Rebuild vs status quo
- Thread starter BluesRocker
- Start date
BluesRocker
Banned
“Winning Breeds Winning "
What is that? I've heard that before, but it doesn't say anything.
If a great player chokes in a big game right after winning a bunch of games.. what does that mean?
The answer is... NOTHING! Just like “Winning breeds winning “means nothing.
What does it mean? That you are more likely to win because you have been used to winning, therefore you know how to win in the future? Does it mean? Your spirit is less scarred because you have avoided the hurt of loss, therefore you will have more confidence to do the same in the future? All the stars lost before they won! So what hell does Winning breeds Winning mean?
How often does a team win a championship without a transcendent super star, or two? Even the Mavericks had Dirk. The pistons are the exception. Everyone else has had a once in a life time player or two on the same team. Championships are won because a team has Dominant combination of talent with a great player. Not because an over achiever has a lot of heart. That's fantasy believing. That's not reality. It takes that plus a gift of Physical Gifts. And those gifts aren't the likes of Al Jefferson, Memo Okur, and Paul Millsap. We are all praying that Favors has it. But we all get the feeling that even he won't have enough.
The point is that times have changed. Just have they have always changed. And they will continue to change. Teams and players are adapting to their new environment. Players aren't old school any more. Money is more of a factor. Championships mean more from a money and marketability standpoint. Pride still has more to do with it than anything else. Yes. But people are different. What's exceptable now wasn't so acceptable back then. Players are willing to give up all the credit for more of a chance of winning a championship. Meaning they don't take it as a pride hit if they join up with another star. Meaning they will now join up with there once main opponent. Imagine if Jordan, Shaq, and Dwight Howard were on the same team! Or if Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Blake Griffin were on the same team! Oh? It only took Kobe and Shaq for three? Mike and Pipp for 6? Duncan for 4? Hakeem 2? Magic 5? Bird 3? Bill Russell 11 ? For crying out loud. One guy has eleven rings. That doesn't say enough?
It's about odds. Odds are that you need one of the best for the best chance to win a championship. And you can't get one of those players in a trade! You can't get one of those players if you play in a small market via free agency. Period! Not the Jazz. You can only get them in the draft. And the odds are that we are going to need Favors plus someone else or two to be able to equal enough talent.
Enough with all the old school thinking. The stars aren't thinking that they can wait 12 or 13 years to finally get to compete for a championship. They want it now. Just like our whole country is has grown impatient and become an instant gratification society. It's no longer about the pride of doing it for the team that drafted you. Teams have to compete even harder to keep their players. Or the threat looms of them leaving you if you aren't successful in helping them win. I know it stinks! I agree. But we have to accept change and how reality changes in every year of our lives. I don't like change any more than anyone else. It's uncomfortable. But I know I have to accept it if it's out of my control to change it. The idea that old school is supposed to carry over into the future is not reality. Ideas do not transcend in the terms of basketball strategy. Only toughness and human will power does. And losing doesn't destroy a man's ability to win. Garnett lost forever and finally got some help and won a championship. Stockton and Malone had a lot of will power but not enough physical gifts to overcome Jordan’s gifts. And don't compare Jordan to other Jumpers! Jordan invented flying through the air. The likes of we still haven't seen ever again still to this day. No player has had the combination of size and power that Shaq had!
So the idea of hanging on to mediocre players just to keep a winning attitude around is LU...DA...CRIS! It's self destructive in this environment. It's a fantasy. I want the good guys and good stories to always win too. But that is not reality. So can we drop this Boy Scout attitude on how to win NBA Championships? And get with the times and reality of our world? Bigger Stronger Faster = Better and more efficient... Stud > over Regular guy = Wins. And none of this means that I have to sacrifice my values for a championship and go after bad people good players. Give me Tim Duncan. I'll take 4 Championships.
In Closing ...I guess it just comes down to what is exceptable in this town. As long as the fans will continue to sell out for a team that will at least make the playoffs but doesn't have to win big. Then I gues this is the team for you? But it's not for me. I think we need to take some chances right now. Success is created by taking chances.
