About that 'Culture of Winning'...

[StocktonShorts]

Remember how we were all told that tanking would cause irreparable harm to a franchise? That it tarnishes your franchise with a sticky film that just won't go away? That even though getting a lottery pick or two is in the best long term interests of your franchise, it's not worth the cost of going through a losing season? Remember how we were told that KOC was brilliantly skipping a full rebuild by simultaneously acquiring young talent and making the playoffs?

Why did we believe all of that garbage?

[QuantumMacgyver]

What good would tanking do for this franchise? Land us a top 3 pick? Well... we got two of them without having to tank. Watch, GSW will have a hard time pushing that team in the playoffs after spending last year teaching their players that losing is ok.

[nguyenbalong]

ahh losing looked natural for us tonight.

[StocktonShorts]

What good would tanking do for this franchise? Land us a top 3 pick? Well... we got two of them without having to tank. Watch, GSW will have a hard time pushing that team in the playoffs after spending last year teaching their players that losing is ok.

If we had tanked last year we could've had the 7th and 8th pick instead of two picks in the mid- to late-teens this year.

[BWSL]

It's strictly about the playoff revenue. That "Culture of Winning" stuff is just BS that the locals eat up. Hey, even small market teams are about the bottom line, and they have to do their own version of spin and PR.

[QuantumMacgyver]

What good would tanking do for this franchise? Land us a top 3 pick? Well... we got two of them without having to tank. Watch, GSW will have a hard time pushing that team in the playoffs after spending last year teaching their players that losing is ok.

If we had tanked last year we could've had the 7th and 8th pick instead of two picks in the mid- to late-teens this year.

Us tanking wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from tanking. So we would've gotten one pick in the top 10. Plus we would have been teaching Favors, Hayward and Kanter how to lose games and be ok with it. That has an effect on players.

[reapaman]

If a "culture of winning" was so important than why are we doing better than last year. "Culture of winning" is BS people. These are grown men, these are not elementry school kids. These guys firmly understand the difference between winning and losing. Take the grizzlies and clippers for example. They had years of horrible losing with some of the same guys (mainly the grizziles), then they made a couple moves (grizzlies got randolph who played on a lot of losing teams before he got there) and then they are suddenly one of the best teams in the NBA the next season right after being one of the leagues worse. Ultimately its about getting players with higher talent and skill and having your current playing improve there individual skills.

Now a postive culture is important where you encourage player development and team unity. You can do that even if your losing a lot. And our last top 3 pick was from the deron trade so .... yes we would benefit alot from tanking. BTW if the warriors had won one more game last year then we wouldve got the pick and guess what, we beat them\ three times last year and they were close games for the most part. Had we lost one or two of those then we couldve got the pick.

[countrybama24]

It's strictly about the playoff revenue. That "Culture of Winning" stuff is just BS that the locals eat up. Hey, even small market teams are about the bottom line, and they have to do their own version of spin and PR.

+1 Money talks. This team's number one goal each year is get that playoff cheese. We base our entire strategy on how to ensure we make the playoffs at the lowest cost possible. IE we make some trades to save money (giving away brewer), some to avoid risk (dealing Deron) and some to remain in contention for the playoffs (mo will, jefferson, etc). We never make trades that sacrifice this years bottom line to be more competitive in the future.

Us tanking wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from tanking. So we would've gotten one pick in the top 10. Plus we would have been teaching Favors, Hayward and Kanter how to lose games and be ok with it. That has an effect on players.

But it would have kept our own pick, which we gave to the timberwolves. If we tanked proper, it could have been top 6 (ie dealing the vets, playing the rookies an unreasonable amount).

Also, you don't tank by telling Favors, Kanter and Hayward, "hey, go out there and play terribly and lose this game." You trade away the more productive vets for less effective rookies with greater upside, and, if necessary, hold people out with bogus injuries (see Lee, David, circa 2011-12). Its the front office tank, not the locker room tank.

Would you like to place a bet on who ends up with a better record, us or the warriors, to see how much the "winning culture" from last year is affecting Ws and Ls this year? They seem to be winning quite often....

[QuantumMacgyver]

It's strictly about the playoff revenue. That "Culture of Winning" stuff is just BS that the locals eat up. Hey, even small market teams are about the bottom line, and they have to do their own version of spin and PR.

