A rookie isnt going to help the defense much at all. More likely they would make it worse.
Potential Trade Targets
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
The best way to upgrade the Jazz's defense is to trade Clarkson.
He's the worst defender on the team who gets the most minutes.
Some may say KO, but at least KO is an intelligent team defender who helps the team make a lot of defensive plays.
If you are building a team around Sexton and Lauri you're never going to be that good defensively unless you're putting first/second team defensive talent around them *cough get Alex Caruso cough*.
He's the worst defender on the team who gets the most minutes.
Some may say KO, but at least KO is an intelligent team defender who helps the team make a lot of defensive plays.
If you are building a team around Sexton and Lauri you're never going to be that good defensively unless you're putting first/second team defensive talent around them *cough get Alex Caruso cough*.
You also dont *have* to trade KO to open up minutes for Hendricks. Pretty sure the Jazz have stated (maybe indirectly through reporters) that they view Hendricks as a Covington type. They can find minutes for him on the wing if they wanted.
The logic isnt hard. Keyonte has shown a lot of promise and generally plays how Hardy wants a guard to play.
Didnt Hardy basically admit he didnt like Sexton at first? I know the point of that is that he has come around on him, but there is still that initial impression of who Sexton was in Cleveland that still pops out from time to time when he's driving into the paint and somehow can't see the obvious kick out options he has. or when he ignores an entry pass to Lauri in the post vs a mismatch.
They are trying to fast-track Keyonte's development because they want the option of trading Sexton on the table much in the way Cleveland did when Garland became the obvious better player.
Because they think Keyonte is Him and not that far away from being Him and Hendricks is a development project.
The theorem remains undefeated.
I've read and think I understand your stance on this, but just to be clear: Just because a player that isn't playing isn't necessarily bad, doesn't make him necessarily good either. Also, just because it's impossible to know if handling of a young player (limiting minutes/G League/Etc.) ends up being responsible for them playing well eventually, it doesn't necessarily mean that the handling wasn't responsible for that.
I think you understand this, but sometimes when you post it feels like you are going to the opposite logical fallacy, or in other words if a young player doesn't get minutes and then eventually does and plays well, that he would have played well all along and that him being held back (limiting minutes/GLeage/etc.) has nothing to do with him playing well.
The truth is it's impossible to say and by drawing either conclusion you are making assumptions that aren't based on anything that can be 100% known.
Yes, I understand this. I don't emphasize the inverse because the inverse has a pretty decent track record of always being called out (rightfully so) as a logical fallacy. Its opposite, not so much. You need to appeal to some kind of argument, and that's generally accepted that you need some level of evidence, but for this argument we require very little evidence other than an appeal to authority. Now, that's not nothing, to be sure, but what it certainly isn't is a trump card. It most certainly doesn't hold enough value to end debate. My frustrations with it isn't that it can or can't be used as an argument, just the imbalance in the acceptability of which situations are appropriate for appealing to a "common sense" argument and how prevalent those arguments are.
Yeah, I think we generally agree on this then. I do think as long as people clarify their argument/evidence it's ok to bring it up. For example, not only are the coaches more knowledgeable about basketball than us, but they also have more evidence than us. They are obviously far from infallible and make lots of mistakes, the most common being having 0 tolerance for rookie mistakes and 100% tolerance for veteran mistakes. So while people shouldn't say, "Player X is obviously not ready because Coach Y isn't putting him in" I think it would be fair to say, "Maybe coach Y is seeing something that is preventing him from playing Player X."
FWIW I do see the inverse being said, specifically with Ochai last year. I'm not sure it's as pervasive a problem, but it does bug me, especially when the evidence we do have (When a player does play they are bad) doesn't support the conclusion that (If they would have got to play more they would have been good).
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
this is the challenge in getting firsts for guys like KO and JC. Unless one of these teams want them you are going to have a hard time finding a first.
outerspacefan
Well-Known Member
When a young player is good enough you just realize it (Lively, Jaquez...). Our rooks don't belong there.
On TH and BS we don't know any thing besides that they're not appear NBA ready.
On KG we know he's playing just for a perceived future potential and no player before him is doing marvels; certainly he's not playing because he's a positive impact player out there.
And I think all the above describes well enough where we are... in the middle of nowhere.
I really don't perceive us being buyers right now...
On TH and BS we don't know any thing besides that they're not appear NBA ready.
On KG we know he's playing just for a perceived future potential and no player before him is doing marvels; certainly he's not playing because he's a positive impact player out there.
And I think all the above describes well enough where we are... in the middle of nowhere.
I really don't perceive us being buyers right now...