The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I wasnt implicating he sucks. Ive watched him play and he is definitely way better offensively than Powell. Way way more than the 0.2 point margin. And Wood did infact share the court with Luka for over 50% of his minutes. So wasnt like he was left on an island offensively.

That was maybe more of an indictment to Kidd for how he utilized him and what kind of things they did schemewise. I mean how do you neuter Woods offensive impact to match that of Powell? Did you just sub out all your capable shooters when he came on?

I'm not too bother by it though, so wont dig any deeper.

Because Powell is the better player

 

[infection]

Situations like this are always a huge boon for people who laugh at no-cost acquisitions. If they are right, they can celebrate. If they are wrong, just appeal to “well 29 other teams thought the same thing.”

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Situations like this are always a huge boon for people who laugh at no-cost acquisitions. If they are right, they can celebrate. If they are wrong, just appeal to “well 29 other teams thought the same thing.”

The fact that teams weren't jumping over each other should let you know that your assessment of cost is not accurate

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you are playing NBA 2K with team chemistry turned off this is a great move

 

[HermanG]

If you are playing NBA 2K with team chemistry turned off this is a great move

I gotta agree with this bit in the sense that toxicity isnt "on/off" thing. Team chemistry has levels to it, just like any workplaces do.

Not sure we can say for sure though that Wood is bound to have toxic impact in any locker room. Ham has been in the same locker room with him before, so Fakers do have a better sense on what they are buying into.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I wasnt implicating he sucks. Ive watched him play and he is definitely way better offensively than Powell. Way way more than the 0.2 point margin. And Wood did infact share the court with Luka for over 50% of his minutes. So wasnt like he was left on an island offensively.

That was maybe more of an indictment to Kidd for how he utilized him and what kind of things they did schemewise. I mean how do you neuter Woods offensive impact to match that of Powell? Did you just sub out all your capable shooters when he came on?

I'm not too bother by it though, so wont dig any deeper.

I think Powell is a little under-rated but yeah Kidd seemed to hate Wood from day 1 and it was weird. I get immaturity and dumb plays but good coaches build up guys rather than tear them down at every opportunity. Lakers are pretty good at rehabbing these guys on one year deals and I'd guess Wood has some success there. Honestly even if he helps them against the bottom feeders and is an innings eater he's well worth a minimum deal.

I think there is an empty calories element to Wood for sure... but there is a lot of volume and efficiency in there so he will provide excess value over a minimum deal almost for certain.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Hilarious to like a player who is good and dislike a player who isn't. So funny.

Oh you like the player any team would give 30 million to more than the guy teams won't even give the MLE? How silly.

Hilarious to cape for a dude making 180M over 4 years and would cost a few firsts to acquire but carries some of the same knocks as a guy that just got signed for the minimum... empty calories, defensive issues, go check his on/off splits if you think Wood makes every team he plays on worse (something you have incorrectly asserted).

Worst case he is cut... so no downside... the absolute best case he is a good bench piece that can fill in as the Great Value version of AD (on offense) when AD sits for 20 games. Any case in between is basically a win at the minimum. Its basically a can't lose bet. Lakers have done this like 5-6 times the past few years... he might end up being the Drumond instead of Dwight, Rondo, Schroeder, Monk, or Rui... but what was the opportunity cost?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Situations like this are always a huge boon for people who laugh at no-cost acquisitions. If they are right, they can celebrate. If they are wrong, just appeal to “well 29 other teams thought the same thing.”

I think its the opposite. If he sucks and is a problem and gets cut I'm good. If he is meh... still a win... if he is awesome I can go full "na-na boo-boo I'm better than you".

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I gotta agree with this bit in the sense that toxicity isnt "on/off" thing. Team chemistry has levels to it, just like any workplaces do.

Not sure we can say for sure though that Wood is bound to have toxic impact in any locker room. Ham has been in the same locker room with him before, so Fakers do have a better sense on what they are buying into.

He's got some Whiteside to him for sure. But Kidd absolutely threw cold water on him every chance he got almost from day 1. The dude is in a contract year so that feels like a dick move too... even if the guy isn't loving his role go ahead and just use coach speak and say nothing. Even with that it isn't like Wood quit or was cut... so his levels of toxicity weren't like throwing soup at coaches levels of toxicity. Maybe Kidd was trying a tough love type of thing but that doesn't work all the time and if it isn't followed up with praise and support then "tough love" is just being an ***.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I gotta agree with this bit in the sense that toxicity isnt "on/off" thing. Team chemistry has levels to it, just like any workplaces do.