+1 Money talks. This team's number one goal each year is get that playoff cheese. We base our entire strategy on how to ensure we make the playoffs at the lowest cost possible. IE we make some trades to save money (giving away brewer), some to avoid risk (dealing Deron) and some to remain in contention for the playoffs (mo will, jefferson, etc). We never make trades that sacrifice this years bottom line to be more competitive in the future.

Us tanking wouldn't have prevented the Warriors from tanking. So we would've gotten one pick in the top 10. Plus we would have been teaching Favors, Hayward and Kanter how to lose games and be ok with it. That has an effect on players.

But it would have kept our own pick, which we gave to the timberwolves. If we tanked proper, it could have been top 6 (ie dealing the vets, playing the rookies an unreasonable amount).

Also, you don't tank by telling Favors, Kanter and Hayward, "hey, go out there and play terribly and lose this game." You trade away the more productive vets for less effective rookies with greater upside, and, if necessary, hold people out with bogus injuries (see Lee, David, circa 2011-12). Its the front office tank, not the locker room tank.

Would you like to place a bet on who ends up with a better record, us or the warriors, to see how much the "winning culture" from last year is affecting Ws and Ls this year? They seem to be winning quite often....

Does anyone think the GSW players last year didn't know what was going on? They are grown men, not children. They know when their coach is trying to lose. GSW will have a better record than us at the end of the season, but the Jazz will be the better team over the course of the next ten years.

What I don't understand is how many people think simply "tanking" will suddenly make us a better team. Or that we will somehow land our superstar of the future. Rarely does a team tank and get a franchise changing player. The Spurs and Cavs are two of the few teams I can think of. Look at Charlotte, did everything they could to be the worst team ever... and they got MKG. Would anyone here trade Favors for MKG? KOC traded Deron and got two "tank" season perks out of .500 ball.

[StocktonShorts]

Or that we will somehow land our superstar of the future.

Ummm... being really bad is how teams in the NBA get franchise players, especially small-market, non-destination teams like Utah.

Do I really have to enumerate all of the examples? I thought this was a commonly accepted fact.

Would anyone here trade Favors for MKG?

A better question is: would anyone here trade Paul Millsap for MKG? Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

[Jazzfan12]

We probably could have gotten a superstar in Harden if we gave up Favors and our picks.

Not sure another opportunity like that will come along anytime soon though...

[Inigo Montoya]

A better question is: would anyone here trade Paul Millsap for MKG? Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

i don't see how it is relevant. is there proposed deal like that that we know of? is it a real option?

Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

i can only speak for myself: yes, i would absolutely do this deal. i don't think the bobcats would.

[StocktonShorts]

A better question is: would anyone here trade Paul Millsap for MKG? Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

i don't see how it is relevant. is there proposed deal like that that we know of? is it a real option?

I suppose I was being a bit vague. My thinking goes like this: imagine if at the draft before the start of last season the Jazz had traded Millsap and Jefferson for mediocre veterans/expiring deals and some possible future considerations. Then imagine that last year the Jazz played Hayward, Favors, Kanter, Burks, Watson, CJ, Howard etc. lots of minutes.

What would our record have been? Probably bad enough to be in the lottery. We would've ended up with our own pick and likely would've received the Warriors pick as well.

Would we have ended up with the second overall pick? Maybe not, but my point was that sometimes it's best to clear the decks, suck for a year and take another shot at acquiring a superstar through the draft.

[Inigo Montoya]

A better question is: would anyone here trade Paul Millsap for MKG? Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

i don't see how it is relevant. is there proposed deal like that that we know of? is it a real option?

I suppose I was being a bit vague. My thinking goes like this: imagine if at the draft before the start of last season the Jazz had traded Millsap and Jefferson for mediocre veterans/expiring deals and some possible future considerations. Then imagine that last year the Jazz played Hayward, Favors, Kanter, Burks, Watson, CJ, Howard etc. lots of minutes.

What would our record have been? Probably bad enough to be in the lottery. We would've ended up with our own pick and likely would've received the Warriors pick as well.

Would we have ended up with the second overall pick? Maybe not, but my point was that sometimes it's best to clear the decks, suck for a year and take another shot at acquiring a superstar through the draft.

i agree with you 100%

[QuantumMacgyver]

A better question is: would anyone here trade Paul Millsap for MKG? Would anyone here NOT do that deal?

i don't see how it is relevant. is there proposed deal like that that we know of? is it a real option?

