What's new
By:

I couldn't agree more with this article

Actually a very good article. No one agrees 100% on an article covering so many points., so here are the points I do not agree with. Don't agree with keeping Bell under any circumstances, unless you want him to teach the young ones to bitch if they don't like what the coach does. Don't agree with keeping CJ unless as a trading chip, and I sure do not want to start him. We should be able to get a better small forward in the draft. He has had his chances and then some. I am torn on trading Millsap. If anyone could get over not being a starter for the betterment of the team it would be my man Millsap. Keep him and if he proves your theory, then trade him. I don't think his value would decline that quickly, and anyone that good that wants to stay in Utah should be given the chance. Again good read and thanks.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing how the team performed with or without AK. It is obvious he wasn't the right player to build around. I don't think we would have been better off with him as the focal point all along. I never argued we would have been.

But Boozer's game did not complement AK's game, as realistically they both played the same position. AK adapted as Boozer moved into his position, and carried over the momentum of the previous season. It didn't last long as he struggled going forward to play the more restricted role of SF in the Jazz offense. Okur more than anyone complemented AK. But both Okur and Boozer took over the paint where AK performed best and he was relegated to a perimeter role. Then when Deron came along, it was another player ahead of AK, and by then his mental weakness was really showing as he repeatedly checked out of games, and finally had the meltdown.

KOC's mistake was paying AK for a role he was not going to play. Giving him such a huge contract with Boozer and Okur stepping into similar roles was a mistake that cost us. In the season before Boozer arrived AK was the focal point with much of the game going through his hands. With Boozer and Okur on board, AK got his stats through grit and hustle, but he was not the first option any longer as he was before. I don't think anyone thought when they gave him the huge contract that it was a great deal for us. Why? Because we could see that, no matter what his stat line, he was not the centerpiece of the team even then, even before Williams came on the scene.
 
LogGrad98 said:
No one is disputing how the team performed with or without AK. It is obvious he wasn't the right player to build around. I don't think we would have been better off with him as the focal point all along. I never argued we would have been.

But Boozer's game did not complement AK's game, as realistically they both played the same position. AK adapted as Boozer moved into his position, and carried over the momentum of the previous season. It didn't last long as he struggled going forward to play the more restricted role of SF in the Jazz offense. Okur more than anyone complemented AK. But both Okur and Boozer took over the paint where AK performed best and he was relegated to a perimeter role. Then when Deron came along, it was another player ahead of AK, and by then his mental weakness was really showing as he repeatedly checked out of games, and finally had the meltdown.

KOC's mistake was paying AK for a role he was not going to play. Giving him such a huge contract with Boozer and Okur stepping into similar roles was a mistake that cost us. In the season before Boozer arrived AK was the focal point with much of the game going through his hands. With Boozer and Okur on board, AK got his stats through grit and hustle, but he was not the first option any longer as he was before. I don't think anyone thought when they gave him the huge contract that it was a great deal for us. Why? Because we could see that, no matter what his stat line, he was not the centerpiece of the team even then, even before Williams came on the scene.
Click to expand...

Kirilenko averaged the same numbers with Boozer the first two years he played with him that he did the two years prior. Kirilenko played his first three years primarily as a small forward and was thrust into the PF position as a necessity. The Jazz never envisioned him as a 4 man, always a 3. Even the years he played 4, he'd guard Kobe Bryant, as well as most team's best wing players. He's ALWAYS been a 3 for the Jazz, even when they gave him the contract, so Boozer didn't hurt that at all. Kirilenko scored from slashing off screens and middle court iso's, along with the occasional post up. Boozer didn't interfere with that at all, and the numbers back that up. He still got his iso's at the top of the key, even with Boozer and Okur.

It's amazing that we're blaming a front office for giving a guy a max contract for leading a team whose second best player played 31 games, and third best player was Carlos Arroyo to a 42-40 record, and blame them even more for signing players to make up for that player's deficiencies.

Kirilenko got his with Boozer there. His usage rate was the same, meaning he was involved in the offense the same amount he was before. It wasn't through "grit and hustle" that Kirilenko got the exact same stats. In fact, Kirilenko's stats were a touch better the first year with Boozer and Okur. Only until Williams' second year did his usage rate drop, and it was dramatic.

EDIT: Quick look at another metric. Kirilenko took more threes WITHOUT Boozer than with Boozer.
 
LogGrad98 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the following is the point that's going over your head: building around someone is not synonymous with making them the focal point of the offense. Andrei was never an offensive anchor to begin with. He became one by default. His game is slashing and put-backs -- that's it. If he sticks with that, he's successful. He can throw in an occasional post-up or jumpshot to keep the defense honest, but slashing and put-backs is his game and I don't thinnk anyone in Jazz management (as much as I do think they've mismanaged things) ever saw him as someone to build an offense around. He got his max contract because of "all the things he does that don't show up in the boxscore" in addition to being able to "fill up the boxscore" in different areas other than just scoring. In this sense his game was perfectly complementary to our teams with Boozer, Okur and Williams, in addition to most any team. Again, he got his money and notereity by everything else he did on the floor. Out of default, he also shouldered the scoring burden. Unfortunately for us, Andrei forgot this and instead of reaccepting his appropriate offensive role, he shut down and stopped doing the specific things he was good at and the exact thing he was paid to do.

