I'm not a GM. I don't get paid to make those decisions, nor do I posses a special knowledge or skill set that makes me ideally suited to make them. I'm only observing that the tanking discourse here (and elsewhere in the NBA mediascape) has reached absurd levels of irrational confidence in tanking as a strategy for developing championship caliber NBA teams capable of sustained deep playoff runs.
The tanking discourse across the league is one huge exercise in uncritical, unreflective group think. When, as I heard in a recent NBA podcast, NBA "experts" declare that Sacramento needs to tear it down, this after 1 playoff appearance (first round) exit in the last 19 years, or as recently suggested here that Charlotte should be tanking, even thought it's made three playoff appearances in the last 21 years (all first round exits), this is a clear indication that the tanking discourse has reached peak absurdity.
I would be less likely to push back so relentlessly if I observed a more moderated discourse surrounding tanking that took due account of its costs, risks, and uncertain returns on investment. Instead, I tend to see here and across the media landscape an unrelenting tanking drumbeat that evinces little evidence that tanking advocates consider such things coupled with an irrational and unfounded confidence that what the Jazz are trying to do actually works, based on incredibly scant evidence. (I don't consider OKC a model, unless the Jazz can replicate trading for a future MVP.)
Also, for those tempted, please spare me the "if you don't have a solution, you don't have a right to complain" canard. This unreasonable standard would prohibit us from expressing an opinion on virtually anything outside our narrow realm of expertise. It's primary purpose is to foreclose discourse and opinions that the user doesn't like.
As to what the Jazz should do, my hope the Jazz FO has an actual plan on to pivot from trying to lose to trying to win that includes clear metrics and timelines and that the timeline is sooner rather than later. I assume this entails combining draft success (albeit highly uncertain) with strategic trades, roster development, and the retention of competent talent. If the plan is to denude the roster of competent talent while continuing to speculate in the draft lottery (which seems to be the preferred strategy here), I worry that we're still 3-5 years out from competition, at which point the likelihood of generating a positive return on the losing investment diminishes significantly.
