I couldn't agree more with this article

[Darkwing Duck]

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.

This is the answer. Building an offense that focuses on Andrei Kirilenko when Carlos Boozer and Deron Williams are on the roster is ludicrous.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.

Whoooooosh!!

That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.

The point was, if you pay a guy max money, make him your key player. If you are not going to make him your key player, don't pay him max money. We paid a guy max money and then did not make him the key player which is what made that contract so horrible.

This was the grand mistake of KOC and Sloan. Either they were not on the same page (KOC: pay AK the max so he stays; JS: i am not going to make him our key player anyway) or they were stupid. That contract hamstrung us from ever getting any better.

Of course Boozer was better offensively (far far far far worse defensively), and of course AK didn't pan out. But the mistake was paying max money to a guy you were not going to build around. And the lesson is, if you do pay a guy max money, build around him, don't go looking for more max money players that play in essence the same position. At least our money situation would have been far better for making adjustments if/when the "AK as the centerpiece" experiment failed.

That was really the key point in that article to me and what sums up KOC's failures. Make a decision and run with it.

Want to pay AK max money? Great then don't even bring in Boozer, bring in players to complement AK not compete with him.

Don't want AK to be the centerpiece of your team? Then for hells sake don't pay him max money.

But KOC couldn't make that decision and stick to it and it cost us a competitive team. Or he did make the decision and Sloan vetoed it since it didn't involve a big burly PF and all-star PG with only role players around them like he was used to.

Either way I sure hope he doesn't kill the young team that is trying to rise out of those ashes.

 

[Scorpjazz]

Brilliant article and spot on. Thanks for posting it.

The key thing for the Jazz is to realize that Favors and Hayward are the future and everyone else is secondary. They are the hope to be a truly great team with a legit chance to win it all. Once you accept that, if you do, then the rest all works out.

Everyone else can be traded for better pieces. That is not to say that they HAVE to be traded tomorrow, but they can or you can plan on letting them go when the contract runs out. Save $$$ for Favors, Hayward, and #3 whoever that turns out to be.

That said, I do not really believe it is necessarily wise to implement the changes he proposes next year. The dynamic duo is extremely young and next year will be another huge learning year. I do not think they necessarily should hand the team to them next year. Thus, you can keep others around, especially those with expiring contracts. It means a ho-hum year probably, but one for growth with the Boyz and with Ty. The only exception might be Sap: his trade value is probably max right now and if going to the bench is a problem, trade him ASAP.

Agreed, great article. I dont agree with every single point of it, but it is very good.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Whoooooosh!!

That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.

The point was, if you pay a guy max money, make him your key player. If you are not going to make him your key player, don't pay him max money. We paid a guy max money and then did not make him the key player which is what made that contract so horrible.

This was the grand mistake of KOC and Sloan. Either they were not on the same page (KOC: pay AK the max so he stays; JS: i am not going to make him our key player anyway) or they were stupid. That contract hamstrung us from ever getting any better.

Of course Boozer was better offensively (far far far far worse defensively), and of course AK didn't pan out. But the mistake was paying max money to a guy you were not going to build around. And the lesson is, if you do pay a guy max money, build around him, don't go looking for more max money players that play in essence the same position. At least our money situation would have been far better for making adjustments if/when the "AK as the centerpiece" experiment failed.

That was really the key point in that article to me and what sums up KOC's failures. Make a decision and run with it.

Want to pay AK max money? Great then don't even bring in Boozer, bring in players to complement AK not compete with him.

Don't want AK to be the centerpiece of your team? Then for hells sake don't pay him max money.

But KOC couldn't make that decision and stick to it and it cost us a competitive team. Or he did make the decision and Sloan vetoed it since it didn't involve a big burly PF and all-star PG with only role players around them like he was used to.

Either way I sure hope he doesn't kill the young team that is trying to rise out of those ashes.

Seems like we need a history lesson, here. But first, let me get rid of another issue in this post. I can't think of ANY player that complimented Kirilenko's game at the time of Boozer's signing MORE than Carlos Boozer. Don't you sign players to "compliment" and cover your max player's weaknesses? And what were Kirilenko's? Hmm? Rebounding and interior post play come to mind. What was Boozer known for at the time of his signing? I'll let you answer that.

