The Jazz need to stop chasing the crowd and get ahead of the curve for once

[Jazz4ever]

The problem with developing players is all of them have different learning and improvement rates. Some show star signs in the first and second years, some much longer. Hayward and Favors both took 5 years to fully mature (and may have a little left). Butler went from rotational level player the first 3 years to one of the best 2 way players in the NBA in his fourth. As a GM if you sold early on these players you just made a cataclysmic mistake that set you back 3-4 years. If you hang onto them the 4th year and they don't improve (like Enes Kanter), you have a worthless asset.

 

[franklin]

Than the Jazz FO has really good aim. Gobert, Hayward, Favors, Hood. Possibly Burks, Exum, Hanlan and Lyles.

Only recent players that didn't work out were Burke and Kanter.

Even found some nice end of benchers in Cotton and Millsap.

That's a pretty standard copout Stoked.


*Edit* Your example of Gobert and Hood prove my point. Hayward was the only higher pick that worked out.

 

[franklin]

So the OP states that the Jazz shoulda explored trading the #3 pick the year they took Kanter due to the fact that there was only one clear cut "sure thing" that year. Problem is, EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE NBA knew that as well. It's never as simple as: "Ok, we have the #3 pic. Now somebody give us multiple future 1st rounders to trade down. Thanks".

Every other team knows it but they don't trade down because they cater to fans like you who overvalue picks, and get hyped up like a pimple popping kid on draft day. It sells.

If Utah fans want to be as stupid then expect the same results (I wouldn't expect anything else, but still).

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There are only ever a couple of roster spots for rooks every year.
You can't grab 5 rooks every year and hope one works out unless you're thinking 2nd rounders?
Why not just grab as many undrafted players as you can and play 2 summer league teams to weed them out?

Part of the problem with this idea is that the percentage of players that do well in the league is 80% top 10 picks, 10% 11-20, and the remainder of players that get regular rotational minutes and do well are picked after 20.

The odds of getting the good players to build a team around on late round picks or 2nd rounders is so bad that the Jazz would have to have 8x the number of players to get the same odds as one player in the top 10. While a groundbreaking idea, there's a reason it is. It is most likely the least effective way to build a good team.

 

[The Midnight]

If it is that easy to pick a Gobert every year the Jazz would have had a Championship by now (still could).

 

[franklin]

There are only ever a couple of roster spots for rooks every year.
You can't grab 5 rooks every year and hope one works out unless you're thinking 2nd rounders?
Why not just grab as many undrafted players as you can and play 2 summer league teams to weed them out?

Part of the problem with this idea is that the percentage of players that do well in the league is 80% top 10 picks, 10% 11-20, and the remainder of players that get regular rotational minutes and do well are picked after 20.

The odds of getting the good players to build a team around on late round picks or 2nd rounders is so bad that the Jazz would have to have 8x the number of players to get the same odds as one player in the top 10. While a groundbreaking idea, there's a reason it is. It is most likely the least effective way to build a good team.

That is not true and you're looking at numbers over a couple decades' span instead of draft-by-draft,, and considering drafting position/trade possibilities.

It's pretty simple. If you like and rank 4 guys and can take only one or have a shot at possibly two then what do you do? And why the premium on big men when you can get one easily in free agency while "wasting" a pick "throwing **** at the wall" on a wing that might or might not pan out? Who have been the breakout stories from low picks that are now getting max contracts? All wings. Bledsoe, Butler, Klay, Kawhi, etc. There are no big men breaking out in this league. Spot your top 3-4 wings and take 2 of them instead of one, unless you're sure as **** from shinola and the draft is loaded.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That is not true and you're looking at numbers over a couple decades' span instead of draft-by-draft,, and considering drafting position/trade possibilities.

It's pretty simple. If you like and rank 4 guys and can take only one or have a shot at possibly two then what do you do? And why the premium on big men when you can get one easily in free agency while "wasting" a pick "throwing **** at the wall" on a wing that might or might not pan out? Who have been the breakout stories from low picks that are now getting max contracts? All wings. Bledsoe, Butler, Klay, Kawhi, etc. There are no big men breaking out in this league. Spot your top 3-4 wings and take 2 of them instead of one, unless you're sure as **** from shinola and the draft is loaded.

I'm 90% sure I heard those numbers from a Jazz FO radio interview. I think it was DL.

Your point has merit, I'm mainly concerned with the percentages that would make this an effective strategy. One thing to keep in mind is you are holding your draft hostage to what the other teams in front of you do in order to get what is left over vs trading up or going and getting who you want. I see what you are saying, but one approach is more passive while the other is aggressive.

Personally I would say that you change your strategy up and go with the shotgun approach if you are not dead set on someone you think you can get. One situation use the target strategy, another shotgun it, another trade out. Be fluid and flexible.

Just my thoughts.

p.s. we might be saying the same thing...but you are saying it's time for the shotgun approach.?

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Every other team knows it but they don't trade down because they cater to fans like you who overvalue picks, and get hyped up like a pimple popping kid on draft day. It sells.

If Utah fans want to be as stupid then expect the same results (I wouldn't expect anything else, but still).

I don't overvalue picks, I simply have the ability to understand the extremely basic concept of supply and demand. You can't trade what nobody wants. You complain that the Jazz should have traded down with the Kanter pick because there was no clear cut "sure thing" at #3, yet in the same breath you aknowledge the fact that with no superstar waiting to be picked at #3, the pick doesn't have nearly the value that some people think it does. If nobody is willing to pay whatever fair value for that pick is, the Jazz only have 2 options: Keep the pick and take a chance on a player with the #3, or cave in and trade the pick for a lower than average return rate. Your "theory" on what the Jazz need to do to get ahead of the curve is *********.