David Locke - Utah Jazz are NOT tanking

[HermanG]

First of all I have never, and will never flame anyone on purpose. So please stop right there.

Cy doesnt count I guess? But fair enough, it works both ways. I will stop here.

Again, there are 3 elements to the team that I see as it pertains to this, the FO, the coach, the players.

The FO, in my opinion, clearly made the decision designed to make us worse off by trading away 3 starters as we approach the playoffs push in Vando, Beasely and Conley.

The Coach, in my opinion, has been told to coach the team to win every single game given the players he has. DA does this to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team. But by design, following the trade he has had less and less players to work with after the trade deadline.

The players, as it follows, have been told to play every possession and every game as hard as they possibly can. But again, there is less and less depth to work with following the trade deadline. Again, this is to keep the "Winning Mindset/Mentality/Culture" in the team.

So I think this is where the disconnect is between us. Some of us are looking at this and don't see that we're tanking, cos, as you've said, we've been winning, etc. But people like me, see the decision made by people at the top, i.e., the FO , Danny Ainge, as a decision to "tank" because it clearly made the team worse off by reducing depth.

Again, I'll say FO made a tanking decision, with the trade but the Coach and the players have been told to coach and play hard as to still preserve the "Winning Culture" DA wants to create going forward.

There is not a single piece of objective evidence here. Just your opinions. And I repeat, I do agree the trade made us worse. But not bad enough to fall significantly in the standings.

If it was a tanking move as you speculate it was a very poor effort in that. They surely knew who will get more minutes and shots after trading away those 3.

 

[HermanG]

The JC and KO decision, ok I'll address that now.

Rumors during the deadline had been that DA had been asking for at least a future first for JC alone. It seems like that's DA's bargaining tactic, and that's how he was able to get such a large haul for Rudy and Mitchell, by asking for the moon, and say we will stand pat if we don't get it. This is evident when we didn't trade Mitchell to NY. By all accounts the Jazz and NY were at a stand still playing a game of chicken, who would blink first? DA's threat would be only as good as his action and he didn't blink, but instead turned to Cavs when they offered an equally attractive package for him. Word is DA never went back to NY again and just executed the trade with the Cavs right then and there.

We can all agree JC was very valuable to a contending team at the deadline, equal to or more so than the Vando/Beasely/Conley package. So it could be that DA asked for a 1st round pick (or bust), and eventually at the deadline no team was willing to part with that package hence no trade was made. DA was not about to turn around and then offer JC for a bunch of 2nd round picks, because again, his threat is only as good as his action following it. By doing so would jeopardize other threats he make in the future during trade negotiations.

Why is KO still here? He wasn't playing good enough with the injury and whatnot. I think he clearly followed the JC/Vando/Beasly/Conley in the pecking order.

Why does DA not getting enough value work as evidence? If you tank, you get rid of the guy for the best value available. Trading JC is lose now. If we let him walk for free.. whats the excuse of not picking up those 2nd round picks in the deadline if we were looking to tank as well?

Also for KO... he has played more minutes per game than Vando and Beasley so argument that he was further down the pecking order is very subjective. Also has more PPG than Conley or Vando and only 1.7 less than Beasley. Still a guy who contributes to winning now... especially since the guy behind him in the depth chart is Rudy Gay.

 

[HermanG]

Again, like some had said earlier in this thread, you cannot look at just the results alone, it's too simplistic. You have to look at the decisions made because as I've laid out there are 3 elements to this, the FO, the Coach and the Players.

And the 3 are separate entities, clearly because if you go look at the infamous JC press conference following the Conley trade, he was taken a back by Conley and Co. leaving big time. He just looked sad and disheartened, I don't think he saw that coming AT ALL.

Why? Because so far since the start of the season he had been told by the Coach to Win at all cost. But at the deadline, he now sees that the FO had made a tanking move and trade away 3 of the 5 starters. You cannot make a serious run at the playoffs with that kind of move.

You use the plural "decissions", like there were multiple ones. Yet you judge them by 1 decission in this regard.

