What's new
By:

Locke opinion discussion

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.
 
One Brow said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Joncolton said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
infection said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
candrew said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top