I suppose I was being a bit vague. My thinking goes like this: imagine if at the draft before the start of last season the Jazz had traded Millsap and Jefferson for mediocre veterans/expiring deals and some possible future considerations. Then imagine that last year the Jazz played Hayward, Favors, Kanter, Burks, Watson, CJ, Howard etc. lots of minutes.

What would our record have been? Probably bad enough to be in the lottery. We would've ended up with our own pick and likely would've received the Warriors pick as well.

Would we have ended up with the second overall pick? Maybe not, but my point was that sometimes it's best to clear the decks, suck for a year and take another shot at acquiring a superstar through the draft.

This is exactly my point. People claim Favors is not going to be a superstar, do you all feel MKG is going to be? If Favors isn't our superstar then we should've tanked last year to get our superstar in.... MKG? Beal? Guys are gonna be good, but no superstar. Even if we had traded all of our vets, we still wouldn't have been as bad as the bottom feeder teams. The top 5 teams still would've most likely been worse than us. Even if we were worse, a bottom 5 team, the best player we could've gotten would've been Lillard and we probably wouldn't have taken him so high. My point is everyone seems to think that tanking automatically means you'll get a franchise changer. That is the exception, not the rule.

I totally agree that it is frustrating being a middle of the pack team just so that vets can get their burn. It sucks that the current Jazz team lacks much to be proud of, but at least they don't intentionally throw games. Instead they just plain suck. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd rather be a Jazz fan than a GSW fan.

*edit- I butchered the quote reposts, so my apologies if I make it seem like someone said something they didn't.

[StocktonShorts]

My point is everyone seems to think that tanking automatically means you'll get a franchise changer. That is the exception, not the rule.

If there are people who think that then they have clearly misunderstood how it works.

The most common way for a team like the Jazz to get a franchise changer is through the draft. This doesn't mean that every high pick for a team like the Jazz will be a franchise player.

If there's some independent probability X of a top 10 pick turning into a franchise player then with each additional one of those picks you have the greater your expectation is of landing that difference-maker.

[reapaman]

This is exactly my point. People claim Favors is not going to be a superstar, do you all feel MKG is going to be? If Favors isn't our superstar then we should've tanked last year to get our superstar in.... MKG? Beal? Guys are gonna be good, but no superstar. Even if we had traded all of our vets, we still wouldn't have been as bad as the bottom feeder teams. The top 5 teams still would've most likely been worse than us. Even if we were worse, a bottom 5 team, the best player we could've gotten would've been Lillard and we probably wouldn't have taken him so high. My point is everyone seems to think that tanking [b]automatically means you'll get a franchise changer.[/b] That is the exception, not the rule.

I totally agree that it is frustrating being a middle of the pack team just so that vets can get their burn. It sucks that the current Jazz team lacks much to be proud of, but at least they don't intentionally throw games. Instead they just plain suck. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd rather be a Jazz fan than a GSW fan.

*edit- I butchered the quote reposts, so my apologies if I make it seem like someone said something they didn't.

Yea but your missing the point that even if we don't strike on a kevin durant, we don't have to go through what the kings are going through for example. Also getting rid of the vets and "rebuilding" doesn't neccessarily mean your gonna resort to tanking. Look at houston, atlanta or even portland where they all went through major make overs and people thought they would suck for much longer than they did but they are back on track to being a playoff caliber team w/ alot more hope for the future than they had before. Plus even if "rebuilding" leads us to being bad then we don't have to be bad for long. I mean our team missed the playoffs for 3 years after stockton then we make the conference finals in the 4th year while Indiana missed it for 4 years after miller and then they were back to relevancy after that. We can take a few years of losing if neccessary, Utah fans are loyal and will pack the stadium like they did the last time as long as we are "trying".

The point is that theres many possibilites and they don't all lead to us sucking for an unbearable amount of time ala the kings or GSW has (until now I guess). You gotta try tho and can't be scared to fail. And even if we fail to make a contender it could easily turn out much better than where we are at now. I just hate that "well I rather be a jazz fan than a GS fan" type of take because it doesn't have to be like that especially if the FO is as good at picking talent as many of you think they are (I highly disgree but thats besides the point).

[Amish Mafioso]

Some people are in complete denial when it comes to rebuilding. The key is timing, and the ball has been dropped. You stick to your story, though. You'll have several years of mediocrity to reflect on how right you were.

Rebuilding at the right time doesn't guarantee anything. Obviously there are still risks of falling flat on your face, but it's about increasing your odds. God forbid we gamble our claim to mediocrity in order to take a shot at getting back to the big time.