Locke opinion discussion

[infection]

Its especially dumb for Locke to be condescending because he doesn't understand the cap, trade rules, etc. nearly as well as some of the guys here... and so when it comes to the business cap management side he really shouldn't talk.

This is a common problem when enterprises become so large (and when there's a monopoly) that those in the organization are out of touch with the consumer base. None of this stuff flies at all in small businesses (and not even just mom and pop stuff, basically anything that isn't a gigantic corporation) where you are less insulated from poor PR management.

 

[LoPo]

I think Front Offices, including ours, get credit sometimes for making a selection, when really, much of that success is on the player. The FO didn't trade up 25 spots because they knew how amazing Rudy would be. Our FO didn't trade into the top 5 because they knew Don would be a superstar. Sure we moved for those guys, but it's not like our FO was so confident in the deal that the leveraged real value for them.

Our FO did a good job picking these guys, but the players deserve the credit. Coaching deserves credit too. I don't give our FO a passing grade for simply drafting Don and Rudy. Don and Rudy are awesome because who they are and how they work.

I get upset when a FO spoils cap space after getting fortunate to have guys like Rudy and Don. Our FO wasted over $11 million last year on Ed, Green and TB. That's tragic to a team that is one or two players away. Then consider what was given up to get Conley.

 

[infection]

This also reminds me of a situation when I was in college. I was living with roommates in the Branbury. We had just moved in within about a month or so. They had absolutely terrible management. I was going to the office with a complaint about something that needed to be resolved that I now forget (it was a legitimate complaint). One of my roommates accompanied me as he had some complaints. I had expressed whatever my complaint was and then he also went in on a number of things, including how there was still no TV in our apartment as had been promised online. His complaint wasn't as big of an issue as mine was, and is really more of the spoiled annoying kind (and it was kind of embarrassing me and undermining the seriousness of my complaint), but there was someone's parent there who was listening to this and said to the employee "I think people should just be grateful," to which the employee said "Exactly! Exactly!"

From a superficial perspective, this scenario has a clear good guy and bad guy. He looks like a whiney, overprivileged 20-something (and he was) and the older woman represents some kind of life perspective. However, as stupid as his complaint was (and I wish I remembered what mine was), it was us who were there as customers paying them money based on what they presented as being the deal we were agreeing into and it was them not fulfilling their end of the deal when we had already paid the money they wanted in exchange for those services. The fact that there needs to be some level of gratitude on the party's part who is receiving money for services they are not providing is completely lost. This is backwards. The apartments advertising something included in a package to lure you to give them their money, then don't provide this, and suggest one should just be grateful. How about being grateful for the cash you receive when you're not even fulfilling the other end of the contract?

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.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

This is a common problem when enterprises become so large (and when there's a monopoly) that those in the organization are out of touch with the consumer base. None of this stuff flies at all in small businesses (and not even just mom and pop stuff, basically anything that isn't a gigantic corporation) where you are less insulated from poor PR management.

True, but the weird thing is that the FO seems a bit more humble then the local media. Basically if our media was less stroking the ego of players and FO while denigrating fans it would be a much more enjoyable season to follow.

Sent from my SM-N986U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

This is a common problem when enterprises become so large (and when there's a monopoly) that those in the organization are out of touch with the consumer base. None of this stuff flies at all in small businesses (and not even just mom and pop stuff, basically anything that isn't a gigantic corporation) where you are less insulated from poor PR management.

Also, Locke interviews Bolerjack for his expertise... may as well get my dog's thoughts on the game. She is mostly cool with basketball cuz it means she can sit and hang out with me, but she prefers commercials with dogs in them because she gets all excited and looks at the TV and stuff.

Also, I've seen Locke shoot a basketball... it uhhh its not great.

 

[infection]

True, but the weird thing is that the FO seems a bit more humble then the local media. Basically if our media was less stroking the ego of players and FO while denigrating fans it would be a much more enjoyable season to follow.

Sent from my SM-N986U using JazzFanz mobile app

Yeah, the Millers overall have been great. My beef comes with the surrogates (official and unofficial), who keep employ because of the people they perceive as being stupid and uninformed.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

This also reminds me of a situation when I was in college. I was living with roommates in the Branbury. We had just moved in within about a month or so. They had absolutely terrible management. I was going to the office with a complaint about something that needed to be resolved that I now forget (it was a legitimate complaint). One of my roommates accompanied me as he had some complaints. I had expressed whatever my complaint was and then he also went in on a number of things, including how there was still no TV in our apartment as had been promised online. His complaint wasn't as big of an issue as mine was, and is really more of the spoiled annoying kind (and it was kind of embarrassing me and undermining the seriousness of my complaint), but there was someone's parent there who was listening to this and said to the employee "I think people should just be grateful," to which the employee said "Exactly! Exactly!"

