
Spurs > than Jazz
Moderators: Inigo Montoya, FJS
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- QuantumMacgyver
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,453
- And1: 42
- Joined: Jul 07, 2008
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- DelaneyRudd
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 104,536
- And1: 9,466
- Joined: Nov 17, 2006
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
That gives him some cred. The only thing that might be cooler is if he murdered his baby mama.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 660
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
ColdBlue wrote:erudite23 wrote:Its all about what your benchmark for "risk" is.
My benchmark for risk is making a move and possibly eating it. Something along the lines that isn't a clear cut win. These no-brainer trades are few and far between.And I totally agree with you: a key move could make the difference between winning a championship and just making the playoffs for a few years. I just think that move may or may not present itself.
It most likely will not present itself.
So, you would say that signing someone who has never been a regular starter, whose strength is scoring but has never averaged over 10ppg, who was a 2nd round pick and who has played only two years of sporadic minutes to a guaranteed contract worth 50 million would be a risk?
Or that giving 68m guaranteed to another guy just two years removed from being a 2nd round selection after having started for one full season and whose own coach is convinced of his inability to be anything more than just a good role player might also qualify?
Aren't you trying to say that those two moves weren't risks, or did I get you confused with someone else? Apologies in advance if that's the case.
If that's your criteria, the Jazz took two big risks there, along with several other ones, and do so every time they make a selection in the draft or sign a player to a multi year contract. That definition is setting the bar extremely low, it would seem.
russ1 wrote:I feel that the problem is management. For years, they have been satisfied with a high level of mediocrity. I think we as fans reinforce them by filling the seats at the esa. The year we signed boozer and okur, they were not all stars. So you could argue that they were conservative signings. The only risky signing was with Andre. At the time we signed him, I thought it was too much. The jazz felt pressure then because pau gasol had just signed a max deal. The front office needs to grow a pair and make some moves, but like I said, I think managment is satisfied with the current level.

Did you really just say that? I mean....really?
So...giving a ton of money to an UNPROVEN player, someone who has not actually done what you are paying him guaranteed money to do would somehow be...conservative? Did you even think about that before you typed it? Seriously here, that is one of the most absurd ideas that I have ever heard on this forum, and that is a mouthful.
But I'm glad you said it.
And the reason why is that it gets at the heart of all such types of criticism. Clearly, the signing of both Okur and Boozer were huge, huge moments in the history of this franchise. A team looking to establish itself following the longest tenured duo of superstars in the history of sports gives two very large contracts to young big men who have just begun to establish themselves as NBA players. Paying them star money before they have even earned a reputation as above average starters. If those contracts go south, we are sitting there, over the cap with an anchor around our necks, completely unable to do anything unless we strike gold in the draft somehow.
Instead, it is a huge success. Not only does it not go south, but both players actually outplay their contracts and look to get raises upon the expiration of the deals.
And what happens? People like you, Holy Toledo and others of your kind attempt to down-play the moves after the fact, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WORKED. And why? Its not because they weren't risky. No, they were plenty risky. You use "risk" as a pseudonym for what you really mean, but don't want to say.
The proper word is "flash". They were not flashy enough. Why? Because they didn't bring a proven superstar to town and get everyone excited with marquee, name value players.
Now, trades like that come in two guises. The first is when a team somehow finds its way through to bring a young or prime aged superstar to town either in his prime or shortly thereafter. This is highly, HIGHLY irregular, as team's usually go out of their way to keep these types of players happy. When the occasion strikes, however, it still takes the proper circumstances for a prospective team to accomodate the transaction. When Shaq came available, we did not have the assets or the destination to become players. When T-Mac became available, again, we lacked the proper assets and contracts to make a deal work, nor could we have convinced him to re-sign had we been able to pull the trade off. Etc etc. That's the first type, and there's a good reason why we've never been able to do such a thing.
The second type is far more common, and really the type of thing that you and your compatriots are asking for. Generally, this occurs when a superstar player who is past his prime and clearly either washed up or--at best--a poor man's version of his old self is brought to town under the guise of a team being "committed to winning." However, different versions of this move come up all over, but all involve the same thing: the name value of the player exceeding the basketball value. This type of move is notorious for getting the casual fans worked up, generating excitement, pushing revenue up and getting people talking about the team...until the mid season reality check finally starts to set in and people realize that they were just sold another bill of goods. This happens regularly. It just happened with the Shaq trade. The Jefferson trade is another smaller example. It happened last year with Brett Favre going to the Jets. With Shaq going to the Suns. With AI going to the Nuggets. Webber to the Sixers. Kidd to the Mavs. I could go on and on.
That's the type of move you people are really asking for, and its the exact type of move that will put a team behind for 1 to 4 years, depending on the contracts involved. More importantly, its a measure of the honesty of management with their fans, as well as the commitment that they REALLY have to winning. The fact that the Jazz have never tried to sell you on a 37 year old Hakeem Olajuwon or 36 year old Jason Kidd should be proof positive that they are willing to do whatever it takes to genuinely compete, without taking any short cuts.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- StocktonShorts
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 13,386
- And1: 2,551
- Joined: Jun 02, 2009
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
Solid post again.
Don't forget Vince Carter to Orlando.
erudite23 wrote:This type of move is notorious for getting the casual fans worked up, generating excitement, pushing revenue up and getting people talking about the team...until the mid season reality check finally starts to set in and people realize that they were just sold another bill of goods. This happens regularly. It just happened with the Shaq trade. The Jefferson trade is another smaller example. It happened last year with Brett Favre going to the Jets. With Shaq going to the Suns. With AI going to the Nuggets. Webber to the Sixers. Kidd to the Mavs. I could go on and on.
Don't forget Vince Carter to Orlando.

Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- DelaneyRudd
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 104,536
- And1: 9,466
- Joined: Nov 17, 2006
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
The KG trade... oh wait, that's the exception.
(no really I think it is)
(no really I think it is)
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 660
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
DelaneyRudd wrote:The KG trade... oh wait, that's the exception.
(no really I think it is)
Actually you make a great point. Couln't agree more.
In reality, that's what that trade was supposed to be. Why? Because they traded almost every worthwhile player they had on their team to acquire those two guys. Most predictions had them winning 48-52 games, and for very good reason. It wasn't those trades that won them the chip, really. I mean, obviously they were the foundation, but it wouldn't have meant squat if they didn't steal Rondo at 20 the year before, if Perkins doesn't go from being a bit guy to becoming a solid center, if Posey doesn't accept the vet minimum as a result of the damage to his cred after his messy last year with Miami...etc etc. There was a laundry lists of shrewd moves after the fact that made it all possible, and even then they will be paying the piper soon. Maybe even next year.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 912
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2006
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
The spurs, as always, seemed to have made some really solid moves. Picking up jefferson for basically nothing, then getting blair in the second round. In a lot of ways the Jazz are just an inferior version of the spurs, the coaches have similar philosophies, they have similar playing styles, the only difference is that the spurs win championships.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- DelaneyRudd
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 104,536
- And1: 9,466
- Joined: Nov 17, 2006
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
Remember, the Spurs drafted Chris Carawell in the 2nd. What a steal!
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 660
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
HappyProle wrote:Don't forget Vince Carter to Orlando.
Lol. Its funny that you should think that. I actually think that was the perfect example of the type of good risk that these guys are begging for. If the Jazz could make it possible fiscally to bring in VC for Harp, CJ, a opted in Korver and maybe a future 1st, it could really have helped us. I think that was a great move, I am sorry to say.

Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 660
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
DelaneyRudd wrote:Remember, the Spurs drafted Chris Carawell in the 2nd. What a steal!
Yeah, all the Jazz have to show for their last several 2nd round draft picks are Paul Millsap, CJ Miles, Mo Williams (he still counts) and a couple good Euro prospects. Inferior indeed.
Incidentally, the Spurs did happen to win the rights to two of the top 12 big man prospects of all time. Might want to mention that, as well.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- DelaneyRudd
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 104,536
- And1: 9,466
- Joined: Nov 17, 2006
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
That's the thing. The Nets will never say we were offered Miles and Harpring instead, and neither will the Jazz. These things don't happen in a vacuum. KOC wasn't caught saying afterwords, but I'd a offered you this!
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 660
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
Too true. Its probably the single hardest part of being a fan. You never know what they COULD have done, so they can just sell you a line of crap and you never know if they turned down an opportunity to assemble a champ because they didn't have the guts.
It sucks.
It sucks.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,414
- And1: 16
- Joined: Feb 03, 2006
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
erudite23 wrote:
So, you would say that signing someone who has never been a regular starter, whose strength is scoring but has never averaged over 10ppg, who was a 2nd round pick and who has played only two years of sporadic minutes to a guaranteed contract worth 50 million would be a risk?
Or that giving 68m guaranteed to another guy just two years removed from being a 2nd round selection after having started for one full season and whose own coach is convinced of his inability to be anything more than just a good role player might also qualify?
Aren't you trying to say that those two moves weren't risks, or did I get you confused with someone else? Apologies in advance if that's the case.
If that's your criteria, the Jazz took two big risks there, along with several other ones, and do so every time they make a selection in the draft or sign a player to a multi year contract. That definition is setting the bar extremely low, it would seem.
You have to have something to lose for it to be a risk, and I'm not talking about the money.
Anyways... it's a side point and not really where the meat is. I'm more interested in what the Jazz do now, while they are on the cusp.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,233
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 03, 2007
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
JDubJazz wrote:In other news, the sun is expected to set in the West this evening.
The Jazz are too risk averse to ever make this kind of high profile trade that could shake the balance of power in the west. Its sad/funny just how outclassed by the Spurs the Jazz have become. At least we can all think back fondly on those days when Mailman used the Admiral as his own personal heavy bag. I miss those days.
if you think karl malone was better than david robinson you are the biggest homer in the history of the world. john stockton and karl malone were the 2 most overrated players in the history of the nba. if malone is one of the top 3 pf's of all time, and stockton is one of the top 3 pg's of all time, then they were good for atleast 2-3 championships....right? how many did they end up with? D. Robinson has 2
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
-
- Senior
- Posts: 631
- And1: 65
- Joined: Apr 10, 2009
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
Actually, Malone absolutely abused Robinson nearly every time they played, especially in the playoffs... and I don't mean just by knocking him unconscious. This is coming from a big Admiral fan, btw, but you gotta face facts. Remember the Spurs first real run, which didn't occur until after they completely and obviously tanked a full half of one season and won the lottery? In a post game interview after the WCF series clinching win (not against the Jazz, btw) Robinson went out of his way to give props and credit to Malone & Co. for teaching the Spurs toughness and how to win thew big ones.
Thanks for playing, now stuff it troll.
Thanks for playing, now stuff it troll.
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- babyjax13
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,018
- And1: 17,531
- Joined: Jul 02, 2006
- Location: Occupied Los Angeles
-
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
McGrady2Head wrote:JDubJazz wrote:In other news, the sun is expected to set in the West this evening.
The Jazz are too risk averse to ever make this kind of high profile trade that could shake the balance of power in the west. Its sad/funny just how outclassed by the Spurs the Jazz have become. At least we can all think back fondly on those days when Mailman used the Admiral as his own personal heavy bag. I miss those days.
if you think karl malone was better than david robinson you are the biggest homer in the history of the world. john stockton and karl malone were the 2 most overrated players in the history of the nba. if malone is one of the top 3 pf's of all time, and stockton is one of the top 3 pg's of all time, then they were good for atleast 2-3 championships....right? how many did they end up with? D. Robinson has 2
Actually, I think you have it mixed up, I think 90% of NBA fans would say Karl is better. They NEVER had a good supporting cast in their prime, and they had to go against Jordan and Pippen when they made it to the finals.

JazzMatt13 wrote:just because I think aliens probably have to do with JFK, doesn't mean my theory that Jazz will never get Wiggins, isn't true.
JColl
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
- HammerDunk
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,126
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Re: Spurs > than Jazz
McGrady2Head wrote:JDubJazz wrote:In other news, the sun is expected to set in the West this evening.
The Jazz are too risk averse to ever make this kind of high profile trade that could shake the balance of power in the west. Its sad/funny just how outclassed by the Spurs the Jazz have become. At least we can all think back fondly on those days when Mailman used the Admiral as his own personal heavy bag. I miss those days.
if you think karl malone was better than david robinson you are the biggest homer in the history of the world. john stockton and karl malone were the 2 most overrated players in the history of the nba. if malone is one of the top 3 pf's of all time, and stockton is one of the top 3 pg's of all time, then they were good for atleast 2-3 championships....right? how many did they end up with? D. Robinson has 2
How many does he have against MJ???????????? That's what I thought... Of course, someone who devotes his username and sig to making fun of somebody rather than showing who your favorite team or player is says a lot about their credibility.
But, just for fun, I'll give you Malone, his top 3 PF position is very debatable, but JStock... The mere fact that the most important PG stat record will always be his shows that he belongs in that list. Steals may not be as important, but when you are a PG on the other team and have the threat of the best swiper in the game guarding you, it WILL get in your head. He may not have been Magic, but he was the best PURE PG in the history of the game...
homer...

Word is, South Beach is ecstatic that they
won't be seeing Millsaps talents again this season...