I couldn't agree more with this article

[infection]

What I'm saying is that the deals that would give us equal value won't fit our needs. If we're looking at something like Harris + something for Oden and Miller, yeah that may make some sense, assuming we've done something with Jefferson, but when we get value in return it won't be the kind of value we're looking for. What I'm saying is we won't get a more balanced team, financially or talent wise, but we'll be able to make a few lateral moves on both accounts.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I think it most of our decisions need to hinge on the draft. If we can get a PG then I say we should try to move Harris. I read some where that Dallas is interested in getting him back. We would also have to keep Watson and Price to mentor the Rook. I like Harris but I think he has more value if we could get something for him.

I believe that it is way too soon for everyone to put Favors and Hayward on a pedestal. Milsap and Jefferson are two good even great YOUNG players. We should not move these two. Remember when KOC felt like we had too much depth at the SG position. Well, after trading Brewer, letting Wes and Korver go look at that position now. You can't trade away players because you feel that you have a strength at that postion.

Remember Gordon's career best was against the Denver scrubs. He will be good but lets not get carried away. We should also remember what Sap has given us. He puts his everything out there he was clearly the MVP of our team for this last season. Why would you want to move that? For Favors? He is young and will get better but Milsap is a way better play right now.

I say keep our core as Milsap, Favors, Big Al, Hayward, and Evans then we can build around them. They are all young and talented.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think it most of our decisions need to hinge on the draft. If we can get a PG then I say we should try to move Harris. I read some where that Dallas is interested in getting him back. We would also have to keep Watson and Price to mentor the Rook. I like Harris but I think he has more value if we could get something for him.

I believe that it is way too soon for everyone to put Favors and Hayward on a pedestal. Milsap and Jefferson are two good even great YOUNG players. We should not move these two. Remember when KOC felt like we had too much depth at the SG position. Well, after trading Brewer, letting Wes and Korver go look at that position now. You can't trade away players because you feel that you have a strength at that postion.

Remember Gordon's career best was against the Denver scrubs. He will be good but lets not get carried away. We should also remember what Sap has given us. He puts his everything out there he was clearly the MVP of our team for this last season. Why would you want to move that? For Favors? He is young and will get better but Milsap is a way better play right now.

I say keep our core as Milsap, Favors, Big Al, Hayward, and Evans then we can build around them. They are all young and talented.

Evans is not apart of the core. He is currently a player who can jump really high, thats it.

 

[VINYLONE]

From the article:

Hindsight is, of course, perfect.

In a related way Foresight is imperfect.

Brilliance.

 

[Archie Moses]

Complete and utter garbage.

 

[Archie Moses]

this article is pretty Yucca, man. I couldn't get past the AK homerism.

If Ak was truly that good(according to him he was a LOT better than boozer) we would have teams calling us, begging us to trade him so he could be in more than just a secondary role. Alas that didn't happen and he spent the entire contract in Utah. I like what AK brought to the team but come on, let's be realistic.

edit - did he really call CJ a blessing? truly Yucca, man

apparently he's a utes fan too, ugh, i'm ashamed

Someone who watches basketball and understands it.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I think there are a few insights there, but to sum up, the Jazz were screwed because they invested in two soft bigs who couldn't stop anybody and maxed out an incomplete player. This negated the positive aspects of the team they were building. Then the Jazz bailed out on good players who weren't perfect, but still contributed to wins because the FO was penny pinching.

 

[LogGrad98]

I personally liked the article. He fully admits at the end that it was written in perfect hindsight, and he acknowledges that really the only mistake was keeping riding Boozer when it was obvious Sap could replace him (I agree with that). But he is right about the morals to his lessons and for the most part reasons it well in his argument for future changes.

I also disagree with his assessment of CJ, but that is not enough to discount the entire article. I guarantee you there are still CJ homers here just waiting for another great game to come out and say "see, he really is awesome". That is a difference of opinion really.

But the part that really stuck with me, and describes the mess that Sloan and KOC made, is this:

The moral: once you decide on a direction for the team, do it. Don't stall. Don't wish-wash. Don't cling to the past and postpone the inevitable future. Just follow through with the decision.

I think KOC spent too much time "waiting and seeing" and not making moves. He truly did what was outlined in the article, by waffling he drove out a possible HOF player. Boozer should have been moved last year, for whatever, freeing up space for Matthews, et al. moving Sap into the starting spot. KOC's plan of always waiting let this all fall apart.