From a superficial perspective, this scenario has a clear good guy and bad guy. He looks like a whiney, overprivileged 20-something (and he was) and the older woman represents some kind of life perspective. However, as stupid as his complaint was (and I wish I remembered what mine was), it was us who were there as customers paying them money based on what they presented as being the deal we were agreeing into and it was them not fulfilling their end of the deal when we had already paid the money they wanted in exchange for those services. The fact that there needs to be some level of gratitude on the party's part who is receiving money for services they are not providing is completely lost. This is backwards. The apartments advertising something included in a package to lure you to give them their money, then don't provide this, and suggest one should just be grateful. How about being grateful for the cash you receive when you're not even fulfilling the other end of the contract?

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.

50% of the dumb CPA presentations I have to go to for CPE credit the presenters spend copious amounts of time talking about how stupid their clients are... has always rubbed me the wrong way. I've always wondered what it would look like if one or two of their clients were in the crowd.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, the Millers overall have been great. My beef comes with the surrogates (official and unofficial), who keep employ because of the people they perceive as being stupid and uninformed.

Its super dumb but just an example... none of the media asked follow up questions on the Mike Conley benching unbenching. Tony Jones wouldn't go into any details on his pod "they just changed their mind". Like they were all afraid they'd be fired.

Why do they need that level of insulation? They are a good organization as a whole. I'd say the biggest feather in DL's cap is the classy organization and culture he has setup. He deserves props there. Like they really can't handle that level of criticism and questioning?

 

[Mission Accomplished]

This also reminds me of a situation when I was in college. I was living with roommates in the Branbury. We had just moved in within about a month or so. They had absolutely terrible management. I was going to the office with a complaint about something that needed to be resolved that I now forget (it was a legitimate complaint). One of my roommates accompanied me as he had some complaints. I had expressed whatever my complaint was and then he also went in on a number of things, including how there was still no TV in our apartment as had been promised online. His complaint wasn't as big of an issue as mine was, and is really more of the spoiled annoying kind (and it was kind of embarrassing me and undermining the seriousness of my complaint), but there was someone's parent there who was listening to this and said to the employee "I think people should just be grateful," to which the employee said "Exactly! Exactly!"

From a superficial perspective, this scenario has a clear good guy and bad guy. He looks like a whiney, overprivileged 20-something (and he was) and the older woman represents some kind of life perspective. However, as stupid as his complaint was (and I wish I remembered what mine was), it was us who were there as customers paying them money based on what they presented as being the deal we were agreeing into and it was them not fulfilling their end of the deal when we had already paid the money they wanted in exchange for those services. The fact that there needs to be some level of gratitude on the party's part who is receiving money for services they are not providing is completely lost. This is backwards. The apartments advertising something included in a package to lure you to give them their money, then don't provide this, and suggest one should just be grateful. How about being grateful for the cash you receive when you're not even fulfilling the other end of the contract?

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.

Exactly, my thought after listening to TJ saying talking about NYK front office and Locke's comments were basically TJ you aren't a Jazz fan go follow NY. I don't need uninvested a** hats telling me I'm privileged. Then for Locke it was of course you think you are smart that is all you ever talk about is how amazing you are get over yourself and tell me how the open gyms are going.

Sent from my SM-N986U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[KqWIN]

I think Front Offices, including ours, get credit sometimes for making a selection, when really, much of that success is on the player. The FO didn't trade up 25 spots because they knew how amazing Rudy would be. Our FO didn't trade into the top 5 because they knew Don would be a superstar. Sure we moved for those guys, but it's not like our FO was so confident in the deal that the leveraged real value for them.

Our FO did a good job picking these guys, but the players deserve the credit. Coaching deserves credit too. I don't give our FO a passing grade for simply drafting Don and Rudy. Don and Rudy are awesome because who they are and how they work.

I get upset when a FO spoils cap space after getting fortunate to have guys like Rudy and Don. Our FO wasted over $11 million last year on Ed, Green and TB. That's tragic to a team that is one or two players away. Then consider what was given up to get Conley.

The players deserve the credit when something goes well but when it goes poorly the FO gets the blame? How is that fair?

 

[infection]

Yeah, the Millers overall have been great. My beef comes with the surrogates (official and unofficial), who keep employ because of the people they perceive as being stupid and uninformed.

