Locke opinion discussion

[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.

 

[LoPo]

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.

Moron speak? Didn't Denver come to us wanting Lyles and offered the #13 pick? If that's the case, Denver did us a favor. It wasn't like our FO was so wise that they were going to do anything possible to hit a "grand slam" by getting Don.

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.

I give our FO respect for these choices. I don't give them passes on all the other bone head moves they have made in between.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Lost in all of this **** is that the Knicks made the Jazz look like totally lazy amateurs this offseason.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

instead of acknowledging the killer trades made for Gobert and Mitchell.

I think everyone acknowledges how good those moves were. The problem is that outside of those moves it's been a pretty weak *** decade, including multiple blown picks where this board would've made much more successful picks, which is always a tough pill to swallow. Give them Mitchell and Gobert, credit is due for finding Royce and Ingles (tons of credit to our development staff as well) and after that it gets tough to find really good moves by the FO. The PG situation of the past 5 years or so has been a complete trainwreck, we have invested an insane amount of resources and yet have never been above 'aight' at the PG position since Dwill left. Not good.

On the topic of Jones and Locke. They definitely have a holier than thou approach to everything. And absolutely will wave away valid criticism with stupid comparisons and whataboutism. Locke especially will applaud every move they ever make. And I never really see TJ have a negative thing to say either. I don't know why we can't acknowledge that this small market, Utah based team, is pretty good and decently well run. While also handing out valid criticism when things could be done better. And they absolutely could have done several things better the past few years. To the point where our window may have opened and closed in that timeframe without us even realizing it while our FO focused on all the wrong things.

 

[Gobzilla]

I don't like either of them, lol

 

[infection]

Lost in all of this **** is that the Knicks made the Jazz look like totally lazy amateurs this offseason.

Not once but twice. But that’s the kind of thing that happens when you bring people on from the franchise that know how to exploit the only 2-3 pages of the playbook.

 

[KqWIN]

I think everyone acknowledges how good those moves were. The problem is that outside of those moves it's been a pretty weak *** decade, including multiple blown picks where this board would've made much more successful picks, which is always a tough pill to swallow. Give them Mitchell and Gobert, credit is due for finding Royce and Ingles (tons of credit to our development staff as well) and after that it gets tough to find really good moves by the FO. The PG situation of the past 5 years or so has been a complete trainwreck, we have invested an insane amount of resources and yet have never been above 'aight' at the PG position since Dwill left. Not good.

On the topic of Jones and Locke. They definitely have a holier than thou approach to everything. And absolutely will wave away valid criticism with stupid comparisons and whataboutism. Locke especially will applaud every move they ever make. And I never really see TJ have a negative thing to say either. I don't know why we can't acknowledge that this small market, Utah based team, is pretty good and decently well run. While also handing out valid criticism when things could be done better. And they absolutely could have done several things better the past few years. To the point where our window may have opened and closed in that timeframe without us even realizing it while our FO focused on all the wrong things.

People treat the success from Mitchell, Gobert, Ingles, and O'Neale is as an afterthought because we already have it. We've gotten used to it. Moves like signing Ed Davis and Tony Bradley seem to outweigh those moves in people's minds. Everything counts, the good and the bad. Sum it all up, and the Jazz are good team and have been for years.

Masai is the best GM in the league IMO. He also spent picks to get rid of players on roster. He's signed players that didn't work out. He tried to trade Kyle Lowry but it was nixed by James Dolan. But you know what, he won the damn championship. Why should these minor things be focus instead of the overall success of the team under his tenure?

The Jazz have obviously not reached that level. But it's pretty ridiculous to overlook the team's success and how it was achieved because not everything was perfect. I will not argue that the Jazz have made awful moves. I have been vocal about the moves I think were most damaging. But you still get credit for getting two all stars the way they did. Two all stars is good enough to carry you to a lot of success no matter how bad the rest of your moves are.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

People treat the success from Mitchell, Gobert, Ingles, and O'Neale is as an afterthought because we already have it. We've gotten used to it. Moves like signing Ed Davis and Tony Bradley seem to outweigh those moves in people's minds. Everything counts, the good and the bad. Sum it all up, and the Jazz are good team and have been for years.

Masai is the best GM in the league IMO. He also spent picks to get rid of players on roster. He's signed players that didn't work out. He tried to trade Kyle Lowry but it was nixed by James Dolan. But you know what, he won the damn championship. Why should these minor things be focus instead of the overall success of the team under his tenure?

The Jazz have obviously not reached that level. But it's pretty ridiculous to overlook the team's success and how it was achieved because not everything was perfect. I will not argue that the Jazz have made awful moves. I have been vocal about the moves I think were most damaging. But you still get credit for getting two all stars the way they did. Two all stars is good enough to carry you to a lot of success no matter how bad the rest of your moves are.

I don't think we really disagree. Maybe some on this board have viewpoints that this would be an argument against, but not me. Especially this:

Sum it all up, and the Jazz are good team and have been for years.

Totally agree. And they've also dropped the ball a few times that could perhaps have elevated us to a great team. And talking about those moves (or lack thereof) is worth discussion and shouldn't be waved away, especially by the people who are paid to report and give information about the team. Constantly telling us everything is awesome and worked out as well as anyone could hope doesn't really seem like great journalism to me. Doesn't surprise me at all to see pushback from the fanbase who is extremely passionate and loyal, and often very well informed. And just because a checkmark on Twitter says that something is so doesn't make it true.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

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.