Debunking the "losing is bad for culture" people. To win a title, you have to suck.

[Stoked]

Al and Paul are not the future of this team. If they are this team is ****ed. So the guys that are the future of this team in a season where we were not going anywhere should have been the focal point of this team. Instead they are sitting behind guys that should not be back. I don't care if they look lost right now. If we lose playing them then so be it. We are not going anywhere anyway.

Al is not the future of this team. Paul can have a place in the future of this team under the right conditions.

[Hack]

Basically this arguement boils down to all of us wanting the youth to take over the team.

But yet, you are all for this team playing Al and Paul because winning culture is the most important thing.

[Stoked]

But yet, you are all for this team playing Al and Paul because winning culture is the most important thing.

Nice full of **** post. Well done.

[PKM]

Nice full of **** post. Well done.

Time to change your sig. Sirstickyass can just get over it.

[Stoked]

Time to change your sig. Sirkissass can just get over it.

OK fair enough. He never did tell me what he wanted as my sig.

[PKM]

OK fair enough. He never did tell me what he wanted as my sig.

Screw it then. You were a good sport.

[Stoked]

Screw it then. You were a good sport.

Changed to no sig.

[green]

I think he noticed that the young bigs weren't ready, and that having them play behind high character guys while getting playoff-chase/playoff experience could really help their young guys take the next step in their development.

The bigs will never "be" ready until they play, they experience close 4th quarter losses, they push big leads, they fall behind big and have to come back on their own (oh, wait. They do this every night). You have to let them play. Would sitting Kevin Durant a year or two, having Sea/OKC get swept in the first round by SA, missing out on Westbrook and Harden made OKC a better team?

Yet, you are telling me that what Sea/OKC did was wrong, and what the Jazz are doing is the right thing to do.

[Stoked]

The bigs will never "be" ready until they play, they experience close 4th quarter losses, they push big leads, they fall behind big and have to come back on their own (oh, wait. They do this every night). You have to let them play. Would sitting Kevin Durant a year or two, having Sea/OKC get swept in the first round by SA, missing out on Westbrook and Harden made OKC a better team?

Yet, you are telling me that what Sea/OKC did was wrong, and what the Jazz are doing is the right thing to do.

Not everyone reacts the same. Not the same approach works the same way with all people. Having said that, the amount of time the youth have been getting lately needs to continue. The DNPs Burks got and the little time Kanter got early in the year was pathetic.

[green]

You don't get to claim non sequiturs as making your point.

You said, "Superstardom doesn't happen until you have playoff success." I agreed with you. You then compared Oden to Durant, which is a crappy comparison, because one was healt

Hamilton was what, fourth best on the title team (afters Billups and the Wallaces)? If they had not had Hamilton, they would have found someone else.

You don't know that at all. What we do know, is that Detroit turned their top 10 pick into an essential piece of their puzzle. They also did well in finding Wallace during the draft process.

By the way, *all* teams have crappy seasons, whether they go to the NBA Finals or not. Every team in the playoffs did in a previous season. Every team not int he playoffs did that season. Every team, up and down the line. If have a crappy season is an immutable fact of NBA existence, than of course it happens to the teams in the Finals, as well.

Yup. And good organizations draft well and get better, ala the Jazz. Bad organizations don't get better, ala Minnesota. The worst place to be is stuck in the middle. Utah with Al is exactly that. That is the whole point. Keeping Al keeps Utah stuck in the middle.

Depends on price tags for all three, of course.

Duh, Sherlock. Everyone is saying Al will get close to the max. He isn't worth that. Like I said, depending on their price, Millsap and Mo might not be worth it as well.

If Kanter can't beat out Jefferson for a starting spot next year or the year after, why would you think he could lead us to a title? Resigning Jefferson for the right price doesn't change our path any more than resigning Millsap or Maurice Williams for the right price.

Serious? So, do you think that Burks, Carroll and Hayward can't beat out Marvin, Foye and Tinsley/Watson for a starting spot? Do you honestly think that Al is a better player OVERALL than Kanter?

You have no idea Lillard would have been available to us.