But anyway, Kirilenko signed the max extension after Boozer was signed, and after Okur was signed. Oh yeah, Okur covered another one of Kirilenko's problems, shooting the ball. So the core at the time was those three players. Arroyo had his career year the year before, and the Jazz' two guard position was manned by a scrappy Raja Bell and just traded for in midseason prior Gordan Giricek, who was good in finishing the previous year.

26-56.

Now, that was the bad injury year, but when the star player played, the guy the Jazz gave the max to, they were 15-26. Kirilenko still filled the stat sheets. I clicked on one random game, and here's his line, with both Boozer and Okur playing. 18-9, with 7 blocks.

Jazz lost that game. Andrei broke his wrist to end his season, but the Jazz' season was ALREADY lost before that. Andrei's stats for the year: 15.6 PPG 6.2 RPG 3.3 BPG (led the league), 3.2 APG 1.6 SPG. Pretty much the same year statistically per game as the year before. What does that mean? THAT KIRILENKO WAS STILL A MAJOR FOCUS FOR THE JAZZ WITH BOOZER AND OKUR. And in the end, it had the Jazz go 26-56.

Injuries happened, and the year was lost, but that ended up with the Jazz getting Williams. That year was when Andrei's extension kicked in. Now, you could blame all the injuries and other factors (Boozer missed 30 odd games, Arroyo blew up, etc.) for the losses, but the next year was big. Jazz filled a humongous hole by drafting a point guard they hoped would be a stud, and despite Bell's flying off to Phoenix, still had a decent Giricek and signed a guy who would be happy to tell about how they won championships in San Antonio.

Williams was still a rookie, so his impact wasn't as great as we think of it now, so the team still belonged to Kirilenko, who played 69 games, a decent amount. What was the Jazz record with Kirilenko, now seasons played after signing his max deal? 41-41. Now, you might say, "but Boozer went Boozer and missed 50 games." While true, the Jazz' record was 17-16 in games Boozer played, so he didn't change much.

Kirilenko's line that season? 15.3, 8.0, 3.2, 4.3, 1.5. Look familiar?

So in the two years that Andrei was the undisputed leader of the team, the guy who posted the SAME numbers he did before Boozer and Okur arrived for two years AFTER they arrived, proved that being the main guy meant the Jazz played .500 ball. .500 ball for two years under Kirilenko.

Jazz made no change to the core. Only brought in Fisher as a contributing vet, and Brewer as Millsap as rookies who had a small impact.

Jazz proceeded to start 12-1. Kirilenko missed five of those games, all wins, and didn't contribute much in the others, his best game being a 17-14 game. In those 8 games at the beginning of the season, Kirilenko averaged 7.9 PPG 5.8 RPG, 3 APG, .7 SPG, and 3 BPG.

The Jazz were winning a lot more with Kirilenko playing a lesser role than when he was the focal point of the team. The Jazz went to the conference finals with him having his worst statistical year of his prime. Sloan, and the Jazz as a whole, saw this pretty simple correlation and went with it. Less Kirilenko=more wins. More Kirilenko=.500 record. Hmm.

So it wasn't Boozer that broke the Jazz' vision with Kirilenko as the team leader. It wasn't Okur. It was a superior player the Jazz drafted TWO years after signing Kirilenko to his max deal. This superior player took over the team THREE years after Kirilenko signed his extension, and proved that he could lead the Jazz to more wins, be more durable, have more playoff success, etc. The Jazz DID sign AK to be the centerpiece. They DID sign players to complement his game. The Jazz just ended up with a better player, and thus a better team, several years after the fact.

 

[fallenchicken]

So you couldn't agree more with the article yet you disagree with what it says?

I'll admit it's kind of a complicated situation.

 

[jazzrule]

Actually a very good article. No one agrees 100% on an article covering so many points., so here are the points I do not agree with. Don't agree with keeping Bell under any circumstances, unless you want him to teach the young ones to bitch if they don't like what the coach does. Don't agree with keeping CJ unless as a trading chip, and I sure do not want to start him. We should be able to get a better small forward in the draft. He has had his chances and then some. I am torn on trading Millsap. If anyone could get over not being a starter for the betterment of the team it would be my man Millsap. Keep him and if he proves your theory, then trade him. I don't think his value would decline that quickly, and anyone that good that wants to stay in Utah should be given the chance. Again good read and thanks.