This is why it's comedic to me that we keep talking about getting Andrei at the "right price" to come off the bench and "accept a smaller role". Let him go to Golden State where he can be happy.
 
I think some of you are still missing a very valid point and nice insight the article makes re max contracts and AK. He is saying that the guy you give the max contract MUST be the one you build around. If not, then he is overpaid and you cannot afford the other parts you need, like losing Wesley last summer. The true mistake was that when they realized that AK was NOT going to fit the MAX role, it was time to admit the mistake and trade him. And it was larry's fault is my understanding: he was good with maxing out AK and then he turned down a trade for him.

The Jazz are just a little too complacent and loyal at times for their own good. There are time to be ruthless in this business. Look at the Celtics and Perkins. No way the Jazz would trade a guy like that. And the point is not whether the trade worked out well for the Celts, the point is that they thought it would be good and they had the wisdom and cajones to pull it off. And as I type this, I realize that KOC did that with the DWill trade: wise and gutsy. Overall, I think KOC has been great and some of his "failings" could be attributed to ownership or coaching.
 
Ak would get striped of the ball a lot in the paint, and don't deny it, because we all watched it happen for years. Imagine if he had been the focal point of the offense.

Let's look at the different skills on offense.

1. Shooting.
When ever I see Ak shoot an outside shot I cringe winner Boozer

2. Finishing.
See my coments above winner boozer

3. The post. Boozer has great footwork great finisher. Ak's moves and footwork look so awkward that it keeps him from making the play, and often turned the ball over. Winner Boozer.

Passing.
It has often been said that Ak was the second best passer on the team. I'll go with that winner Ak.

I'm sure we could examine more categories, but I think the ones above are the most important, and most essential to having success on offense.

Overall winner by a large margin Boozer. That's why Boozer was the focal point, and Why Ak wasn't.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Ak would get striped of the ball a lot in the paint, and don't deny it, because we all watched it happen for years. Imagine if he had been the focal point of the offense.

Let's look at the different skills on offense.

1. Shooting.
When ever I see Ak shoot an outside shot I cringe winner Boozer

2. Finishing.
See my coments above winner boozer

3. The post. Boozer has great footwork great finisher. Ak's moves and footwork look so awkward that it keeps him from making the play, and often turned the ball over. Winner Boozer.

Passing.
It has often been said that Ak was the second best passer on the team. I'll go with that winner Ak.

I'm sure we could examine more categories, but I think the ones above are the most important, and most essential to having success on offense.

Overall winner by a large margin Boozer. That's why Boozer was the focal point, and Why Ak wasn't.
Click to expand...

A large margin??

I feel embarrassed to possess the same amount of rep as you.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Ak would get striped of the ball a lot in the paint, and don't deny it, because we all watched it happen for years. Imagine if he had been the focal point of the offense.

Let's look at the different skills on offense.

1. Shooting.
When ever I see Ak shoot an outside shot I cringe winner Boozer

2. Finishing.
See my coments above winner boozer

3. The post. Boozer has great footwork great finisher. Ak's moves and footwork look so awkward that it keeps him from making the play, and often turned the ball over. Winner Boozer.

Passing.
It has often been said that Ak was the second best passer on the team. I'll go with that winner Ak.

I'm sure we could examine more categories, but I think the ones above are the most important, and most essential to having success on offense.

Overall winner by a large margin Boozer. That's why Boozer was the focal point, and Why Ak wasn't.
Click to expand...

Care to break down the defensive side? For a minute there I thought you were Sloadfield.
 
zman1527 said:
I think some of you are still missing a very valid point and nice insight the article makes re max contracts and AK. He is saying that the guy you give the max contract MUST be the one you build around. If not, then he is overpaid and you cannot afford the other parts you need, like losing Wesley last summer. The true mistake was that when they realized that AK was NOT going to fit the MAX role, it was time to admit the mistake and trade him. And it was larry's fault is my understanding: he was good with maxing out AK and then he turned down a trade for him.

The Jazz are just a little too complacent and loyal at times for their own good. There are time to be ruthless in this business. Look at the Celtics and Perkins. No way the Jazz would trade a guy like that. And the point is not whether the trade worked out well for the Celts, the point is that they thought it would be good and they had the wisdom and cajones to pull it off. And as I type this, I realize that KOC did that with the DWill trade: wise and gutsy. Overall, I think KOC has been great and some of his "failings" could be attributed to ownership or coaching.
Click to expand...