Had we gotten the fifth/sixth pick, I DO know Lilliard would have been available to us.

Further, do you realize your whole point is predicated on Jefferson being a much better player than Kanter last year, since playing Kanter more would have had us deep in the lottery? Are you saying it's bad policy to get and play the best players possible? If an organization refuses to get teh best players, don't you think that mindset carries down?

I used this example with another poster. By your logic, OKC did the wrong thing by playing Durant so much early in his career. By your logic, OKC should have drafted Durant, tried their best to get a more "polished" player, let Durant learn on the bench for a couple of seasons of competing for the 8th spot in the West, missed out on Harden and Westbrook and then made Durant "earn" his spot over an underperforming vet.

I'm not saying it's bad policy to get and play the best players possible. I'm saying take a view longer than ONE game or ONE season. If we are only looking at ONE season, then the Jazz did the right thing. They made the playoffs in ONE season, made some money, and were slightly better than 1/2 the teams in the NBA. Good for them.

If we look at the long term view, what did the Jazz actually accomplish?

1 - They don't know what they have in Favors. Favors is now due an extension, and the Jazz don't know if he can be a starter in the NBA and is worth 10 million or more per season. They will have to take a gamble on Favors panning out. Had they not had Al last year, they would have now had at LEAST a full year of games to evaluate Favors and get him a more predictable contract.

2 - Kanter missed out on a year of developing on the court. With Kanter's work ethic, how much more productive would his offseason had been last summer if he had more experience? He would know more specific things to work on, been more efficient, and possibly an even better player this year.

3 - The Jazz essentially wasted a year on a rookie deal with Kanter and Favors. This is HUGE, seeing how Utah is a small market team and will never be able to pay three max deals.

4 - The potentially missed out on Lilliard and Harrison Barnes. The last draft was unique in that they Jazz had a chance to get TWO top ten picks. But getting swept by SA was much, much more valuable.

The message the organization sent last year was:

1 - They care about the money overall.

2 - Being elite isn't important, just getting yours is.

3 - Vets are much more important than developing talent.

4 - Take as many shots as you want, you don't have to play defense, and we don't run an offensive system anymore. If you get the ball, try to score. Pass if you want.

[green]

Look at Watson's numbers:

2 pts, 4 assists, 30% fg, 19% 3pt

Lilliard:

19 pts, 6 assists, 42% fg, 35% 3pt.

Compare Marvin to Harrison. Marvin:

Harrison:

9 pts, 4 rebs, 43% fg, 35% 3pt

Marvin:

7 pts, 3 rebs, 40% fg, 33% 3pt.

And remember, getting those two players would have been WORST case scenario last year. Well, second to worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is what happened.

[gregbroncs]

Al is not the future of this team. Paul can have a place in the future of this team under the right conditions.

I don't believe he'll accept those conditions so I see no future for him here.

[Stoked]

I don't believe he'll accept those conditions so I see no future for him here.

I do not think he will either unfortunately.

[Stoked]

Look at Watson's numbers:

2 pts, 4 assists, 30% fg, 19% 3pt

Lilliard:

19 pts, 6 assists, 42% fg, 35% 3pt.

Compare Marvin to Harrison. Marvin:

Harrison:

9 pts, 4 rebs, 43% fg, 35% 3pt

Marvin:

7 pts, 3 rebs, 40% fg, 33% 3pt.

And remember, getting those two players would have been WORST case scenario last year. Well, second to worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is what happened.

Lillard went with the 6th pick. We had no shot at him.

[green]

Lillard went with the 6th pick. We had no shot at him.

Lilliard would have been worst case scenario for fans like you:

We get rid of Al last year, we absolutely suck, and end up with a lottery pick. Your worst case scenario as a fan, because it shows the world that we want to be the Timberwolves because we played our future over mediocre present, would have made us the most talented team in the NBA.

That is my point. Worst case scenario (in your eyes), we become the best team in the NBA.

We need to get rid of crappy vets and play the young 'uns. We have the talent, we need to see if it will develop. Al and Paul and Corbin (it isn't Foye/Marvin/Watson/Tinsley's fault Corbin plays them over better players) can't be here for us to do that.