SelfishPlayer wrote:One_and_Done wrote:SelfishPlayer wrote:
Danny Ainge would have been a better fit in Utah as a SG and he was the Celtics 5th best player. The Celtics an organization actually winning titles in that era.
Danny Ainge could have led a bad team to a plus 500 record?
Utah wasn't a bad team.
You've lost the plot. First you pointed to the fact that the Bullets were sub 500. to criticise Jeff Malone's value, but now you agree that's irrelevant because a guy you think is a better player than Jeff Malone also couldn't make the Bullets a plus 500. team. You criticised Jeff Malone as a 'loser' and Ainge as a 'winner' because of the organisations they came from, which makes even less sense. Was Dr J a loser because he played for the Squire's? Did he only become a 'winner' when he got to Philly? Did Ainge become a 'loser' when he went to the Kings, who were worse than those Bullets teams? Why did a good organisation in Utah acquire and play Jeff Malone? Did the exact same Jazz front office and coaching staff suddenly 'become good' in 97? Or were they always 'losers' because Michael Jordan existed? At a certain point one realises it's pointless to ask these questions, because as soon as your first argument is shot down you just move the goal posts.
The reality is this:
1) Jeff Malone made 2 all-star teams. In those years he led 2 bad teams to the playoffs, and they were 500. in games he played.
2) Jeff Malone did not shoot 3s, but lots of good wings and guards did not shoot 3s back then; Jordan included; in MJs first 8 seasons he hit 0.3 per game at 28%, his 3pt shooting was largely irrelevant to his value (one season he hit 7 all year). It wasn't necessary to hit 3s to be a good player at that time.
3) Jeff Malone was just as good when he got to the Jazz as he was those 2 years. He just took a few less shots due to his role changing, but had league average efficiency on the Jazz.
Jeff Malone was an all-star talent. Ergo your claim that Utah never had another all-star next to Stockton and Malone was wrong. Eaton & Hornacek were also examples of this. Your claim they never played with an all-star calibre guard was wrong. Your claim they needed an elite small forward to match up with the league of that time was triple wrong. They lost to teams starting luminaries such as Jerome Kersey, Vernon Maxwell, and Derrick McKey. I'm pretty sure the Jazz weren't going into those series thinking 'damn, we have no shot because we can't match up with Jerome Kersey!' You confused today's league with the 80s and 90s when a 5 man was more important. You were wrong when you claimed they were losing in the playoffs because opposing teams had too much talent in their starting 5 for the 'thin' Jazz to match up with. An example of how ridiculous this is was the fact the 89 Jazz were swept in the first round by a team starting journeymen like Terry Teagle, Winston Garland and Rod Higgins.
Your argument does not pass muster at all, and you should probably stop now. If Stockton and Malone were both MVPs they had ample help. Of course in reality their problem was that only Mailman was an MVP. Stockton was a borderline all-nba player.