 

[LogGrad98]

So it wasn't Boozer that broke the Jazz' vision with Kirilenko as the team leader. It wasn't Okur. It was a superior player the Jazz drafted TWO years after signing Kirilenko to his max deal. This superior player took over the team THREE years after Kirilenko signed his extension, and proved that he could lead the Jazz to more wins, be more durable, have more playoff success, etc. The Jazz DID sign AK to be the centerpiece. They DID sign players to complement his game. The Jazz just ended up with a better player, and thus a better team, several years after the fact.

No one is disputing how the team performed with or without AK. It is obvious he wasn't the right player to build around. I don't think we would have been better off with him as the focal point all along. I never argued we would have been.

But Boozer's game did not complement AK's game, as realistically they both played the same position. AK adapted as Boozer moved into his position, and carried over the momentum of the previous season. It didn't last long as he struggled going forward to play the more restricted role of SF in the Jazz offense. Okur more than anyone complemented AK. But both Okur and Boozer took over the paint where AK performed best and he was relegated to a perimeter role. Then when Deron came along, it was another player ahead of AK, and by then his mental weakness was really showing as he repeatedly checked out of games, and finally had the meltdown.

KOC's mistake was paying AK for a role he was not going to play. Giving him such a huge contract with Boozer and Okur stepping into similar roles was a mistake that cost us. In the season before Boozer arrived AK was the focal point with much of the game going through his hands. With Boozer and Okur on board, AK got his stats through grit and hustle, but he was not the first option any longer as he was before. I don't think anyone thought when they gave him the huge contract that it was a great deal for us. Why? Because we could see that, no matter what his stat line, he was not the centerpiece of the team even then, even before Williams came on the scene.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

No one is disputing how the team performed with or without AK. It is obvious he wasn't the right player to build around. I don't think we would have been better off with him as the focal point all along. I never argued we would have been.

But Boozer's game did not complement AK's game, as realistically they both played the same position. AK adapted as Boozer moved into his position, and carried over the momentum of the previous season. It didn't last long as he struggled going forward to play the more restricted role of SF in the Jazz offense. Okur more than anyone complemented AK. But both Okur and Boozer took over the paint where AK performed best and he was relegated to a perimeter role. Then when Deron came along, it was another player ahead of AK, and by then his mental weakness was really showing as he repeatedly checked out of games, and finally had the meltdown.

KOC's mistake was paying AK for a role he was not going to play. Giving him such a huge contract with Boozer and Okur stepping into similar roles was a mistake that cost us. In the season before Boozer arrived AK was the focal point with much of the game going through his hands. With Boozer and Okur on board, AK got his stats through grit and hustle, but he was not the first option any longer as he was before. I don't think anyone thought when they gave him the huge contract that it was a great deal for us. Why? Because we could see that, no matter what his stat line, he was not the centerpiece of the team even then, even before Williams came on the scene.

Kirilenko averaged the same numbers with Boozer the first two years he played with him that he did the two years prior. Kirilenko played his first three years primarily as a small forward and was thrust into the PF position as a necessity. The Jazz never envisioned him as a 4 man, always a 3. Even the years he played 4, he'd guard Kobe Bryant, as well as most team's best wing players. He's ALWAYS been a 3 for the Jazz, even when they gave him the contract, so Boozer didn't hurt that at all. Kirilenko scored from slashing off screens and middle court iso's, along with the occasional post up. Boozer didn't interfere with that at all, and the numbers back that up. He still got his iso's at the top of the key, even with Boozer and Okur.

It's amazing that we're blaming a front office for giving a guy a max contract for leading a team whose second best player played 31 games, and third best player was Carlos Arroyo to a 42-40 record, and blame them even more for signing players to make up for that player's deficiencies.

Kirilenko got his with Boozer there. His usage rate was the same, meaning he was involved in the offense the same amount he was before. It wasn't through "grit and hustle" that Kirilenko got the exact same stats. In fact, Kirilenko's stats were a touch better the first year with Boozer and Okur. Only until Williams' second year did his usage rate drop, and it was dramatic.