What is that? I've heard that before, but it doesn't say anything.
If a great player chokes in a big game right after winning a bunch of games.. what does that mean?
The answer is... NOTHING! Just like “Winning breeds winning “means nothing.
What does it mean? That you are more likely to win because you have been used to winning, therefore you know how to win in the future? Does it mean? Your spirit is less scarred because you have avoided the hurt of loss, therefore you will have more confidence to do the same in the future? All the stars lost before they won! So what hell does Winning breeds Winning mean?
How often does a team win a championship without a transcendent super star, or two? Even the Mavericks had Dirk. The pistons are the exception. Everyone else has had a once in a life time player or two on the same team. Championships are won because a team has Dominant combination of talent with a great player. Not because an over achiever has a lot of heart. That's fantasy believing. That's not reality. It takes that plus a gift of Physical Gifts. And those gifts aren't the likes of Al Jefferson, Memo Okur, and Paul Millsap. We are all praying that Favors has it. But we all get the feeling that even he won't have enough.
The point is that times have changed. Just have they have always changed. And they will continue to change. Teams and players are adapting to their new environment. Players aren't old school any more. Money is more of a factor. Championships mean more from a money and marketability standpoint. Pride still has more to do with it than anything else. Yes. But people are different. What's exceptable now wasn't so acceptable back then. Players are willing to give up all the credit for more of a chance of winning a championship. Meaning they don't take it as a pride hit if they join up with another star. Meaning they will now join up with there once main opponent. Imagine if Jordan, Shaq, and Dwight Howard were on the same team! Or if Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Blake Griffin were on the same team! Oh? It only took Kobe and Shaq for three? Mike and Pipp for 6? Duncan for 4? Hakeem 2? Magic 5? Bird 3? Bill Russell 11 ? For crying out loud. One guy has eleven rings. That doesn't say enough?
It's about odds. Odds are that you need one of the best for the best chance to win a championship. And you can't get one of those players in a trade! You can't get one of those players if you play in a small market via free agency. Period! Not the Jazz. You can only get them in the draft. And the odds are that we are going to need Favors plus someone else or two to be able to equal enough talent.
Enough with all the old school thinking. The stars aren't thinking that they can wait 12 or 13 years to finally get to compete for a championship. They want it now. Just like our whole country is has grown impatient and become an instant gratification society. It's no longer about the pride of doing it for the team that drafted you. Teams have to compete even harder to keep their players. Or the threat looms of them leaving you if you aren't successful in helping them win. I know it stinks! I agree. But we have to accept change and how reality changes in every year of our lives. I don't like change any more than anyone else. It's uncomfortable. But I know I have to accept it if it's out of my control to change it. The idea that old school is supposed to carry over into the future is not reality. Ideas do not transcend in the terms of basketball strategy. Only toughness and human will power does. And losing doesn't destroy a man's ability to win. Garnett lost forever and finally got some help and won a championship. Stockton and Malone had a lot of will power but not enough physical gifts to overcome Jordan’s gifts. And don't compare Jordan to other Jumpers! Jordan invented flying through the air. The likes of we still haven't seen ever again still to this day. No player has had the combination of size and power that Shaq had!
So the idea of hanging on to mediocre players just to keep a winning attitude around is LU...DA...CRIS! It's self destructive in this environment. It's a fantasy. I want the good guys and good stories to always win too. But that is not reality. So can we drop this Boy Scout attitude on how to win NBA Championships? And get with the times and reality of our world? Bigger Stronger Faster = Better and more efficient... Stud > over Regular guy = Wins. And none of this means that I have to sacrifice my values for a championship and go after bad people good players. Give me Tim Duncan. I'll take 4 Championships.
In Closing ...I guess it just comes down to what is exceptable in this town. As long as the fans will continue to sell out for a team that will at least make the playoffs but doesn't have to win big. Then I gues this is the team for you? But it's not for me. I think we need to take some chances right now. Success is created by taking chances.