We also made another decission within 48 hours of that trade. That was to waive Leandro Bolmaro... who just wanted minutes. Was he too good and going to ruin the tank? What is the excuse we waive a bad player away instead of "evaluating" him if we are tanking. Bolmaro asks for minutes and FO says "bye bye". They had every right to go to Hardy and tell him we need to evaluate this guy before letting him go for free.

Also the non-actions like not trading JC and KO count as well. You know we had offers for both and could have taken them. That would be the sensible thing to do if losing is a priority.... but it wasnt. Or do you disagree?

 

[FrenchJazzFa]

We can debate for ages about the strategy. The only truth are the result. So we will see how we end in the next 2 or 3 years and only then we will see if the strategy was good or not.

My only concern for this year is that we end 11 at west just because there is 10 teams better than us. 11 is not a good spot and in this case, i would have prefer to tank and end 13 or 14. We will see in 20 games.

 

[HermanG]

We can debate for ages about the strategy. The only truth are the result. So we will see how we end in the next 2 or 3 years and only then we will see if the strategy was good or not.

My only concern for this year is that we end 11 at west just because there is 10 teams better than us. 11 is not a good spot and in this case, i would have prefer to tank and end 13 or 14. We will see in 20 games.

I agree. Its also a very semantic debate about the term and centered around the "intentions" of our FO which is likely to be revealed in a book released 10 years from now..

 

[The Midnight]

@HermanG

You’ve admitted that the trade made us worse.

Now, by making us worse is that more likely or less likely to us making the playoffs?

 

[The Midnight]

Cy doesnt count I guess? But fair enough, it works both ways. I will stop here.

LoL .. me and Cy go wayyyyy back.

 

[fishonjazz]

Geez, when i talked about trading conley earlier this year (i wanted more minutes for sexton) people acted like the team would fall apart without him. Like he was the greatest floor general of all time and no one else on the roster could do what he could do. That conley was the reason Lauri was playing so good and if conley were gone then lauri would fall apart. If we traded conley that would clearly show we were tanking.


Now im reading that trading conley (along with 3 other contributors) wasnt a good enough effort by DA to tank.

Again, we could trade Markennan for Lowry and if Lowry suddenly played great for us and we won some games against some mediocre teams then some people would say it wasnt a tank trade cause we still won games after the trade.

 

[The Fresh Prince]

I miss Vandolorian, Threesley, and Mountain Mike.


*cries

 

[HermanG]

@HermanG

You’ve admitted that the trade made us worse.

Now, by making us worse is that more likely or less likely to us making the playoffs?

You just skip my arguments and go back to terminology debate?

 

[HermanG]

Geez, when i talked about trading conley earlier this year (i wanted more minutes for sexton) people acted like the team would fall apart without him. Like he was the greatest floor general of all time and no one else on the roster could do what he could do. That conley was the reason Lauri was playing so good and if conley were gone then lauri would fall apart. If we traded conley that would clearly show we were tanking.


Now im reading that trading conley (along with 3 other contributors) wasnt a good enough effort by DA to tank.

Again, we could trade Markennan for Lowry and if Lowry suddenly played great for us and we won some games against some mediocre teams then some people would say it wasnt a tank trade cause we still won games after the trade.

This is all opinionated. You are claiming we are trying to lose despite the fact that:
- Our record is not worse than before
- Our stats are not significantly worse
- Our best players have more minutes and opportunity
- Our distance to the best lottery seeds has grown
- FO said we did the trade regardless of whether we win or lose more (which means they publicly acknowledge it might lead to more losses!!)
- Hardy said we have foot on the pedal
- We didnt trade JC, who has already won us the Pacers game
- We didnt trade KO, who has been solid and playing 30 minutes ever since the DL
- We waived Bolmaro, perfect tank commander, who just wanted minutes

You and the other tankers are accusing the FO for lying. Its not my job to prove they are not. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Not sure where to put this, so I'll just add it to this thread. In the time since the trade deadline we are the 20th best offense and 10th best defense. I believe we were the 4th best offense and 26th best defense before the trade deadline.