Sloan's part was trying to force pieces into the only mold he knows how to coach: all-star PG and all-star PF and everyone else. I think they hampered AK by not tailoring a team to fit their new max contract player, and instead, when he couldn't fill the role that Jerry envisioned, they went to find a player that could, hamstringing someone who could have been a real force. He was better than Boozer in nearly every category other than rebounding, and his breakout year he was at least equal as a scorer, but he was raw and got there differently. So Boozer, the more polished offensive player, and the big burly PF Sloan was looking for, stepped into that primary role. AK was forced to be Hornacek or Russell and nothing more. That was a mistake, but it fit what Jerry wanted.

The part about AK is actually right, mostly. Of course we are jaded by 4 years of totally mediocre and frustrating play. But the year he broke out we should have built around him, or at least kept him in a primary role. Instead we took a top 5 player (for that year) and told him to play 3rd fiddle. Then we wondered why he had attitude issues. Now I still think AK is mentally weak (part of his attitude issues) and ended up being not worth the contract, but to not keep him in a primary role after a breakout season and a max contract was a mistake. If you are going to pay a max contract build around the max player. To move him out of his natural position, ask him to be the 3rd or 4th option, and then get pissed when he didn't perform the same is ludicrous. Who knows how it might have turned out differently if AK had been the #1 or #2 option at that point in his career. I think it would have been equal odds better or worse, but at least we would have used the money we spent instead of wasting it.

If nothing else it is an interesting take on what happened to us over the past 3 years. And in the end the result is the same, the team fell apart.

I sure hope KOC has learned something too and makes better decisions about his new team. I can tell you that if we start next season with Bell starting at the 2, a newly signed AK (or even CJ) starting at the 3 - instead of Hayward starting at one of these spots , and AJ and Sap splitting the minutes with Favors a distant 3rd, we will know that KOC learned nothing.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Sloan's part was trying to force pieces into the only mold he knows how to coach: all-star PG and all-star PF and everyone else. I think they hampered AK by not tailoring a team to fit their new max contract player, and instead, when he couldn't fill the role that Jerry envisioned, they went to find a player that could, hamstringing someone who could have been a real force. He was better than Boozer in nearly every category other than rebounding, and his breakout year he was at least equal as a scorer, but he was raw and got there differently. So Boozer, the more polished offensive player, and the big burly PF Sloan was looking for, stepped into that primary role. AK was forced to be Hornacek or Russell and nothing more. That was a mistake, but it fit what Jerry wanted.

Sloan adjusted his offense to his best players, not his highest paid players.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sloan adjusted his offense to his best players, not his highest paid players.

First, Sloan did not adjust his offense.

And to your point, yes he didn't tailor his offense to his max player, so why pay the guy the max? Both were mistakes. If the franchise is going to hitch their wagon to AK, then the coach should figure out how to make him the primary option. Instead he went out and found the proto-typical power forward Sloan had to have to fit his mold of a basketball team: all-star PG, all-star PF, everyone else. That was the mistake, IMO. If you are going to spend the money, then make the max player key to your team, if the player is not worth being key to your team, then don't pay him the max. If you pay him the max, and try to make him the key to your team and it doesn't work for whatever reason, then trade him and try again. Don't just hold on for the sake of holding on, again wasting money that could be spent on players that fit better.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

First, Sloan did not adjust his offense.

Sloan adjusted his offense a lot.

You're telling me the Jazz had the same offense the 42-40 year with Kirilenko and Harpring?

 

[infection]

The part about KOC waffling is dead on as he literally did nothing for 3-4 save for the Korver trade which was only made out of necessity (imagine if we had him longer and didn't wait for Sloan getting into it with Giricek to start looking at possibilities). But as far as building around AK... when we "built around" other guys we went to the WCF, for hell's sake. I think the problem we have is that the couple years it was just AK he shined and we viewed him as something he isn't/wasn't designed for -- an offensive centerpiece -- and we confused that with him being the real deal.

In addition, we keep talking of "building" around AK or giving him a bigger role, when the entire essence of his game is and was 95% compatable with our 2007 team and onward. He was not an offensive centerpiece when playing with Stockton and Malone, yet he fit in and was able to get putbacks and slash when necessary. It's too bad he got accostomed to being the focal point of an offense because he's not a scorer, nor is he a distributor, though he can score in good and creative waysand get good assists if he takes what the game and defense gives him. I cringe every time I hear "AK's working on his shot this summer" or "Hornacek will help AK" because it demonstrates a serious flaw in Andrei -- and Jazz management's -- understanding of his game and realizing he is not a shooter and since he was not even utilizing his strengths that turning his focus to jumpshots was a collossal mistake.

