What's new
By:

OKC as a blueprint

infection said:
Over the past decade or more, I've often expressed frustration with the utilization of recency bias in terms of having a template on winning, where we look at whoever last won the championship, employing a survival bias, and declare that to be the new and/or only formula for winning in "today's NBA." I do understand that you're drawing upon some similarities between the franchises that are relevant so I'm not 100% specifically stating this directed at you but more the larger context. Formulas don't work until they do. Winning a championship is such a rare event (one per year, and only ten in a decade) that the sample size is really difficult to extrapolate in terms of what works and what doesn't but we like to speak very definitively on what does or doesn't work for building a true contender.
Click to expand...
That is a very valid observation. Unfortunately, the game style and financial framework in the NBA change every several years and nobody has the luxury of waiting for the sample size to increase and only after that start making moves based on the sufficient". Teams react and copy each other very quickly. But you can increase the sample a bit by adding to it another small-market team that recently went to the Finals, the 203-24 Mavs. The Mavs were built pretty similar: two large contracts , 2 All Stars (and one of them was a top-5 player) and many two-way players on low contracts, including two key players on rookie salaries. They were able to get away with Doncic being bad on defense because he was together with Jokic and LeBron one of the best offensive players at the time..

What the Jazz has been doing is the exact opposite of how those three teams were constructed. They gave a large contract to the player whose prime will not be aligned with Ace and the 2026 pick. They drafted a bunch of one-dimensional players who will be inevitably targeted in the playoffs, they keep trading for expensive vets like Sexton, Collins and Andersen. Trading for Svi and holding on him simply defies logic...

I think the Jazz are not building a true contender but rather a team "good enough" for playoffs and fans. Which is fine with me but many people on this board eagerly anticipating the emergence of a true contender are setting themselves up for disappointment. Anyway, the Deron-Boozer Jazz were fun and I will not mind watching the assembly of a similar team.
 
The Jazz Wonderbra said:
Josh Giddey
Tre Mann
Pokusevski
Dillon Jones

They didnt fit because they weren't two way players or for whatever reason and they cut ties quickly and swapped them with Dort, Wiggins, Joe, and Wallace.
Click to expand...
So you didn't even read my post I guess? Giddey was there 3 years. Tre Mann was there 2.5 years (it's right there in the part you quoted). Poku was there freaking 5 years. And Dillon Jones was someone they traded 5 2nd round picks for and then, yes, decided to move him along after a year.

Keyonte George has been here 2 years.
 
LogGrad98 said:
And we traded for Mitchell. We also traded for Burke. And we traded up for Deron. Lots of trades happen that don't end up in championships. If OKC is the blueprint, how exactly do we follow it to the same success? So much of this is chance and luck. Tough to say that's how to build a championship team. What are the steps? How can other teams take the same steps?
Click to expand...
A whole bunch is chance and luck on multiple levels. I think it is a bit humorous that every year when a team wins the title the idea of them as a blueprint comes out. There are lots of ways to get there. One of them is not trading away future HOF players.
 
gomretat said:
A whole bunch is chance and luck on multiple levels. I think it is a bit humorous that every year when a team wins the title the idea of them as a blueprint comes out. There are lots of ways to get there. One of them is not trading away future HOF players.
Click to expand...
But if you don’t trade them, you might lose them in three years for nothing and then suck really bad for 7-8 years. We’re much better off with an assortment of late first rounders and irrelevant pick swaps because we suck more than the teams we could swap with.
 
gomretat said:
A whole bunch is chance and luck on multiple levels. I think it is a bit humorous that every year when a team wins the title the idea of them as a blueprint comes out. There are lots of ways to get there. One of them is not trading away future HOF players.
Click to expand...
Actually, OKC traded away future hall of fame players. Lots of them.
 
Strutter said:
So you didn't even read my post I guess? Giddey was there 3 years. Tre Mann was there 2.5 years (it's right there in the part you quoted). Poku was there freaking 5 years. And Dillon Jones was someone they traded 5 2nd round picks for and then, yes, decided to move him along after a year.

Keyonte George has been here 2 years.
Click to expand...
The point is when it isnt the right piece, move on. Thats all. Not going to write a journal entry on top of your book long posts.

If you want a quality team then you have to dump the baggage and pick uo quality winning pieces.
 
The Jazz Wonderbra said:
The point is when it isnt the right piece, move on. Thats all. Not going to write a journal entry on top of your book long posts.

If you want a quality team then you have to dump the baggage and pick uo quality winning pieces.
Click to expand...

Except if you keep continually turning over the roster, you suck, even if you have good players. It is damn hard to build a team without some consistent pieces. I think the Jazz have decided that Lauri, Kessler, and Ace plus whoever they pick up this year is the base. Everything else will be puttied in around that.

The best way to get to contender status is to be a "treadmill team" with assets. It is easily the most repeatable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top