Locke opinion discussion

[Handlogten's Heros]

While I agree with the second paragraph, taking him at 25 doesn't change that.

What's the cost differential on 33 vs. 38, and was that worth the risk of the deal not materializing during the draft?

I’m largely okay with the deal as is but part of that is knowing we’d have picked the same guys regardless of the pick number... we like to lock things in early.

 

[jom2003]

As for Rudy - yes, our FO spent 7 figures on the #27 pick hoping Rudy would some day be a contributor. Our FO didn't think he was a future DPOY. They were just hoping he played a role one day. Rudy was the one who made himself more than anyone, even our FO, expected. Just like our FO didn't just draft Udoka to be a future DPOY. They just drafted him hoping he would someday be a good role player.

This.

If we really wanted Rudy that badly we could have drafted him with 21st pick which is where he was projected. Instead we prioritized getting Trey Burke(MEH) by giving away the picks to trade up. We were lucky to have been able to trade back in the first round. We were even luckier that Rudy was still there at 27. If you search the 2013 draft news you will see that Rudy was widely regarded as a lottery talent and mid-first round at worst so it was a surprise to everyone that Rudy slipped that far...... It's definitely more about luck than anything for us to steal him at 27 cuz he could’ve easily been taken anywhere between 9 and 26 and there's nothing we could do about it.

So it's not exactly like the Azubuike situation where the guy was projected as a second round talent by consensus and the FO made a bold move by taking him at 27. That way you know the FO is 100% invested in this guy and they will deserve all the credit if he pans out.

If we really had high hopes in Rudy, he wouldn't have made just 45 appearances in a woeful 25-win seasons behind a front court of Favs, Kanter and Marvin, who we knew wasn't even coming back.

So it wasn't the Jazz that made Rudy who he is today, it's the contrary: credit should 100% be given to Rudy himself who relentless worked hard to eventually insert himself to the Jazz squad despite being overlooked. His breakout moment was during FIBA 2014 against Spain when he went head to head with Gasol. Even fools would have known by then that they were looking at something special.

Imagine Raptors trying to take credit for drafting Mcgrady, or Warriors drafting Arenas, or Grizz drafting Lowry, or even Detroit for drafting Okur. The fact that these FOs found these guys doesn't automatically make them great in picking talents, but what these teams have done to identify these guys potential, unleash their potential, and help them become the best players they could be.

Even the Suns found Booker after blowing like 100 draft picks. All it takes is some luck. And this FO WAS lucky to have gotten DM and Rudy. Now imagine if Hood didn't have that stomach problem in G1 of 2017, how long do you think it will take for them to make DM the star on the team? And as a matter of fact, I still don't think they understand how to bring the most out of DM. Or else we should be looking at him playing PG.

 

[mongoose01]

I think what I’m reading on here and what I see is that the Jazz don’t really have anyone in the media that will hold the front office accountable. So when fans do it we are overly critical and spoiled. For some reason no one in the media has the guts to say anything. They’re all praise for everything the Jazz do, when clearly the FO does stupid things, and sometimes they straight up **** the bed.
We don’t lack media people patting the front office on the back every time they do something. We lack people holding them accountable and even just offering alternate perspectives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jom2003]

That's all I was addressing. Please describe how having #25 and #33 improves our outcome, and if it doesn't, why you think it would have been better.

lol. How is getting the #25 and #33 pick itself not a better outcome than #27 and #38? We are not comparing the guys taken with those draft picks. We are only comparing the values of these picks themselves.

 

[homeytennis]

Here is what the Knicks are doing with their Exhibit 10 contracts this year:

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  Skal Labissiere
  The Knicks continue to fill out their roster, this time with their G League team, as SNY's Ian Begley has confirmed that the team will sign G/F James Young and F/C Skal Labissiere to G League contracts.
  Like Myles Powell and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist's deals with the Knicks, Labissiere's is an Exhibit 10 contract. The Knicks will need to waive someone in order for Labissiere to join on that deal.
  Young was the 17th overall pick in the 2014 NBA Draft by the Boston Celtics, who he played with for three seasons. The Kentucky product also played six games with the Philadelphia 76ers in 2018, and has most recently been playing in Israel for Maccabi Haifa, where he was the top scorer in the Israeli Premier League.

 

[NUMBERICA]

That's all I was addressing. Please describe how having #25 and #33 improves our outcome, and if it doesn't, why you think it would have been better.

They're better picks than #27 and #38 and we shouldn't have drafted Azubuike (AND spent the ENTIRE MLE on Favors). There are more/better options the higher the draft pick is (Theo Maledon and Tyler Bey were worth a look who weren't available at #38 or #39).

 

[One Brow]

lol. How is getting the #25 and #33 pick itself not a better outcome than #27 and #38? We are not comparing the guys taken with those draft picks. We are only comparing the values of these picks themselves.

When you have to pay the guy more at a #25 pick than a #27pick, and you get that guy either way, #27 is actually a better pick.

 

[One Brow]

They're better picks than #27 and #38

I thank you for agreeing (in a highly unusual way) that we get the same results.

 

[jom2003]

When you have to pay the guy more at a #25 pick than a #27pick, and you get that guy either way, #27 is actually a better pick.

Then if we fell like it, we can trade #25 and #33 again. And I'm sure they will yield more returns than trading 27 and 38. Like when we traded 38 and Tony Bradley, for example. Higher draft picks not only hold more values in cash, but in trade market as well. We should have no problem clearing even more cap spaces by trading 33 instead of 38, if that is the objective. And like I said, chances are pretty good that Azubuike will still be there at 33, if FO felt he'd be gone by 38. And signing Azu at 33>>>27. Then they can have even more options going forward as what they wanna do with 25(trade down or whatnot)

 

[One Brow]

We should have no problem clearing even more cap spaces by trading 33 instead of 38, if that is the objective.

