Locke opinion discussion

[One Brow]

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

Why would you want the Jazz to spend an extra $200K on Azubuike? Why do you think trading the 33rd pick is better than trading the 38th pick? Why are these good moves?

 

[KqWIN]

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.

I don't really disagree on anything you said here. There's a lot of bad mentioned here, and many more unmentioned. But how to square that up with the good moves they've made? Well, end result is that they still put together a very good team because their positive moves were good enough to get them here.

Overall, they've had good run. I'm more skeptical of that going forward. If I was to grade how they've done, I'd say a B+ or even A- is fair. Putting together a 50ish win team off the backs of draft steals (after trade ups) and UDFA is really difficult to do. I just don't think we give them enough credit for nailing the moves they did. In some ways it's a testament to how good the Gobert+Mitchell moves were that you can still make plenty of awful decisions and still come away with a good team year after year.

If I was to speak on my confidence going forward, I'd probably agree that C+/B- is more fair. This last and most difficult step of becoming a true contender is proving to become difficult and they've squandered two really good opportunities to do so. The initial Hayward deal is easily the worst and most unforgivable mistake IMO. It may also be the reason why we can't renegotiate a deal at anything less than a premium.

Those moves are the ones that really matter. Penny pinching Hayward so he's able to become a FA a year early was devastating. Trading the farm for Mike Conley was devastating. Ed Davis, Tony Bradley, Rayjon Tucker....yeah those moves are really bad...but in reality they really should be afterthoughts compared to these other pivotal moments. I understand if they lower your confidence going forward (sure does for me).

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

And again... not a huge deal... but it kinda reminds me of when I have a project around the house I could do myself but choose to pay extra just to have it done. A little extra calling around and you can save yourself a couple extra seconds. Kind of a hassle I know.

Then you recall all those times DL talks about moving up in the second round or buying a pick just wasn't possible because the cost was too high... but other teams were able to do it... so were the sellers just biased against our money?

He ends up doing business with the same teams over and over... that's fine but why? Because its easy and they already have a relationship.

He re-signs Favs (a good move imo) because its easy and he knows the fit. The issue is he doesn't negotiate hard enough with him or JC, so now we are scrounging the roster for loose change. It hopefully won't matter if we stay healthy, but if we have depth issues I really don't want to hear Locke and TJ giving the front office a break.

Its just a little sloppy... we just leave a scrap or two on the table... but it all adds up.

 

[KqWIN]

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:

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.

It's definitely annoying when everything is seen as a positive. But I guess it doesn't make me as mad because it's so par for the course. Locke is literally a team employee. TJ is not, but look at every beat writer for their local teams. Almost everyone is a homer and the ones that aren't usually live off of disgruntled fans, who can be just as irrational. I've been following basketball online for about 15 years....too long for me to get upset about homers in the media. I wouldn't even say they're doing a poor job or bad journalism necessarily, I think it's just the nature of the job and how they get "insider" info. Been that way and always will be that way.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I don't really disagree on anything you said here. There's a lot of bad mentioned here, and many more unmentioned. But how to square that up with the good moves they've made? Well, end result is that they still put together a very good team because their positive moves were good enough to get them here.

Overall, they've had good run. I'm more skeptical of that going forward. If I was to grade how they've done, I'd say a B+ or even A- is fair. Putting together a 50ish win team off the backs of draft steals (after trade ups) and UDFA is really difficult to do. I just don't think we give them enough credit for nailing the moves they did. In some ways it's a testament to how good the Gobert+Mitchell moves were that you can still make plenty of awful decisions and still come away with a good team year after year.

If I was to speak on my confidence going forward, I'd probably agree that C+/B- is more fair. This last and most difficult step of becoming a true contender is proving to become difficult and they've squandered two really good opportunities to do so. The initial Hayward deal is easily the worst and most unforgivable mistake IMO. It may also be the reason why we can't renegotiate a deal at anything less than a premium.

Those moves are the ones that really matter. Penny pinching Hayward so he's able to become a FA a year early was devastating. Trading the farm for Mike Conley was devastating. Ed Davis, Tony Bradley, Rayjon Tucker....yeah those moves are really bad...but in reality they really should be afterthoughts compared to these other pivotal moments. I understand if they lower your confidence going forward (sure does for me).

Yeah... I guess I'm just a tougher grader. If some of those meaningless mistakes go the right way there is potential for a pretty big boost.

I guess the way I see it is you have two all star guys that you got in lucky spots in the draft. They still get credit for those picks but you got lucky... so now use the cap flexibility and draft capital to really fill in the holes... but we kept kicking the can down the road on the Ricky/Favs/Rudy thing... we wasted picks and then overpay for Mike because they still didn't see DM as a pg. Its just weird that they did the hard part... now just rearrange some of the deck chairs and draft well and you are good. Or use that draft capital on better parts not redundant parts.

I also see where this is headed. We are out of runway on cheap DM years. We have tied up the cap for future years and don't have all our picks going forward. We don't have space to keep Mike beyond this year but will make starting and closing with him a priority. Basically the next 1-3 years is the best it will be before the slow descent into Sacramento territory. I just don't trust the front office to make enough moves to keep us relevant all through the DM extension.

 

[KqWIN]

Yeah... I guess I'm just a tougher grader. If some of those meaningless mistakes go the right way there is potential for a pretty big boost.

