Search results

A decision by the FO that it doesn't care about keeping its first round draft pick. I've a hard time imagining the FO is willing to risk that.

I'd not say zero risk. If this tank stretches on indefinitely, there will be increasing pressure to find a scapegoat, although that's likely to be Hardy, at least at first.

Add nepotism to the list of things that are only prohibited and sanctioned for us lowly plebs, along with the likes of conflict of interest, bribery, grifting, general corruption, lying, infidelity, etc.

LOL, ok, you've convinced me. I retract my statement. There are some hills worth dying on. This isn't one of them.

Post-Indiana, PG Thus, "in hindsight."

Agreed, Sun Always Shines is a great song. Hunting High and Low is one of my all-time favorite albums.

I don't think that there's enough discussion about whether the Clipper's trade for Paul George was one of the worst trades in recent NBA history. In hindsight, it was arguably worse that the Luca Doncic trade.

LOL, it's got to mean something, right? Years ago, my cellphone ringtone was the opening stanza of Take on Me by Ah-Ha (I'm an 80s New Wave fan, sue me, and Ah-Ha is a criminally underrated band--aside from this one iconic hit and video). On driving with my daughter to go skiing at Alta, just...

Could be worse, my son is Manchester City fan. As a true, red Liverpool fan, it's almost enough to disown him.

I understand that the premise of the discussion is when you're tanking." That was clear from the beginning. I don't disagree that playing young guys is both a good way to ensure the tank is effective and a good way to utilize the PT made available by tanking. In fact, I agree strongly with it...

I don't have a magic number of vets. To me, it's more the type of vet than the number. Probably a mixture of good locker room vets who don't necessarily play much but who are good, steadying and mentoring influences together with some who can help manage the play on the floor and help keep games...

Well, hyperbole is what we all do here. For me, the question is how to optimally balance player development with being able to pivot back to competitiveness in a reasonable period of time. I'm not convinced fielding a team largely of prospects is the best way to do this, although arguably...

The logical implication of this is that you'd be ok with all 13 roster spots being prospects. Do you really believe that? I can easily imagine several reasons why a team may to limit its number of prospects. Here are just a few: 1. Tanking teams want their prospects to actually improve. Having...

True, but with only 2.2% of people saying so. This hardly seems like a ringing endorsement, although I don't find this poll very useful or enlightening. For this to be a useful gauge on how the Jazz are perceived by its peers, it would be useful to see the breakdown of the poll results with more...

Ok, fair enough. But, assuming we do get rid of the vets for next season, what's the plan for pivoting back to competitive status with a roster stocked largely with youngsters? My #1 fear is that what was hoped to be a moderately-long rebuild turns into an interminable one. Even San Antonio...

I am not convinced that the best way to develop young players is to send them out to be slaughtered game after game without a core of solid vets to provide mentoring and stability. Plus, assuming you do hit on a core of youngsters capable of forming a competitive nucleus, without a strong...

I said earlier that I'd refrain from offering my opinions on college players since I don't watch the college game. However, I'm going to break this pledge by saying that IF the Jazz draft Kon at 5, I'll rent my clothes and cover my head with ashes. I watched him during the tournament, and...

No, Jazz need THE guy, not guys. We tanked in the hope of getting a transformative player. If there's a player the Jazz think is this player, or close to it, and may be there at 5 but perhaps less likely to be there at 6, why take the risk for yet another prospect to add the to six prospects we...

Interviewers have an unearned and irrational confidence in their ability to discern character, performance, etc. from personal interviews. Anyone who thinks s/he can accurately and consistently "read" people in interviews is self-deluded. Here's one source on the topic...