EDIT: Quick look at another metric. Kirilenko took more threes WITHOUT Boozer than with Boozer.

 

[infection]

Whoooooosh!!

That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.

The point was, if you pay a guy max money, make him your key player. If you are not going to make him your key player, don't pay him max money. We paid a guy max money and then did not make him the key player which is what made that contract so horrible.

This was the grand mistake of KOC and Sloan. Either they were not on the same page (KOC: pay AK the max so he stays; JS: i am not going to make him our key player anyway) or they were stupid. That contract hamstrung us from ever getting any better.

Of course Boozer was better offensively (far far far far worse defensively), and of course AK didn't pan out. But the mistake was paying max money to a guy you were not going to build around. And the lesson is, if you do pay a guy max money, build around him, don't go looking for more max money players that play in essence the same position. At least our money situation would have been far better for making adjustments if/when the "AK as the centerpiece" experiment failed.

That was really the key point in that article to me and what sums up KOC's failures. Make a decision and run with it.

Want to pay AK max money? Great then don't even bring in Boozer, bring in players to complement AK not compete with him.

Don't want AK to be the centerpiece of your team? Then for hells sake don't pay him max money.

But KOC couldn't make that decision and stick to it and it cost us a competitive team. Or he did make the decision and Sloan vetoed it since it didn't involve a big burly PF and all-star PG with only role players around them like he was used to.

Either way I sure hope he doesn't kill the young team that is trying to rise out of those ashes.

And the following is the point that's going over your head: building around someone is not synonymous with making them the focal point of the offense. Andrei was never an offensive anchor to begin with. He became one by default. His game is slashing and put-backs -- that's it. If he sticks with that, he's successful. He can throw in an occasional post-up or jumpshot to keep the defense honest, but slashing and put-backs is his game and I don't thinnk anyone in Jazz management (as much as I do think they've mismanaged things) ever saw him as someone to build an offense around. He got his max contract because of "all the things he does that don't show up in the boxscore" in addition to being able to "fill up the boxscore" in different areas other than just scoring. In this sense his game was perfectly complementary to our teams with Boozer, Okur and Williams, in addition to most any team. Again, he got his money and notereity by everything else he did on the floor. Out of default, he also shouldered the scoring burden. Unfortunately for us, Andrei forgot this and instead of reaccepting his appropriate offensive role, he shut down and stopped doing the specific things he was good at and the exact thing he was paid to do.

This is why it's comedic to me that we keep talking about getting Andrei at the "right price" to come off the bench and "accept a smaller role". Let him go to Golden State where he can be happy.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Are we really debating this! Wow....

 

[zman1527]

I think some of you are still missing a very valid point and nice insight the article makes re max contracts and AK. He is saying that the guy you give the max contract MUST be the one you build around. If not, then he is overpaid and you cannot afford the other parts you need, like losing Wesley last summer. The true mistake was that when they realized that AK was NOT going to fit the MAX role, it was time to admit the mistake and trade him. And it was larry's fault is my understanding: he was good with maxing out AK and then he turned down a trade for him.

The Jazz are just a little too complacent and loyal at times for their own good. There are time to be ruthless in this business. Look at the Celtics and Perkins. No way the Jazz would trade a guy like that. And the point is not whether the trade worked out well for the Celts, the point is that they thought it would be good and they had the wisdom and cajones to pull it off. And as I type this, I realize that KOC did that with the DWill trade: wise and gutsy. Overall, I think KOC has been great and some of his "failings" could be attributed to ownership or coaching.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Ak would get striped of the ball a lot in the paint, and don't deny it, because we all watched it happen for years. Imagine if he had been the focal point of the offense.

Let's look at the different skills on offense.

1. Shooting.
When ever I see Ak shoot an outside shot I cringe winner Boozer

2. Finishing.
See my coments above winner boozer

3. The post. Boozer has great footwork great finisher. Ak's moves and footwork look so awkward that it keeps him from making the play, and often turned the ball over. Winner Boozer.

Passing.
It has often been said that Ak was the second best passer on the team. I'll go with that winner Ak.

I'm sure we could examine more categories, but I think the ones above are the most important, and most essential to having success on offense.

Overall winner by a large margin Boozer. That's why Boozer was the focal point, and Why Ak wasn't.