Not sure we can say for sure though that Wood is bound to have toxic impact in any locker room. Ham has been in the same locker room with him before, so Fakers do have a better sense on what they are buying into.

Lakers probably think they got Lebron so they can handle it. They are also in their final year of competing with Lebron. It's not like they are trying to build with Wood. They are just hoping he provides something until he ****s off somewhere else.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Hilarious to cape for a dude making 180M over 4 years and would cost a few firsts to acquire but carries some of the same knocks as a guy that just got signed for the minimum... empty calories, defensive issues, go check his on/off splits if you think Wood makes every team he plays on worse (something you have incorrectly asserted).

Worst case he is cut... so no downside... the absolute best case he is a good bench piece that can fill in as the Great Value version of AD (on offense) when AD sits for 20 games. Any case in between is basically a win at the minimum. Its basically a can't lose bet. Lakers have done this like 5-6 times the past few years... he might end up being the Drumond instead of Dwight, Rondo, Schroeder, Monk, or Rui... but what was the opportunity cost?

High comedy for sure

 

[homeytennis]

It seems to me a few seasons ago there was an opportunity for the Jazz to sign Wood and Quin was not very enthused. The toxicity or cancer label is a hard one to get rid of. Coaches and GMs talk and some may say "I don't want or need that headache."

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It seems to me a few seasons ago there was an opportunity for the Jazz to sign Wood and Quin was not very enthused. The toxicity or cancer label is a hard one to get rid of. Coaches and GMs talk and some may say "I don't want or need that headache."

Eh… I’m old enough to remember when we signed Favs to a big contract to backup Rudy and turns out Whiteside at the minimum was a better route. Lots of good teams are willing to suffer through talented knot heads. You don’t want a bunch of them but there is an opportunity in selectively taking those risks.

Hopefully immaturity is alleviated as players age and mature. For the Lakers this is an easy bet to make and if it doesn’t work out it’s super easy to walk away from.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Eh… I’m old enough to remember when we signed Favs to a big contract to backup Rudy and turns out Whiteside at the minimum was a better route. Lots of good teams are willing to suffer through talented knot heads. You don’t want a bunch of them but there is an opportunity in selectively taking those risks.

Hopefully immaturity is alleviated as players age and mature. For the Lakers this is an easy bet to make and if it doesn’t work out it’s super easy to walk away from.

Whiteside was on the team that ended the Jazz and he hasnt gotten a job since despite playing well, so I'm not sure that your best example.

 

[infection]

If you are playing NBA 2K with team chemistry turned off this is a great move

I gotta agree with this bit in the sense that toxicity isnt "on/off" thing. Team chemistry has levels to it, just like any workplaces do.

Not sure we can say for sure though that Wood is bound to have toxic impact in any locker room. Ham has been in the same locker room with him before, so Fakers do have a better sense on what they are buying into.

One of the biggest points of emphasis for me on this forum, over decades, has been the mental and chemistry part of the game, so this isn't some unaccounted for variable. The problem becomes the application. I feel like I was pretty far ahead of the curve on having an extreme distaste for McGrady, Dwight, or Carmelo. Not a general distaste but more the idea that there are certain profiles of guys who don't cause you to win, despite their unbelievable talent. In the height of all three of those guys (there are more), people would be swallowed up in how overwhelming the talent is. None of these guys are necessarily "toxic" in the sense that they create a rift in the locker room or that everyone hates them. The fundamental issue becomes the type of psychological makeup that your roster becomes. When you have those guys as the key 1-2 or even 3 cogs, the dynamics become problematic. Eventually the league soured on each of these guys, but failed to account for changing dynamics to realize that the application of this principle changes as the dynamics of team leadership and role change. Each of these guys then moved into much different roles, where they're not the go-to guy and they're not looked up to as the leader of the team, but the reputation of being "not a winner" carries forward into what is now a totally different equation. Dwight floated around the league being drastically underpaid and underrecognized because people were still colored by him not being a winner in one particular scenario. Despite my strong dislike for him historically, once those dynamics changed, I would have loved having him backup Rudy. Likewise Carmelo. I may be hard pressed to not have Carmelo on my all-time starting five of most disliked players, but when everyone soured on him, the price was low and it was time to buy. He's a very flawed player and most certainly not the guy you want leading your team in any circumstance, but to come in as a role player? There are way more teams that should have had interest before Portland kept picking him up on the minimum. He's got more value than that. Likewise Rodman or Artest. Both of those guys can be huge distractions, but when you've got a strong dynamic already in play where this guys come in to fill a role, it's a different equation. Artest on Indiana or Sacramento as one of the main guys? Good luck. As a role player beside Phil, Kobe and Pau? Come on.