If Andrei bought into the changing team dynamic and continued to do what he does best, then I think we stand a good chance against SA and then face the lowly Cavs. There's also no way we lose to the Lakers three years straight. I'm not putting all theblame on him because we all know we had other serious issues, but I think the Kirilenko issue was the biggest and had he bought into the team concept we would have really kicked some *** rather than waste energy evaluating every decision on "what will make AK happy so he'll play motivated." I don't want that attitude moving forward. It was time to part ways after he told the Russian media that we can't/wouldn't beat San Antonio. I don't know, in the world of sports that's an unforgivable offense, in my opinion, and you can't be rehabilitated from having that mentality.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

I think CJ is very good both defensively and offensively

This disqualified everything else he said.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sloan adjusted his offense a lot.

You're telling me the Jazz had the same offense the 42-40 year with Kirilenko and Harpring?

In essence actually they did. But really he adjusted his offense only when forced to. As soon as he could, regardless of the max player they just signed, he went right back to his old formula. PG and PF and everyone else on the fringe. I think that is Sloan's doing and I think it was detrimental to the team long-term as they didn't get anything really out of their max contract. He should have tailored his offense and defense to make AK's all-around skills a center-point and filled it in with players to close the gaps. A Millsap-type player would have flourished with AK in an offense built like that. But Sloan didn't do that. He and KOC wasted that max money.

Like I said they should have done one or the other. Either build the team around your max player (AK) or don't pay him the max if you are not going to build the team around him. But they did neither. That was the whole point of not being able to make the decision and move forward. You just signed a guy to a max contract, but you go get another guy who is already being talked about as a max player in the making who in essence plays the same position. Why? Make the decision and stick to it.

 

[LogGrad98]

The part about KOC waffling is dead on as he literally did nothing for 3-4 save for the Korver trade which was only made out of necessity (imagine if we had him longer and didn't wait for Sloan getting into it with Giricek to start looking at possibilities). But as far as building around AK... when we "built around" other guys we went to the WCF, for hell's sake. I think the problem we have is that the couple years it was just AK he shined and we viewed him as something he isn't/wasn't designed for -- an offensive centerpiece -- and we confused that with him being the real deal.

In addition, we keep talking of "building" around AK or giving him a bigger role, when the entire essence of his game is and was 95% compatable with our 2007 team and onward. He was not an offensive centerpiece when playing with Stockton and Malone, yet he fit in and was able to get putbacks and slash when necessary. It's too bad he got accostomed to being the focal point of an offense because he's not a scorer, nor is he a distributor, though he can score in good and creative waysand get good assists if he takes what the game and defense gives him. I cringe every time I hear "AK's working on his shot this summer" or "Hornacek will help AK" because it demonstrates a serious flaw in Andrei -- and Jazz management's -- understanding of his game and realizing he is not a shooter and since he was not even utilizing his strengths that turning his focus to jumpshots was a collossal mistake.

If Andrei bought into the changing team dynamic and continued to do what he does best, then I think we stand a good chance against SA and then face the lowly Cavs. There's also no way we lose to the Lakers three years straight. I'm not putting all theblame on him because we all know we had other serious issues, but I think the Kirilenko issue was the biggest and had he bought into the team concept we would have really kicked some *** rather than waste energy evaluating every decision on "what will make AK happy so he'll play motivated." I don't want that attitude moving forward. It was time to part ways after he told the Russian media that we can't/wouldn't beat San Antonio. I don't know, in the world of sports that's an unforgivable offense, in my opinion, and you can't be rehabilitated from having that mentality.

To me this is the key point. AK has always been better when he can work around the basket. His best game is 20 feet and in. But by taking him out of the PF role he was forced to go to something that was not his game. SF will always need to shoot more outside shots than PF, it is the nature of the position. So we took a guy whose skills were best suited to being around the basket (note I did not say a low post threat, but rather being around the basket, we could have added a decent low-post player to complement him without going after another max-level player), and then we forced him into a jumpshooter role (in the Sloan system the SF is really meant to be little else other than defense as they support the PF/PG dynamic).

