I couldn't agree more with this article
- Thread starter fallenchicken
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I like how his Lesson 10 said that trading Boozer for nothing was the proper tact O'Connor should have taken, which ironically would have violated Lesson 8.
Seriously, did you write that? That's the only explanation as to why you would agree/post this horrific article.
That was one of the most painful reads I've had on the innerwebz in a long time. Topic aside, his writing style and grammar were enough to make me want to suck down a gallon of liquified cow sphincter. So bad. Regarding his topic: Cry harder. "C.J. was a blessing.", right. At this point I thought to myself, "This has to be some sort of satire.", but it wasn't. I wanted to stop reading, but I couldn't. It was like driving by a car accident -- you know what I'm talking about -- I just couldn't stop. I really think that that whole article, and the author, were genuine, which boggles the mind. Yucca Man, dude, don't quit your day job. (but you should seriously consider quitting your writing gig)
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
Pretty terrible article. There was no reason for the Jazz to trade Boozer because no one was offering anything except overpaid has-beens on long contracts like Rip Hamilton. Might as well give the core group one more shot and see what they can do when all healthy. Of course, they weren't able to stay healthy but it was worth a shot.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Cj Miles is a gift, he came straight from high school, give him a break, Trout!
I didn't write the article; I would never suggest keeping AK or Bell.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
I agree with some of what he said. Like that it was brutally apparent that Boozer had to go a year before he left. But this article is 90% hindsight. It's easy to say these things after the fact. At the time of most of these decisions he is criticizing it was no where near as apparent and it will not be in the future. His reason for trading Al holds some merit. However Al contract has only a couple of years left and will be better able to evaluate it next summer instead of this one. Will not have any young players on the team to match for the next few years anyway and with AK's contract gone the money lightens up a lot. next year Memo is up and that helps as well.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Aren't you the same guy who wrote, "I couldn't agree more" when you posted the article?
Thee Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
Couldn't have said it better my self. One of my favorite parts was him saying Ak should've been a better option than Booz. Don't get me wrong I'm not a Boozer fan but my god there is no way he his a better option than Boozer.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Yes.
prodigy
Well-Known Member
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
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
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
So you couldn't agree more with the article yet you disagree with what it says?
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 $$$ for Favors, Hayward, and #3 whoever that turns out to be.
That said, I do not really believe it is necessarily wise to implement the changes he proposes next year. The dynamic duo is extremely young and next year will be another huge learning year. I do not think they necessarily should hand the team to them next year. Thus, you can keep others around, especially those with expiring contracts. It means a ho-hum year probably, but one for growth with the Boyz and with Ty. The only exception might be Sap: his trade value is probably max right now and if going to the bench is a problem, trade him ASAP.
The key thing for the Jazz is to realize that Favors and Hayward are the future and everyone else is secondary. They are the hope to be a truly great team with a legit chance to win it all. Once you accept that, if you do, then the rest all works out.
Everyone else can be traded for better pieces. That is not to say that they HAVE to be traded tomorrow, but they can or you can plan on letting them go when the contract runs out. Save $$$ 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.
^^^^ this.
Ok, we'll trade them -- great -- then what? We can a) trade them to a contender looking for more help (who would that be and what are they going to give us besides bad salary and late first rounders?) b) trade them to a team that can absorb salary (again, if a team is in our position, why pick up big salary on "third-option" guys?) or c) let them expire.
While the article raises some interesting points, this guy is advocating AK and Bell as good vetran leaders, CJ as a good defender, AK better offensively than Boozer, and the getting rid of Harris, Jefferson and Millsap (for what?) Who are in the prime of their careers for thechance to take the gamble on betting the farm on two rookies.
Ok, we'll trade them -- great -- then what? We can a) trade them to a contender looking for more help (who would that be and what are they going to give us besides bad salary and late first rounders?) b) trade them to a team that can absorb salary (again, if a team is in our position, why pick up big salary on "third-option" guys?) or c) let them expire.
While the article raises some interesting points, this guy is advocating AK and Bell as good vetran leaders, CJ as a good defender, AK better offensively than Boozer, and the getting rid of Harris, Jefferson and Millsap (for what?) Who are in the prime of their careers for thechance to take the gamble on betting the farm on two rookies.
Yup, and I fully agree with him. Yes, it is a gamble but a reasonable one at this point. The two boyz look like legit candidates to be really really good, good enough to be the nucleus of a contender. Did AJ-Sap-Harris ever look like they could do that? No, too many obvious and fatal flaws that would never let that trio lead us deep into the playoffs. Take a deep breath, make a commitment to those two and look to add the pieces needed to complement them, whoever that may be. It could be guys on the team, or it could be others.
That still doesn't answer what we will do with those guys. Millsap could be traded hypothetically, but though Harris and Jefferson COULD be traded I don't think anyone would like what we would get. Fact is we don't have a PG and Harris isn't exactly hampering anyone's development. We also don't have a center, and though it's not his true position it's better to put a good PF at C rather than some random dude that's subpar simply because he's a "true center".
You trade value for value. You should be able to get something of equal value as to what you are trading. So you trade Sap, who I agree is a very good and very valuable player, for a different very good and very valuable player but one who fits your needs. You seem to imply that if we make a trade we will not get something equal in return but that should not happen.