I would also like to add on to this that I've never seen any of this come from the Millers and I also don't think anything is coming indirectly from the Millers or from surrogates acting on their behalf. I think Larry was a great owner, as much as he's been criticized for being frugal. Sure, there was some luck with being able to land two all-time greats in successive drafts, but he put a great team on the floor for over 20 years. He was both frugal and smart, and I still don't buy all the claims that he wouldn't spend. I know some things have come out later in waaaay hindsight, but not sure about that. I think the problem was that people looked to Larry's history and thought just not rocking the boat and being frugal was the secret to his success, which was only part of the equation. This led to an absolutely terrible reign by Greg and KOC that I think still carried over into DL era (think the original handling of the Hayward restricted free agency). But there's arisen this media group-think that sees lay fans having stupid opinions that are all over the map, and they generally view successful management of a franchise as being a false binary between those actually in the profession (executives) and the lay public (fans), so they draw a line in the sand. It's a false dichotomy to begin with, but the media group-think has pushed them into rationalizing the executive approaches just because a lot of fans counter it with bad reasoning. The answer is usually some third alternative, but we're only looking at this in black-and-white and people don't want to be lumped in with "the stupids" so we view "experts" as the only wise place to "place our faith," because we don't want to be (or worse, appear to be) angry people yelling at the sky.

But any owner who is willing to go into the stands and fight opposing team's fans is a true badass.

 

[LoPo]

The players deserve the credit when something goes well but when it goes poorly the FO gets the blame? How is that fair?

I'm not saying that the FO gets no credit. My point was that the FO should not get a pass for a bunch of poor decisions just because a couple players really panned out well.

Saying we have a good FO because they selected Don and Rudy is silly in my opinion. They don't get a free pass for all the other unnecessary moves. I consider them average. They aren't the Knicks or Kings but they definitely aren't the Warriors or Sam Presti.

 

[homeytennis]

There is a reason Gordie Chiesa calls the end of the bench guys and GLeaguers "the interchangeables. " They aren't going to win championships for you. I think the signings of Jeff Green, Ed Davis and the selection of Bradley and then the fire sales for all three deserve scrutiny. The dumping of Rayjohn Tucker probably bears as much scrutiny as the jettisoning of Elijah Millsap , Jack Cooley. Bryce Cotton or Diante Garrett.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think Front Offices, including ours, get credit sometimes for making a selection, when really, much of that success is on the player. The FO didn't trade up 25 spots because they knew how amazing Rudy would be. Our FO didn't trade into the top 5 because they knew Don would be a superstar. Sure we moved for those guys, but it's not like our FO was so confident in the deal that the leveraged real value for them.

Our FO did a good job picking these guys, but the players deserve the credit. Coaching deserves credit too. I don't give our FO a passing grade for simply drafting Don and Rudy. Don and Rudy are awesome because who they are and how they work.

I get upset when a FO spoils cap space after getting fortunate to have guys like Rudy and Don. Our FO wasted over $11 million last year on Ed, Green and TB. That's tragic to a team that is one or two players away. Then consider what was given up to get Conley.

What is this moron speak? WHy would Utah trade up into the top 5 for Gobert/Mitchell when they knew they wouldnt go top 5? What a hilariously stupid way to discount what the FO did.

They hit grandslams with both.

 

[KqWIN]

I'm not saying that the FO gets no credit. My point was that the FO should not get a pass for a bunch of poor decisions just because a couple players really panned out well.

Saying we have a good FO because they selected Don and Rudy is silly in my opinion. They don't get a free pass for all the other unnecessary moves. I consider them average. They aren't the Knicks or Kings but they definitely aren't the Warriors or Sam Presti.

It's not about getting a pass or not. You should look at the entire body of work and the impact of all their moves. Some of these minors moves that are obvious failures, it's laughable to compare that impact to drafting Gobert and Mitchell. They don't get a pass for blowing Ed Davis and Tony Bradley, but how does that compare to trading up for two future all stars in a draft? You can't treat Gobert and Mitchell like afterthoughts and act like Ed Davis and Tony Bradley are what decided the fate of the franchise.

The two big moves that they failed on were Hayward's first extension and the Conley deal. Those were the two chances to ascend into true contender status, but they blew it. But they wouldn't be in that position if they didn't make the moves for Mitchell and Gobert.

The Jazz have been a really good, but not elite team for some years now. I don't see any reason why the evaluation of the FO should be much different.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Also, how much do fans slobber over some of these guys. I see TJ post something on Twitter then they get like 20 posts like "thank you you are so amazing." For what doing their jobs like give me a break. Give me some real insight. I do like Ben Anderson who seems to get beat up on.

Sent from my SM-N986U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Shad]

Anyone comparing their FO to the Knicks is ALREADY setting their bar as low as possible. You don't go into a college test hoping to get above the person who scored dead last on the exam. Pretty poor insight IMO

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It's not about getting a pass or not. You should look at the entire body of work and the impact of all their moves. Some of these minors moves that are obvious failures, it's laughable to compare that impact to drafting Gobert and Mitchell. They don't get a pass for blowing Ed Davis and Tony Bradley, but how does that compare to trading up for two future all stars in a draft? You can't treat Gobert and Mitchell like afterthoughts and act like Ed Davis and Tony Bradley are what decided the fate of the franchise.