But as I said I agree with the assessment that AK was mentally weak. But again if you are forced into a position that is not your natural game and then you are slammed for not being everything in that new position, you would get frustrated too.

Again the power of hindsight shows his contract was a mistake. There was more to him that made his game suspect that we just hadn't seen yet.

 

[infection]

In essence actually they did. But really he adjusted his offense only when forced to. As soon as he could, regardless of the max player they just signed, he went right back to his old formula. PG and PF and everyone else on the fringe. I think that is Sloan's doing and I think it was detrimental to the team long-term as they didn't get anything really out of their max contract. He should have tailored his offense and defense to make AK's all-around skills a center-point and filled it in with players to close the gaps. A Millsap-type player would have flourished with AK in an offense built like that. But Sloan didn't do that. He and KOC wasted that max money.

Like I said they should have done one or the other. Either build the team around your max player (AK) or don't pay him the max if you are not going to build the team around him. But they did neither. That was the whole point of not being able to make the decision and move forward. You just signed a guy to a max contract, but you go get another guy who is already being talked about as a max player in the making who in essence plays the same position. Why? Make the decision and stick to it.

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.

This is the answer. Building an offense that focuses on Andrei Kirilenko when Carlos Boozer and Deron Williams are on the roster is ludicrous.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.

Whoooooosh!!

That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.

The point was, if you pay a guy max money, make him your key player. If you are not going to make him your key player, don't pay him max money. We paid a guy max money and then did not make him the key player which is what made that contract so horrible.

This was the grand mistake of KOC and Sloan. Either they were not on the same page (KOC: pay AK the max so he stays; JS: i am not going to make him our key player anyway) or they were stupid. That contract hamstrung us from ever getting any better.

Of course Boozer was better offensively (far far far far worse defensively), and of course AK didn't pan out. But the mistake was paying max money to a guy you were not going to build around. And the lesson is, if you do pay a guy max money, build around him, don't go looking for more max money players that play in essence the same position. At least our money situation would have been far better for making adjustments if/when the "AK as the centerpiece" experiment failed.

That was really the key point in that article to me and what sums up KOC's failures. Make a decision and run with it.

Want to pay AK max money? Great then don't even bring in Boozer, bring in players to complement AK not compete with him.

Don't want AK to be the centerpiece of your team? Then for hells sake don't pay him max money.

But KOC couldn't make that decision and stick to it and it cost us a competitive team. Or he did make the decision and Sloan vetoed it since it didn't involve a big burly PF and all-star PG with only role players around them like he was used to.

Either way I sure hope he doesn't kill the young team that is trying to rise out of those ashes.

 

[Scorpjazz]

Brilliant article and spot on. Thanks for posting it.

The key thing for the Jazz is to realize that Favors and Hayward are the future and everyone else is secondary. They are the hope to be a truly great team with a legit chance to win it all. Once you accept that, if you do, then the rest all works out.

Everyone else can be traded for better pieces. That is not to say that they HAVE to be traded tomorrow, but they can or you can plan on letting them go when the contract runs out. Save $$$ for Favors, Hayward, and #3 whoever that turns out to be.

That said, I do not really believe it is necessarily wise to implement the changes he proposes next year. The dynamic duo is extremely young and next year will be another huge learning year. I do not think they necessarily should hand the team to them next year. Thus, you can keep others around, especially those with expiring contracts. It means a ho-hum year probably, but one for growth with the Boyz and with Ty. The only exception might be Sap: his trade value is probably max right now and if going to the bench is a problem, trade him ASAP.

Agreed, great article. I dont agree with every single point of it, but it is very good.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Whoooooosh!!

That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.

The point was, if you pay a guy max money, make him your key player. If you are not going to make him your key player, don't pay him max money. We paid a guy max money and then did not make him the key player which is what made that contract so horrible.

This was the grand mistake of KOC and Sloan. Either they were not on the same page (KOC: pay AK the max so he stays; JS: i am not going to make him our key player anyway) or they were stupid. That contract hamstrung us from ever getting any better.

Of course Boozer was better offensively (far far far far worse defensively), and of course AK didn't pan out. But the mistake was paying max money to a guy you were not going to build around. And the lesson is, if you do pay a guy max money, build around him, don't go looking for more max money players that play in essence the same position. At least our money situation would have been far better for making adjustments if/when the "AK as the centerpiece" experiment failed.

That was really the key point in that article to me and what sums up KOC's failures. Make a decision and run with it.

