What's new
By:

Read it and weep: on the failure of Tanking

doubledribble said:
It is too bad that the Mavs players in 2011 did not have the opportunity to read this wise post and, in their ignorance, defeated the mythical (and healthy) LeBron in 6 games. Ditto for the 2013 Spurs who were a lucky tip and a desperation shot away from beating the same LeBron in 6 games. Oh, and the Pistons in 2004 also totally did not get the message.

Poor schmucks.
Click to expand...
anyone who still remembers and mentions Pistons 2004 is a basketball savant!
What a team they were!
Even Memo was badass back then.
 
Doublea said:
It's a stupid statement mainly because: A. That player you draft has to develop, usually by year 3 is were they should be getting there. B. Most bad teams are bad for a reason and adding one player doesn't automatically turn them into a play off team. They might get a little better.
Click to expand...

Point B is the entire point of the article.

Jazz fans, regardless of what draft pick they get, had better hope that Ty is the problem, or Point B will kick in.
 
This also does not fully apply to the Jazz because the Jazz are not going to have this exact same team plus 1 rookie from the draft.

Biedrins
Jefferson
Rush
Lucas
Williams
Hayward
Garrett
Clark
Thomas

4 of which see reagular time, including 2-3 starters.

All are potentially gone next season. That is a large portion of this team. The Jazz also have some financial flexibility this offseason.

The Jazz are going to have as many new faces next year as they did this year. The difference will be that Utah is now going after players that will push the team towards the playoffs. They are not going to bring in players just to get a pick. The Jazz will go from gather assets and young players to build a playoff (and hopefully beyond) caliber team.
 
The title of this article could easily read "Read it and weep: on the failure of Free agent signing, trading for a franchise player, trading away a franchise player, being a middle of the pack playoff team" and would have been equally as accurate as tanking. If anything IMO (haven't done any number crunching) drafting talent is the most efficient way for non-glamour market teams to change their culture. But like all forms of team building it's risky. The NBA up until now has not been a fan of parity because super teams are easy to market. And Stern(god bless his soul for keeping basketball in NOLA) was more than happy raking in the dough doing things the easy way even if that means the earning potential is limited.
 
Last edited:
doubledribble said:
It is too bad that the Mavs players in 2011 did not have the opportunity to read this wise post and, in their ignorance, defeated the mythical (and healthy) LeBron in 6 games. Ditto for the 2013 Spurs who were a lucky tip and a desperation shot away from beating the same LeBron in 6 games. Oh, and the Pistons in 2004 also totally did not get the message.

Poor schmucks.
Click to expand...

This is such a cute response. It sounds really, really nice, but it isn't that informed. Let's take a look at the "opportunity" to win an NBA title, shall we? Here are the teams that have won an NBA title (and their market size in parenthesis):

Boston: 17 titles (#7)
Lakers: 16 titles (#2)
Bulls: 6 titles (#3)
Spurs: 4 titles (#26)
76ers: 3 titles (#4)
Pistons: 3 titles (#11)
Warriors: 3 titles (#6)
Miami: 3 titles (#18)
Knicks: 2 titles (#1)
Houston: 2 titles (#10)
Bullets: 1 title (#9)
Hawks: 1 title (#8)
Sonics: 1 title (No Info)
Blazers: 1 title (#19)
Mavs: 1 title (#5)
Bucks: 1 title (#25)

So, in 65 title awarded years, the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Bulls and Heat have won 71% of the time. Crazy. 7 out of 10 finals have been won by 5 teams. Over 65 years. So, unless you had Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Jordan or LeBron, you had little to no shot of winning a title.

Let's look at teams that have won a title being in the bottom five markets in the NBA:

Bucks (#25)
Spurs (#26)

Wowza. And the Bucks won theirs before we were born.

So, small market teams have won exactly 8% of the time.

Now, I said that since 1991, you needed to have Jordan, Shaq, Duncan or LeBron to win a title. Let's look at who didn't have those guys, who they beat, and how often that happened:

Hakeem. #1 pick, #10 market, Jordan was retired.
Detroit. #11 market. 5 top 10 picks, including #3 Billups and #4 Wallace. They did take down LA, so they did slay the giant.
Boston. #7 market. Three Hall of Famers. One All-Star PG.
Dallas. #5 market. 7 top 10 picks. 2 Hall of Famers. 6 All-Star level players.

Which one of those teams looks like something Utah can accomplish?

So, what about those teams gives you hope that Utah can do what they have done? What type of resources, market pull, ability to bring in FA's, ability to have disgruntled players come to Utah and be happy does Utah have that those four teams have?

The ONLY team Utah can follow their model who has won a title and hope to have any type of remote success is SA.

That means, if Utah were lucky enough to draft the greatest player in the history of the NBA at his position, lucky enough to have one of the top 5 coaches in the history of the NBA, and a Hall of Famer to mentor that greatest player in the history of the NBA at his position, they would have a 6% chance of winning a title.

And Utah won't get any of those things. And Utah is in a worse market, with a HUGE stigma around it (Whitt has always said that the hardest job he has is getting a recruit to come to Utah. They have such a negative view of what it is like here. Same goes with NBA players).

So, while it is cute to say that the Mavs did it, and Detroit did it, so Utah can do it, if you look at history, history tells you that Detriot and Dallas are in another league, with a large lead in assets than Utah.

So, in reality, the only team Utah can hope to copy is OKC. Utah needs three top 3 picks, and needs to hit it out of the park on each one. The good news is, they have Favors, and they have Burke, and they have Hayward. They desperately need Jabari or Wiggins, and they desperately need them to end up the best at their position.

This is why this year was so important to tank. Because, the only slim chance they have at a title, involves getting Jabari or Wiggins and having them turn out to be amazing.

The good news is, if we lose to Orlando, we are only two games out of the third slot in the lottery.
 
For teams that have little more than the draft, I don't understand how they can 'bet too much on the draft'.
 
-Cap space only means anything if you are a team good enough and/or in a market that can attract free agents, so if you're not lucky enough to be those automatic 10 teams, you have to be good, which means you aren't rebuilding (doesn't apply to the Jazz), and also means that you probably don't have cap space.

-In order to trade for a really good player (say, a franchise player/perennial all-star), you have to have a ton of assets. And usually, those teams are only willing to trade such a player because they're scared that the player will walk for nothing. So a bad team must gut itself of assets to obtain such a player that it cannot secure? That is clear-as-glass stupid, especially when considering the first point mentioned. (BTW, Harden had to sign an extension, and thus, was acting as a free-agent.)

-Maybe you land such a player in the draft by sucking (which is inevitable to a degree if the first two points don't work for you, which they don't for the Jazz), and maybe that player/those players are good enough to make you good enough to keep them and build around them. You also have them locked down for four years, and own their rights at that point (which effectively means you have them on a leash for 7 years), whereas you're likely to acquire a player in situations 1 and 2 for 4 years on the very high-end.

Those are the options. Cut-and-dry. You'll have to pardon those that think the third option is more likely than the other two, whoever-you-are.
 
Last edited:
I think the jazz are a pretty good organization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top