Last edited:
orangello
Well-Known Member
Durant is a great player. I think we can all agree to that, but giving Durant all the credit for getting OKC to where they are now is pure ignorant. Other players like Westbrook, Green, Harden and Ibaka have allowed for OKC to grow into what they are today. If you have not heard, Sam Presti, the GM for the Thunder traded away the starting PG at the time the Thunder drafted Westbrook so that he could get up to a pro level faster. Look at Westbrook now. Is he a loser? No. Is his spirit broken? No. OKC is a very smart franchise. They got themselves a superstar in Durant but without getting the other pieces up to speed quickly then they would not be the team they are today.
If we go with your opinion that losing breeds losers then what is Jefferson doing on the team?(Jefferson's record while he has been in the league is 202-332, or in other words, he has a losing mentality) Why is Watson a piece that the Jazz and the fan base want back? Didn't Millsap play for Louisiana Tech? What was their record when Millsap played for them? (Their record was 49-43, not what I would call a successful team) Didn't Devin Harris play for a team that set the league record for longest losing streak?
Either we are building the team in a way that some of you (Thee Jazz fan) feel is a "losers way", or we have already put together a losing team. Either way we lose if we go off of your argument. I love your optimism for the Jazz. (Sarcasm in case you missed it)
So, with all of that being said, how do we get the Jazz back on track? It seems to me that we have a team filled with losers that have broken spirits as well as young guys that need to be taught how to win with those same "losers". How do we get out of this mess? (That question is directed to Thee Jazz fan, footawn, dalamon and Brown Notes)
Brown Notes
Well-Known Member
OKC traded Green last year for a bad Center. Which was stupid since they already had one. Kristic =/< Perkins? No.
So, whoops.
So, whoops.
BluesRocker
Banned
I have optimism for the Jazz. That's why I'm advocating going for the gusto right now and saying we have a golden opportunity in front of us
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Or to San Antonio about 15 years ago, when they wanted to draft Tim Duncan.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Let this team play. We do not know anything about this squad right now, they are brand-spanking new. We gotta see what we got before we do anything crazy at this point. Let them play and find their identity and see where they can take us, as is, right now.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT give CJ and Bell more than 10 minutes per game between them.
Please.
Pretty please.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT give CJ and Bell more than 10 minutes per game between them.
Please.
Pretty please.
orangello
Well-Known Member
Great point.
orangello
Well-Known Member
That just adds to my point, so thank you.
How many minutes did Duncan play his first year? Well, I don't have a total but he did average 39.1 minutes per games. What a waste. If only the Spurs had let him learn from sitting on the bench, imagine what he could have become otherwise. (Sarcasm one more time in case anyone missed it. I feel like I have to spell things out sometimes. For those of you who don't need me to write everything out I am sorry. I am just trying to get everyone on the same page.)
orangello
Well-Known Member
And with that bad center they got further into the playoffs then that franchise has been for years.
So, whoops.
IMO: a team should never accept losing, but they can make strategic decisions that will temporarily (they hope) result in more losses. The teams that do so wisely are geniuses. The teams that fail...fail.
By some of these arguments, the Jazz should never have traded Adrian Dantley in 1986 to provide more opportunities for Karl Malone. But the Jazz saw something special in Malone (right) and thought they were getting a good return for Dantley (wrong). It turned out OK because Malone went on to be All-NBA, and could have been even better if Tripucka and Benson had worked out better.
Moral of the story: don't accept losing, but it's OK to trade a good established player to open up opportunities for younger players or to get something valuable in return, even if short-term losses result. It's the long-term that matters, and the long-term results are what will classify the transaction as genius or a failure.
By some of these arguments, the Jazz should never have traded Adrian Dantley in 1986 to provide more opportunities for Karl Malone. But the Jazz saw something special in Malone (right) and thought they were getting a good return for Dantley (wrong). It turned out OK because Malone went on to be All-NBA, and could have been even better if Tripucka and Benson had worked out better.
Moral of the story: don't accept losing, but it's OK to trade a good established player to open up opportunities for younger players or to get something valuable in return, even if short-term losses result. It's the long-term that matters, and the long-term results are what will classify the transaction as genius or a failure.