Want to pay AK max money? Great then don't even bring in Boozer, bring in players to complement AK not compete with him.

Don't want AK to be the centerpiece of your team? Then for hells sake don't pay him max money.

But KOC couldn't make that decision and stick to it and it cost us a competitive team. Or he did make the decision and Sloan vetoed it since it didn't involve a big burly PF and all-star PG with only role players around them like he was used to.

Either way I sure hope he doesn't kill the young team that is trying to rise out of those ashes.

Seems like we need a history lesson, here. But first, let me get rid of another issue in this post. I can't think of ANY player that complimented Kirilenko's game at the time of Boozer's signing MORE than Carlos Boozer. Don't you sign players to "compliment" and cover your max player's weaknesses? And what were Kirilenko's? Hmm? Rebounding and interior post play come to mind. What was Boozer known for at the time of his signing? I'll let you answer that.

But anyway, Kirilenko signed the max extension after Boozer was signed, and after Okur was signed. Oh yeah, Okur covered another one of Kirilenko's problems, shooting the ball. So the core at the time was those three players. Arroyo had his career year the year before, and the Jazz' two guard position was manned by a scrappy Raja Bell and just traded for in midseason prior Gordan Giricek, who was good in finishing the previous year.

26-56.

Now, that was the bad injury year, but when the star player played, the guy the Jazz gave the max to, they were 15-26. Kirilenko still filled the stat sheets. I clicked on one random game, and here's his line, with both Boozer and Okur playing. 18-9, with 7 blocks.

Jazz lost that game. Andrei broke his wrist to end his season, but the Jazz' season was ALREADY lost before that. Andrei's stats for the year: 15.6 PPG 6.2 RPG 3.3 BPG (led the league), 3.2 APG 1.6 SPG. Pretty much the same year statistically per game as the year before. What does that mean? THAT KIRILENKO WAS STILL A MAJOR FOCUS FOR THE JAZZ WITH BOOZER AND OKUR. And in the end, it had the Jazz go 26-56.

Injuries happened, and the year was lost, but that ended up with the Jazz getting Williams. That year was when Andrei's extension kicked in. Now, you could blame all the injuries and other factors (Boozer missed 30 odd games, Arroyo blew up, etc.) for the losses, but the next year was big. Jazz filled a humongous hole by drafting a point guard they hoped would be a stud, and despite Bell's flying off to Phoenix, still had a decent Giricek and signed a guy who would be happy to tell about how they won championships in San Antonio.

Williams was still a rookie, so his impact wasn't as great as we think of it now, so the team still belonged to Kirilenko, who played 69 games, a decent amount. What was the Jazz record with Kirilenko, now seasons played after signing his max deal? 41-41. Now, you might say, "but Boozer went Boozer and missed 50 games." While true, the Jazz' record was 17-16 in games Boozer played, so he didn't change much.

Kirilenko's line that season? 15.3, 8.0, 3.2, 4.3, 1.5. Look familiar?

So in the two years that Andrei was the undisputed leader of the team, the guy who posted the SAME numbers he did before Boozer and Okur arrived for two years AFTER they arrived, proved that being the main guy meant the Jazz played .500 ball. .500 ball for two years under Kirilenko.

Jazz made no change to the core. Only brought in Fisher as a contributing vet, and Brewer as Millsap as rookies who had a small impact.

Jazz proceeded to start 12-1. Kirilenko missed five of those games, all wins, and didn't contribute much in the others, his best game being a 17-14 game. In those 8 games at the beginning of the season, Kirilenko averaged 7.9 PPG 5.8 RPG, 3 APG, .7 SPG, and 3 BPG.

The Jazz were winning a lot more with Kirilenko playing a lesser role than when he was the focal point of the team. The Jazz went to the conference finals with him having his worst statistical year of his prime. Sloan, and the Jazz as a whole, saw this pretty simple correlation and went with it. Less Kirilenko=more wins. More Kirilenko=.500 record. Hmm.

So it wasn't Boozer that broke the Jazz' vision with Kirilenko as the team leader. It wasn't Okur. It was a superior player the Jazz drafted TWO years after signing Kirilenko to his max deal. This superior player took over the team THREE years after Kirilenko signed his extension, and proved that he could lead the Jazz to more wins, be more durable, have more playoff success, etc. The Jazz DID sign AK to be the centerpiece. They DID sign players to complement his game. The Jazz just ended up with a better player, and thus a better team, several years after the fact.