What's new
By:

You're the GM this offseason. What do you do?

Ellis269 said:
I doubt Memphis would be too difficult to work with IF Harris has interest in the Jazz.

It’ll cost more, but would be worth the price if they can put together their (dare I say it?) Core 4 right now.

Conley, Mitchell, Jingles/O’Neale, Harris and Gobert would be and amazing start.
Click to expand...
Find a way to get Dante’s salary in the deal and take Jae out. That saves $2.5M. Then DL needs to apologize to Jae for valuing his delusional hypotheticals over Jae’s realistic tangibles, and he needs to wipe his *** if Jae requests it.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
What very decision?
Click to expand...
The decision (or question, rather) that a contingent of JFC has been discussing for over a year: whether it’s worth dropping a couple percentile points on your defense to jump 15 percentile points on your offense.
 
I had a thought... it’s likely a terribly one sided trade but say Charlotte loses Kemba. Likely need a pg... likely won’t keep Lamb... what if we talked them into a sign and trade... we’ll send a young pg full of potential who is definitely not ded... AND UNC legend Tony Bradley (plus cash considerations... we know MJ loves cash considerations).

I mean there is no way in hell they should do that... but if we landed Lamb after using our space that’d be cool.
 
infection said:
The decision (or question, rather) that a contingent of JFC has been discussing for over a year: whether it’s worth dropping a couple percentile points on your defense to jump 15 percentile points on your offense.
Click to expand...

At a certain point in the analysis, offense and defense are interconnected and there arises a diminishing return to improving defense at the expense of offense. A team that has an efficient and productive offense, that makes the other team guard the entire floor, and that puts the ball in the bucket efficiently, also gains an advantage defensively because they make the other team inbound the ball after a made shot, they're better able to set up their defense, and they prevent that team from getting out and running an early offense.

A team that doesn't execute its offense well enough and lets the other team get out in transition will hurt their own defensive efficiency. This is why Ricky Rubio's bricks and live-ball turnovers hurt the Jazz's defensive rating, even though Rubio is a good defensive player in a vacuum.

What we're looking for is someone who is engaged in our offense more than Favors is, but who doesn't create a complete hole in our defense. It's about finding a player who is really good at one end of the court and at least passable at the other.

When Favors isn't involved in running screen-and-rolls, he's pretty much a non-offensive player.
 
Last edited:
Catchall said:
At a certain point in the analysis, offense and defense are interconnected and there arises a diminishing return to improving defense at the expense of offense. A team that has an efficient and productive offense, that makes the other team guard the entire floor, and that puts the ball in the bucket efficiently, also gains an advantage defensively because they make the other team inbound the ball after a made shot, they're better able to set up their defense, and they prevent that team from getting out and running an early offense.

A team that doesn't execute its offense well enough and lets the other team get out in transition will hurt their own defensive efficiency. This is why Ricky Rubio's bricks and live-ball turnovers hurt the Jazz's defensive rating, even though Rubio is a good defensive player in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
It’s a fairly elementary thing to understand, but emotion has really affected this analysis for a while, and I’m not just talking about personally with Favors. It’s even about the identity of the team, that we continue to look at diminishing returns because we feel it’s important to reinforce that identity, and we turn away any options that don’t strictly conform to our orthodox beliefs, failing to appreciate a level of nuance because our views of defense have evolved to become puritanical.
 
infection said:
It’s a fairly elementary thing to understand, but emotion has really affected this analysis for a while, and I’m not just talking about personally with Favors. It’s even about the identity of the team, that we continue to look at diminishing returns because we feel it’s important to reinforce that identity, and we turn away any options that don’t strictly conform to our orthodox beliefs, failing to appreciate a level of nuance because our views of defense have evolved to become puritanical.
Click to expand...

Well, what happened is that Gordon Hayward left the Jazz in free agency and prevented the Jazz from signing another offensively skilled player. So DL pivoted, decided that defense was our identity, and he brought in guys like Royce, Thabo, Udoh and Jerebko. Prior to that, the Jazz had offensive talent like Hayward, Hill, Joe Johnson and Rodney Hood. That first year after Hayward left, the Jazz's offense was like 22nd in the league, and we started relying almost entirely on Joe Ingles and Donovan Mitchell.

We've been recovering from that ever since.
 
If the Jazz can put a rotation on the floor with Conley / Mitchell / Royce / Tobias / Gobert, plus Exum and guys like Garrett Temple or Ed Davis coming off the bench, that's a pretty nice two-way line-up.
 
Catchall said:
Well, what happened is that Gordon Hayward left the Jazz in free agency and prevented the Jazz from signing another offensively skilled player. So DL pivoted, decided that defense was our identity, and he brought in guys like Royce, Thabo, Udoh and Jerebko. Prior to that, the Jazz had offensive talent like Hayward, Hill, Joe Johnson and Rodney Hood. That first year after Hayward left, the Jazz's offense was like 22nd in the league, and we started relying almost entirely on Joe Ingles and Donovan Mitchell.

We've been recovering from that ever since.
Click to expand...
I know, mean more since then. Because we became a very thin offensive team but really good defensive team, we felt that we needed to just keep doubling down on defense at the expense of offense. For example, we did nothing to address offense last summer, despite the fact that we knew (or should have known) that it was a problem, regardless of our hot ending.
 
infection said:
I know, mean more since then. Because we became a very thin offensive team but really good defensive team, we felt that we needed to just keep doubling down on defense at the expense of offense. For example, we did nothing to address offense last summer, despite the fact that we knew (or should have known) that it was a problem, regardless of our hot ending.
Click to expand...

The challenge is to improve the offense without hurting the defense much, if at all. That's not easy to do, and the moves we make have to be surgically precise. That's one reason Conley is such an upgrade. He puts another shot creator and 20-pt scorer on the floor without hurting our defense or compromising Mitchell's freedom. The points Conley will add, plus the ball security he brings, puts the Jazz in a higher tier than they were with Rubio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top