How much more is 33 worth (does it make up for the difference in 25 vs. 27), and is that worth taking a chance by waiting a day?

 

[NUMBERICA]

I thank you for agreeing (in a highly unusual way) that we get the same results.

Why not just trade out of the first round entirely if you’re so dead-set on drafting an ogre with no skill and no hype?

And again, the only reason for penny-pinching is because they were foolish.

 

[One Brow]

Why not just trade out of the first round entirely if you’re so dead-set on drafting an ogre with no skill and no hype?

Agreeing once was more than sufficient, you don't need to keep saying so.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Agreeing once was more than sufficient, you don't need to keep saying so.

Huh? They didn’t do that.

 

[Joncolton]

David Locke and Tony Jones are class acts. They maybe aren't the very best in the league - but they have to be in the top ten percent, at the very least anyone would admit they are in the top half. It could be a lot worse.

 

[jom2003]

How much more is 33 worth (does it make up for the difference in 25 vs. 27), and is that worth taking a chance by waiting a day?

Like I said, we can trade 25 again if we really wanted to. Nobody is forcing you to hold onto the picks that you acquired. 33 was traded again from Knicks to Clippers, for example. Just ask yourself if Knicks can pull off those moves, why can't we. After all, it is New York ****ing Knicks. I don't know what else I can tell you

 

[Mission Accomplished]

David Locke and Tony Jones are class acts. They maybe aren't the very best in the league - but they have to be in the top ten percent, at the very least anyone would admit they are in the top half. It could be a lot worse.

Like what insight do you truly get from listening to them? I get TJ is here to chill with our players and tell us how spoiled we are...Locke is just telling us how amazing the front office is and how we are lucky to be fans of the team. Locke does put in a ton of extra work. But, it is all with rose colored glasses that hardly asks any tough questions to give us real insight.

Sent from my SM-N986U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[candrew]

So yes, we're annoying. Yes, we're privileged. But never forget which direction the money is flowing in this relationship. Don't assume one is simply entitled to it. Sports are irrational. It's completely irrational that so many thousands of people can make a living off of this sport. It's crazy that people put this much money into it. But it's that same irrationality that keeps this enterprise going, and it's that same irrationality that is literally the hand that feeds.

While I resemble these remarks from time to time I think it's important to remember that about 2% of Utah Jazz fans in aggregate (casual, faithful, hardcore) could give a **** about the salary cap situation and second round draft picks 7 years out and all the other minutiae people agonize about around here.

I would say well over 90% of Jazz fans view the organization as successful solely for the following:
- They've home grown two all-stars that are like-able
- They've managed to keep the team in Utah.

If I took the shirt off my back and put a blank check in the pocket and gave it to 100 people, 2 people would find something to bitch and moan about. After listening to Locke's podcast yesterday I think it's safe to say you're viewed as that 2%. And like it or not, 2% will never make or break a franchise.

 

[LogGrad98]

I just think there overall team building philosophy has been bad at times. DM should have been slotted as a pg but we still aren't there yet... rumblings that it is coming but it didn't take much vision to see that maybe your best creator who is 6'1" shouldn't be the second smallest guy on the court.

Botching years of capspace baking mediocre cakes, drafting bigs with no differentiating skills or talent, sticking with the Ricky, Favs, Rudy configuration way too long... taking forever to bring in a viable stretch four. Those are some of the theory or process holes that just were weird.

They weren't gifted high picks but they had a few decent ones... they just didn't turn out. I am fine with them drafting Burke, Exum, Lyles because I could at least see what the thinking was. I didn't ding them for those failures... because there is some bad luck there.

C+/B- keeps you in school... keeps DL employed... its fine... I appreciate the good they do but to act like they are more than that is getting a little carried away imo.

Imo all 3 of those high picks were substantial failures, considering each time there were better players on the board still. Many of us thought those were all big stretches and made little to no sense. So their lottery picking has been nothing short of abysmal.

 

[infection]

If I took the shirt off my back and put a blank check in the pocket and gave it to 100 people, 2 people would find something to bitch and moan about. After listening to Locke's podcast yesterday I think it's safe to say you're viewed as that 2%. And like it or not, 2% will never make or break a franchise.

I think when you take the hundreds of dollars I may spend in a given year taking my family to games, the money spent on a league pass subscription, the merchandise purchased for my son, the advertisements I watch, The Athletic subscription, the traffic I give to websites, or the viewership I contribute to any radio program or podcast, and then compare that against my occasional complaint that we've sometimes made the wrong moves, I'd say one side of that equation is a lot more significant and consequential than the other. So, if my financial contributions are, in the aggregate, irrelevant, I'd be curious where the valuation of my occasional opinions register on that scale, and why it elicits frustration amongst paid insiders or pundits. The return I (or we) get on our investments is entertainment value (or frustration). The return they get on their investments is monetary. It could be my density, but I'm not following the shirt-off-the-back-with-a-blank-check analogy. Hopefully you could clarify that and help me see my own role in it, because from where I'm standing, I'm not sure I'm seeing an enterprise of altruism that exists purely for my benefit to which my perceived ingratitude desecrates. It seems like the proverbial "shirt-off-the-back" headed in a different direction.

 

[Rubashov]

Listening to today's locked on, Locke goes off for the first ten minutes, probably the best thing ive heard out of his mouth.