You're not the only Finnish poster.I made a take that it looked like our FO prioritzed 2024 picks and I dont like that over the other possible options. Then that take was attacked by @silesian and I defended it. How is that "losing your marbles"?
You're not the only Finnish poster.I made a take that it looked like our FO prioritzed 2024 picks and I dont like that over the other possible options. Then that take was attacked by @silesian and I defended it. How is that "losing your marbles"?
The Jazz wanted picks in 2024. They wanted skin in the game come draft day so they could get action.Been through this before but I'll give it one more try.....
Were there better offers that would have helped the team more than the one Danny accepted? I tend to think Danny knows more than I do about this so I'd say that it is highly unlikely that he had a bias so strong for 2024 draft that he would reject better offers. Picks in the upcoming draft historically have more value than later drafts, partially because GMs like to keep their jobs, partially because fans are impatient, and partially due to the "time value" (a win this year is more valuable than a win in 5 years). So the idea is not crazy.
The crazy part is the expectation that this would be much more than a "tie breaker" between similar value offers.
Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than an unprotected 1rst from the Warriors 2025? probably not. Danny would probably take the Warrior's offer
Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than highly protected 2027 pick from the Nuggets? Probably. Danny would probably reject the Nugget's offer.
The problem is that you have nothing but guesswork that better offers were available and guesswork is the entire foundation of your argument.
I don’t think future picks were an option. We were getting the worst of 3picks. Detroit wasn’t giving us one of their picks that will most likely be very good picks over the next few years.Future picks (can hold on to them longer for trade purposes) or young players who are closer to useful than next years rookies were options that I would have preferred to target.
The Jazz wanted picks in 2024. They wanted skin in the game come draft day so they could get action.
To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?The Jazz wanted picks in 2024. They wanted skin in the game come draft day so they could get action.
Yep. Pretty depressing. You should probably just give up on the jazz and move onTo what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?
Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Maybe you should.Yep. Pretty depressing. You should probably just give up on the jazz and move on
Help next years pick be a top 3 maybe we can tank properly this time. LolTo what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?
Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Thats not the only path. Rookies/sophomores can be used as trade bait if there is a team that "blows it up" and wants to chase Flagg and Boozer.To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?
Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.
Yet you gave me an eye roll emoji and posted that comment in a thread where I'm the only Finnish poster actively discussing....You're not the only Finnish poster.
So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.
So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?
Nah. Been a jazz fan for about 40 years. A single trade deadline isn't enough to make me act like the sky is falling.Maybe you should.
Yeah I'm sure we'd rather use the spot for someone with some upside and I'm sure if he's healthy he'd rather not ride the pine. Ryan and Danny will need their pound of flesh while OP jr.'s agent looks around for a suitor.I just saw this: " The Jazz have allowed Otto Porter to return home to contemplate where he wants to finish the season, sources tell Tony Jones of The Athletic. The team is willing to negotiate a buyout with Porter, Jones adds, but it will have to be completed by March 1 to make him eligible for the playoffs with another organization."
Ok now you are being next level delusional. But you dont have to re litigate.... I'm going to do it for you. Lets show everyone who got dismantled.Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.
I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.
The problem with this “instead of” argument is that it assumes we had optionality.
This idea that the Danny/ Z had superior trades that they rejected is very strange.
You think Danny rejected better offers from better teams.
... only to come out a hot second later suddenly admitting that they did prefer 2024 picks:Okay, I give in. Danny desperately wanted 2024 late firsts and early seconds and he spurned numerous other better offers
No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.
The far superior logic is they preferred 2024 picks and valued them higher than their face value.
It was a choice to get only 2024 picks and expirings.
i merely pointed out the fact that they prioritized 2024 picks instead of players or future picks.
So which one is it? Have the guts to commit to a take:
Did our FO target/favor 2024 picks or get two of those by coincidence?
But stop diverting attention away from it and answer this question finally:
Did we get the best/only deals or did we prioritize 2024 picks?
Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.
I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.
I even tried to desperately make you say if we prefer/target/favor/prioritize 2024 picks... and you wouldnt. Until you did in your response to Cy.
Ehh... yes? I mean..... are you setious here?So from my agreement that we "want" 2024 picks, you logically conclude that we "prefer/ target/ favor/ prioritize" 2024 picks.
And again you backtrack to the "best value" assumption and try to bloat the difference.Similarly, let's say I want a chocolate bar. From this you would obviously conclude that I prefer chocolate bars to ice cream. And I would give up a quart of ice cream to get a bite of chocolate.
Those types of derogatory comments only make you look worse.Do they teach logic in Finland?
This is as productive as talking to a piece of belly button lint.
Fair point. When you get to the point where one party insists that "want" equals "prefer" we are debating irrefutable facts about language and it is time to move on. Thanks for the prompt, my life partner is calling, ;-)4 pages and counting? Your poor life partners