Finally someone else gets it. Everyone wants to turn it into a debate over whether AK was better than Boozer. That is not the point at all. The point is, if you give someone max money, you make them your key player, if they don't pan out, you trade them to get the money off the books. But failing to do either is destructive, as we see on our team.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Finally someone else gets it. Everyone wants to turn it into a debate over whether AK was better than Boozer. That is not the point at all. The point is, if you give someone max money, you make them your key player, if they don't pan out, you trade them to get the money off the books. But failing to do either is destructive, as we see on our team.
Click to expand...

AK WAS the key player, and you can't just trade 17 mil a year to get his money off the books. You would have traded Kirilenko and Millsap for Banks and Marion? Atlanta won't be able to trade Johnson to get him off the books. Memphis won't be able to trade Gay to get him off the books. Orlando was able to trade a Kirilenko type contract, and took on a worse contract to do so.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
AK WAS the key player, and you can't just trade 17 mil a year to get his money off the books. You would have traded Kirilenko and Millsap for Banks and Marion? Atlanta won't be able to trade Johnson to get him off the books. Memphis won't be able to trade Gay to get him off the books. Orlando was able to trade a Kirilenko type contract, and took on a worse contract to do so.
Click to expand...

Dare I say "gasp" someone else who gets it!
 
Not trading Kirilenko was a huge mistake, though. He should have been shipped off after our '07 playoff run and yes, for Marion. Couldn't imagine 1) how much better we would have been with Marion and 2) how much more flexibility we would have had being out of Andrei's deal much earlier. We should have also moved him for McGrady and/or any of the other rumored deals.

Other notes: arguing about how much better AK's D was better than Boozer's is like talking about how Brewer was a much better three point shooter than Koufos. When Andrei gave up his defensive prowess was as useless as Boozer's. Since occasionally AK would recover from getting burned and block from behind, his D be praised, but others like Korver who generally just stayed with, and in front of, their man got blasted for having poor D, for what reason I have no idea.
 
infection said:
Not trading Kirilenko was a huge mistake, though. He should have been shipped off after our '07 playoff run and yes, for Marion. Couldn't imagine 1) how much better we would have been with Marion and 2) how much more flexibility we would have had being out of Andrei's deal much earlier. We should have also moved him for McGrady and/or any of the other rumored deals.

Other notes: arguing about how much better AK's D was better than Boozer's is like talking about how Brewer was a much better three point shooter than Koufos. When Andrei gave up his defensive prowess was as useless as Boozer's. Since occasionally AK would recover from getting burned and block from behind, his D be praised, but others like Korver who generally just stayed with, and in front of, their man got blasted for having poor D, for what reason I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Rumors were that the Suns wanted something to come with Kirilenko, namely Millsap. Would you still have done that deal?
 
I know they wanted Millsap when they offered Stoudemire for AK, but from what I remember it was just AK in the Marion deal. In any case, it was straight up for McGrady and I have no idea why we didn't do that. McGrady's awful and does not have wining mentality, but neither does AK and McGrady expired last year.
 
It seems to me the Jazz were in a hurry to rebuild after Stockalone. They maxed AK in a heartbeat, then rushed to bring in the only two FAs they could get, two PFs who, as it turned out, weren't that good together.

In other words, the rebuilding plan wasn't much of a plan. Players were slapped together reactively whether they fit the system or not. Brewer was never going to be the ideal SG. Neither was Almond. Koufos wasn't the full-time powerful pivot we wanted. Neither was Fess. The Jazz FO was a bit passive and waited years to see if things would magically "work out." And they didn't. Maybe there weren't good opportunities to build the team better. Drafting late in the 1st round may have been hopeless. So they got stuck as a top 6 - 8 team in the league unable to get past the 2nd round.

The good news now is that the Jazz have a player in Favors that they should be able to build around. He should become the most reliable big man of the last two drafts. The Jazz also have a good number of decent role players who have potential to get better. Now they need an elite guard.
 
infection said:
I know they wanted Millsap when they offered Stoudemire for AK, but from what I remember it was just AK in the Marion deal. In any case, it was straight up for McGrady and I have no idea why we didn't do that. McGrady's awful and does not have wining mentality, but neither does AK and McGrady expired last year.
Click to expand...

Jazz were looking to win last year, and Kirilenko gave the Jazz a better opportunity to do that than McGrady.

And Phoenix's only positive to get out of a Kirilenko/Marion trade was a few million dollars saved the year of the trade. It was a financial burden otherwise, so it's VERY obvious that the Suns would want further compenstaion. It mentions that in this article. https://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/0911mariononline0911.html

Phoenix wanted to unload Banks, and a Kirilenko/Millsap for Marion/Banks is what Phoenix would have wanted, but that was an obvious no from O'Connor, so the deal died. Pretty simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top