I guess the way I see it is you have two all star guys that you got in lucky spots in the draft. They still get credit for those picks but you got lucky... so now use the cap flexibility and draft capital to really fill in the holes... but we kept kicking the can down the road on the Ricky/Favs/Rudy thing... we wasted picks and then overpay for Mike because they still didn't see DM as a pg. Its just weird that they did the hard part... now just rearrange some of the deck chairs and draft well and you are good. Or use that draft capital on better parts not redundant parts.

I also see where this is headed. We are out of runway on cheap DM years. We have tied up the cap for future years and don't have all our picks going forward. We don't have space to keep Mike beyond this year but will make starting and closing with him a priority. Basically the next 1-3 years is the best it will be before the slow descent into Sacramento territory. I just don't trust the front office to make enough moves to keep us relevant all through the DM extension.

Eh...there's always luck involved. If you land two of those guys by trading up in the draft, I find that very impressive. Very rarely does it happen once. They did it twice. There is a ton of luck involved in the process, but they still get the credit from me. Ingles and O'Neale shouldn't be underestimated either. Making these moves doesn't make the bad moves any less bad, but the bad moves don't make the good moves less good either.

It's really too bad the Jazz bet on Conley. The cap situation they were in was golden. Two all stars locked in at the cost of one....no bad contracts. We won't get an opportunity like that for a while, decades not years. If this Gobert deal doesn't get done, this might be the last time we make the playoffs with DM.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Eh...there's always luck involved. If you land two of those guys by trading up in the draft, I find that very impressive. Very rarely does it happen once. They did it twice. There is a ton of luck involved in the process, but they still get the credit from me. Ingles and O'Neale shouldn't be underestimated either. Making these moves doesn't make the bad moves any less bad, but the bad moves don't make the good moves less good either.

It's really too bad the Jazz bet on Conley. The cap situation they were in was golden. Two all stars locked in at the cost of one....no bad contracts. We won't get an opportunity like that for a while, decades not years. If this Gobert deal doesn't get done, this might be the last time we make the playoffs with DM.

Agree... there is more luck than anyone would care to admit. GS was smart but extremely lucky...

I guess it’s just that they found themselves in a great situation and could have capitalized in a myriad of ways and didn’t.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Why would you want the Jazz to spend an extra $200K on Azubuike? Why do you think trading the 33rd pick is better than trading the 38th pick? Why are these good moves?

There is a lot to address here:
-I wouldn’t have drafted Azubuike, and by every mock I saw the Jazz reached in a huge way. There’s a good chance they could have gotten him with 38 (or 33).
-You know that the Jazz’s money isn’t my money, but the 200k only matters because they spent like total ****-heads this offseason. Azubuike might be fine, but drafting him with that resource and then blowing the whole MLE on a guy that will play over him for the next three years is mind-blowingly incompetent.
-The Knicks were able to flip our pick (that they got with #27 and #38) for #25 and #33. No one can spin that to me as anything less than that the Knicks did a better job with the asset.
-The Knicks RECEIVED assets to get off of Ed Davis that we SPENT assets to get rid of.

Rarely have I seen such clear examples of a team mismanagement in an apples-to-apples way, but this offseason we get the treat of our team being the dunce in such a comparison. Against the Knicks!

 

[NUMBERICA]

More Knicks fun:

If they would’ve drafted Mitchell instead of Frank, they would be as good as the Jazz. Let’s not act like the Jazz aren’t damn lucky to even have had the chance to trade for him or Gobert. Because if the Nuggets say no the Jazz are a perpetual 30-win team.

Dennis Lindsey did great work there, but outside of that he’s straight up missed in the first round and sold 2nd round picks.

We’ll be a better team next year, but the cost in doing so was way higher than it needed to be.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

There is a lot to address here:
-I wouldn’t have drafted Azubuike, and by every mock I saw the Jazz reached in a huge way. There’s a good chance they could have gotten him with 38 (or 33).
-You know that the Jazz’s money isn’t my money, but the 200k only matters because they spent like total ****-heads this offseason. Azubuike might be fine, but drafting him with that resource and then blowing the whole MLE on a guy that will play over him for the next three years is mind-blowingly incompetent.
-The Knicks were able to flip our pick (that they got with #27 and #38) for #25 and #33. No one can spin that to me as anything less than that the Knicks did a better job with the asset.
-The Knicks RECEIVED assets to get off of Ed Davis that we SPENT assets to get rid of.

Rarely have I seen such clear examples of a team mismanagement in an apples-to-apples way, but this offseason we get the treat of our team being the dunce in such a comparison. Against the Knicks!

We also sold 38 in the TB deal... if you get a higher pick it commands a higher sale price. Not sure if we got cash considerations or not... but there is that component.

Udoka could be a solid pick but he will have to be really good to justify selecting him given our current roster. It will require a trade or a major injury for him to see time the next 3 years... unless Rudy leaves us.

 

[One Brow]

There is a lot to address here:
-The Knicks were able to flip our pick (that they got with #27 and #38) for #25 and #33. No one can spin that to me as anything less than that the Knicks did a better job with the asset.

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.

 

[One Brow]

We also sold 38 in the TB deal... if you get a higher pick it commands a higher sale price. Not sure if we got cash considerations or not... but there is that component.

Udoka could be a solid pick but he will have to be really good to justify selecting him given our current roster. It will require a trade or a major injury for him to see time the next 3 years... unless Rudy leaves us.

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?