The two big moves that they failed on were Hayward's first extension and the Conley deal. Those were the two chances to ascend into true contender status, but they blew it. But they wouldn't be in that position if they didn't make the moves for Mitchell and Gobert.

The Jazz have been a really good, but not elite team for some years now. I don't see any reason why the evaluation of the FO should be much different.

It’s a mixed bag and sometimes it’s the process I judge and not the results. The results have a lot of luck involved both ways. I give them credit for DM and Rudy even though there is a lot of luck involved. I ding them for overall lack of vision for not moving in the DM is a PG direction.

I think there are multiple times they misread the market. Hayward’s extension and the cap management from that era is so short sighted. Selling off draft capital either because we need the money or because DL didn’t have anyone he liked is really bad. Drafting a clearly limited big over wing/perimeter prospects was bad. We likely would have failed if we got the process right on those items but I can live with those failures.

They don’t seem to extract value out of trades and occasionally pay 125-150% on deals... or fail to address or try to address fringe roster issues that should be pretty easy to fix.

Overall it is a C+ for me... the DM and Rudy picks make it look like an A- if you look at just the results.

 

[idiot]

There is a reason Gordie Chiesa calls the end of the bench guys and GLeaguers "the interchangeables. " They aren't going to win championships for you. I think the signings of Jeff Green, Ed Davis and the selection of Bradley and then the fire sales for all three deserve scrutiny. The dumping of Rayjohn Tucker probably bears as much scrutiny as the jettisoning of Elijah Millsap , Jack Cooley. Bryce Cotton or Diante Garrett.

I confess that I don't know what you're saying here: that the end-of-the bench stuff is relatively unimportant and doesn't deserve heavy scrutiny one way or the other, or the opposite? (It seems you're making both points.)

In any event, I think you've hit upon an important point. With NBA rosters, there's always going to be churn. A GM who only made good decisions would only need to make perhaps 2-3 decisions a year. I don't believe any such GMs exist (at least not over the long haul). In the aggregate, its likely that more decisions are going to look like bad (or at least non-needle-moving) decisions.

But an above average GM probably only needs to "hit" once or twice a year to look good compared to the rest of the league. If you uncover a guy who can be a starter for 4-5 years once or twice a year, then you're doing OK, maybe even better. If some of these turn into stars or well-above average starters, then you're looking real good as far as GMs go. What goes on with the roster after the 7th or 8th spot (which is most of what we've been debating about this offseason), while not totally irrelevant, is much less central to how a FO is going to be judged.

As long as the FO hasn't completely mortgaged the future (which I don't believe it has, despite @jom2003's assertions) I think the Jazz FO has done fairly well. The team seems to be in a much better position this year than last. The dilemmas that face us (Rudy's contract, a somewhat aging roster, for example) are mostly signs that we're taking our shot. While us fans will never totally agree with every decision, in the large sense, this is where we want to be. Does this means that our FO is best in the NBA? Very likely not. But top 5-10, given what we've had to work with, is not a stretch.

 

[KqWIN]

It’s a mixed bag and sometimes it’s the process I judge and not the results. The results have a lot of luck involved both ways. I give them credit for DM and Rudy even though there is a lot of luck involved. I ding them for overall lack of vision for not moving in the DM is a PG direction.

I think there are multiple times they misread the market. Hayward’s extension and the cap management from that era is so short sighted. Selling off draft capital either because we need the money or because DL didn’t have anyone he liked is really bad. Drafting a clearly limited big over wing/perimeter prospects was bad. We likely would have failed if we got the process right on those items but I can live with those failures.

They don’t seem to extract value out of trades and occasionally pay 125-150% on deals... or fail to address or try to address fringe roster issues that should be pretty easy to fix.

Overall it is a C+ for me... the DM and Rudy picks make it look like an A- if you look at just the results.

It is a mixed bag, and I'm not saying we should just judge the results. I'm a very process oriented person as well, and I don't see holes in their process that make me feel like they are worse than the results. The Mitchell and Gobert moves were top notch. Not only did they find the prospect, they made moves to get them on draft. There is some luck involved, but that is the nature of the draft.

Similar vibe with Ingles and O'Neale. There's luck involved there, especially with Ingles, but I still give them a lot of credit for identifying them. Royce in particular was a result of their FA minicamps in the summer. That's impressive to me.

The core of this team is mostly home grown. The FO wasn't gifted a high draft pick or easy FA singings. We play in the worst market to attractive players in the league, and I think Quin+Player performance in playoffs has made the results worse than they probably should be. If they were really good around the margins and didn't make the mistakes you'd mentioned, they would be a championship level team and a bonafide elite FO.

They aren't, but that doesn't drop them to a C+ for me. That would reflect a slightly above average FO, and I don't think slightly FO acquire Gobert, Mitchell, Ingles, and O'Neale via the method they did.