I know that Sloan had a bad rap for not playing young guys... But...
#1 I can't see Sloan being "down" with our offense the way it currently is structured. Now.... No offense with Big Al on it is going to look like the Showtime Lakers, Running Suns, or the Jazz when they they had Dwill, Booz, and Money Memo (or the Stock/Malone Jazz) in their primes. But our offense this season (and through much of last) sucks. Sloan would have only improved it. It would be impossible for him not to.
#2 I don't see Sloan completely banishing Burks and never playing Kanter. In fact, Enes Kanter would probably be a "Sloan guy." Same with Carroll. Both are "junkyard dogs." In my book, more PT for Kanter and Carroll can only be a good thing. Burks, with his defense, would have seen PT.
#3 After our ass kicking by the Pacers last night, Ty said it's, "only 1 game." Big Al said, "it's not the end of the world." Jerry, in his post game interview after benching the starters, screaming at them at the half, and then picking up 2 techs to be ejected in the 3rd, would have said something like... "I feel sorry for the fans who paid good money to watch this. The starters showed up in tuxedos. That's why our starters only played 10 minutes each for the game and I benched them. And if Al, Paul, and Mo keep pulling this BS, I'll keep playing Kanter and Burks 30+ minutes."
Probably theeeee biggest difference Sloan would have made is probably theeeee #1 quality we lack...
It's difficult to quantify the difference Sloan would have made. It's certainly not difficult to qualify the difference he would have made.
All Jazz teams under Sloan played hard and weren't pansie asses.
We're pansie asses. Lets admit it. We prefer to chuck 3s than to actually fix it up inside, get to the FT line, or knock somebody on their butt on defense.