Jackpotting Around Podcast: Episode 12 - Decoding Danny And If We Did It… Here’s How It Happened

[HermanG]

I think the tanking teams are just out of sight, out of mind. The NBA is very much a championship or bust league, but in any give year there's like 5-10 teams who need to win or they will be shamed for it. The odd thing about the NBA is that even though it's all about the one winner, it's really about the losers. Like I actually think with the way the league is covered ESPN is more likely to talk about the losers more than the winners. PHX losing is a bigger story than MIN winning for sure. I'm expecting another rant incoming from Michael Malone when all the talk is about the Lakers losing. The NBA media coverage is all about clowning on the losers. The bottom feeders attract some amount of that attention, but it's not comparable. And why would they? If a team isn't competitive, they are not relevant to that season. But as a result of that I don't think people look at tanking failures the same way as when you trade for one the biggest names in the league and get swept. There just isn't a spotlight on the bottom feeders. Behind the scenes, I don't think the actual decisions makers are phased. Teams that tank aren't going to be phased by tanking teams that still suck. Teams that go all in aren't going to be phased by another KD failure ect.

I think it's easy to forget this, but the other route to getting stars is also kind of insane...especially to an outsider. Like the idea of sucking on purpose for years just for a chance at one....and being persistent to suck long enough until you get "star" is crazy commitment on it's own. The idea of trading your future for one of these guys, even knowing that it will probably make you suck at some point, shouldn't seem crazy when the other popular strategy would be to suck on purpose for a chance at one. It's kind of a bird in hand vs two in the bush kind of thing. I don't want to get into the discussion as to which is better.....I'm just saying that even with all the failures of the bird in hand strategy, it will never go out of style. Let's say teams are more earie and there's like a 5-10% confidence reduction in that all-in, build super team strategy...I still think teams will be on their hands and knees begging for these guys and will jump at the opportunity to get them.

For example, I expect KD to demand a trade sooner or later, and even at 35+ any team that is able to will likely have some interest in doing it.

I think the slight fault in your logic is that if Lakers had won they would have still been the bigger talking point.

I agree on a principal level that losers draw more attention (except for NBA finals where it obviously goes the other way). But they need to have some drama factors associated to them. Like for instance if Orlando loses their series against Cleveland I think they will mostly get patted on the back and moved on from, but if Cleveland loses its gonna get so much louder due to the Mitchell drama factor.

 

[LogGrad98]

Shut up Gen Z

The term you are looking for is zoomer.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok technically the term "millennial" was coined in the mid-80's to describe the first generation that would be entering adulthood around the turn of the millennium. So those who hit around 15-25 around the year 2000. It was originally mentioned in conjunction with those born in 1982 picturing them as those who would enter "adulthood", i.e. turn 18, in the year 2000. It has since been broadened some to include those who would be "of age", i.e. old enough to grasp generation-defining social concepts and events (maybe as young as 12-15) at the turn of the millennium. Those much younger than say 10 in the year 2000 have much more in common with gen Z, generally speaking, than they do millennials or Gen X.
And the majority of millennials have a stronger connection to gen X than any other generation.

Also this is all arbitrary ******** usually used to dismiss arguments ad hominem-style, particularly on the Internet. So the message for all, boomer to zoomer, is grow the **** up.

 

[LogGrad98]

I’m proud of you for hanging on so long man. The nursing home takes good care of you.

When they can track him down walking down North Temple, looking for the Salt Palace to go see Pistol Pete play.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Ok technically the term "millennial" was coined in the mid-80's to describe the first generation that would be entering adulthood around the turn of the millennium. So those who hit around 15-25 around the year 2000. It was originally mentioned in conjunction with those born in 1982 picturing them as those who would enter "adulthood", i.e. turn 18, in the year 2000. It has since been broadened some to include those who would be "of age", i.e. old enough to grasp generation-defining social concepts and events (maybe as young as 12-15) at the turn of the millennium. Those much younger than say 10 in the year 2000 have much more in common with gen Z, generally speaking, than they do millennials or Gen X.
And the majority of millennials have a stronger connection to gen X than any other generation.

Also this is all arbitrary ******** usually used to dismiss arguments ad hominem-style, particularly on the Internet. So the message for all, boomer to zoomer, is grow the **** up.

I’m the class of 2000 so clearly millennial AF. I’m also old so eff off my lawn. As long as I’m healthy enough to get it up without pills I’m invincible imo.

 

[KqWIN]

I think the slight fault in your logic is that if Lakers had won they would have still been the bigger talking point.

I agree on a principal level that losers draw more attention (except for NBA finals where it obviously goes the other way). But they need to have some drama factors associated to them. Like for instance if Orlando loses their series against Cleveland I think they will mostly get patted on the back and moved on from, but if Cleveland loses its gonna get so much louder due to the Mitchell drama factor.

That’s fair….There are way more losers than winners though….and tbh, we sometimes forget the winners and only remember the losers. Even when a very popular team wins a championship, let’s say the Warriors or the Lakers, I still think there’s more talk about the losers because there is more of them. People love to clown on them.

I think that on a forum like this it’s different because we are Jazz focused and less casual. But if you look through something like Reddit, it’s just flooded with people clowning on players/teams. I’m not even necessarily mad at it, even here I know people love to revel in another team/player’s demise. I think when a championship is so hard to get and such a far out goal, you have to take the wins as you can and the most common win is seeing someone you don’t like lose.

 

[underdog]

A good episode again guys, although I was a bit surprised how much time you spent selling Lauri to other teams as I can’t see us trading him, at this point anyway, because we have so much assets ready to be used. We could be contenders in the next 3 years if we don’t trade Lauri. Maybe earlier. Things can change pretty quickly in the NBA when you're a team with a lot of assets.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

A good episode again guys, although I was a bit surprised how much time you spent selling Lauri to other teams as I can’t see us trading him, at this point anyway, because we have so much assets ready to be used. We could be contenders in the next 3 years if we don’t trade Lauri. Maybe earlier. Things can change pretty quickly in the NBA when you're a team with a lot of assets.

We like the trade machine. I think the preferred path includes Lauri... but I wouldn't say trading Lauri this year or next is off the table. Maybe its more of a 5-20% scenario but I think the upside of this team in the next 4-5 years really rests on hitting a home run in the draft this year or the next two... so I think we need to be looking at ways to make sure we get a top 4 pick next year. A healthy Lauri makes that hard.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

When they can track him down walking down North Temple, looking for the Salt Palace to go see Pistol Pete play.

Where the hell is it

 

[underdog]

We like the trade machine. I think the preferred path includes Lauri... but I wouldn't say trading Lauri this year or next is off the table. Maybe its more of a 5-20% scenario but I think the upside of this team in the next 4-5 years really rests on hitting a home run in the draft this year or the next two... so I think we need to be looking at ways to make sure we get a top 4 pick next year. A healthy Lauri makes that hard.

With every path filled with uncertainty, I personally prefer to see where the “add to Lauri” path can take us before we consider blowing the whole thing up. I mean we can blow it up later too. I’m hoping that at least one of the guys we drafted last year (and will draft this year) will become a solid starter.