then it's some sort of cognitive dissonance? I don't know. It reminds me of dogma.

It is really frustrating, but I'm not pissed or anything.

I never denied it is possible. Hell, I brought it up as an example of a no-superstar team that won a ring. What I said it is extremely unlikely to happen again, and advised again modeling a team after the rarest cases. Several times.

Ok, but you have to explain this then:

To this point, no one has yet to propose a path to contention without tanking

You just proposed a path not only to contention but a championship with the 04 Pistons. The duplicity of what you are saying is hard to work with.