If you're wanting to feature Christian Wood as a big piece of your offense, or if you're a Houston with no leadership, yeah... good luck. But if you're an established team landing a guy for the minimum, you're not depending on this guy in that fashion and, despite whatever potential they have for being toxic, nobody on the team is acknowledging this person as being the core of the team, so the negatives can be much more easily absorbed. The chemistry issues are lethal when it's your Donovan Mitchells or Rudy Goberts. It's not nearly so significant when it's your Royce O'Neales or Rudy Gays.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

One of the biggest points of emphasis for me on this forum, over decades, has been the mental and chemistry part of the game, so this isn't some unaccounted for variable. The problem becomes the application. I feel like I was pretty far ahead of the curve on having an extreme distaste for McGrady, Dwight, or Carmelo. Not a general distaste but more the idea that there are certain profiles of guys who don't cause you to win, despite their unbelievable talent. In the height of all three of those guys (there are more), people would be swallowed up in how overwhelming the talent is. None of these guys are necessarily "toxic" in the sense that they create a rift in the locker room or that everyone hates them. The fundamental issue becomes the type of psychological makeup that your roster becomes. When you have those guys as the key 1-2 or even 3 cogs, the dynamics become problematic. Eventually the league soured on each of these guys, but failed to account for changing dynamics to realize that the application of this principle changes as the dynamics of team leadership and role change. Each of these guys then moved into much different roles, where they're not the go-to guy and they're not looked up to as the leader of the team, but the reputation of being "not a winner" carries forward into what is now a totally different equation. Dwight floated around the league being drastically underpaid and underrecognized because people were still colored by him not being a winner in one particular scenario. Despite my strong dislike for him historically, once those dynamics changed, I would have loved having him backup Rudy. Likewise Carmelo. I may be hard pressed to not have Carmelo on my all-time starting five of most disliked players, but when everyone soured on him, the price was low and it was time to buy. He's a very flawed player and most certainly not the guy you want leading your team in any circumstance, but to come in as a role player? There are way more teams that should have had interest before Portland kept picking him up on the minimum. He's got more value than that. Likewise Rodman or Artest. Both of those guys can be huge distractions, but when you've got a strong dynamic already in play where this guys come in to fill a role, it's a different equation. Artest on Indiana or Sacramento as one of the main guys? Good luck. As a role player beside Phil, Kobe and Pau? Come on.

If you're wanting to feature Christian Wood as a big piece of your offense, or if you're a Houston with no leadership, yeah... good luck. But if you're an established team landing a guy for the minimum, you're not depending on this guy in that fashion and, despite whatever potential they have for being toxic, nobody on the team is acknowledging this person as being the core of the team, so the negatives can be much more easily absorbed. The chemistry issues are lethal when it's your Donovan Mitchells or Rudy Goberts. It's not nearly so significant when it's your Royce O'Neales or Rudy Gays.

Based on?

Teams seem to think the end of the bench/later roster guys are very important for team culture/chemistry. There are a ton of talented basketball players who arent in the NBA because of that thought.

 

[infection]

Whiteside was on the team that ended the Jazz and he hasnt gotten a job since despite playing well, so I'm not sure that your best example.

Derrick Favors was on the team that put the Jazz on life support and, despite being two years younger than Whiteside and still having one more year of his contract left, played his last NBA game three months before Whiteside did. A big difference is Favors was being paid $10M while Whiteside made $2.4M in a contract that was subsidized by the league. The following year, Whiteside didn't have a contract. Favors was paid another $10M for a year he didn't play because he was waived.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Whiteside was on the team that ended the Jazz and he hasnt gotten a job since despite playing well, so I'm not sure that your best example.

Did he outplay his minimum deal? Is he the reason the team broke up?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Derrick Favors was on the team that put the Jazz on life support and, despite being two years younger than Whiteside and still having one more year of his contract left, played his last NBA game three months before Whiteside did. A big difference is Favors was being paid $10M while Whiteside made $2.4M in a contract that was subsidized by the league. The following year, Whiteside didn't have a contract. Favors was paid another $10M for a year he didn't play because he was waived.

No one is saying the Favors contract was good. It has nothing to do with the idea of negative team chemistry pieces being on the team.

And I'm also sure part of the reason Favors isnt in the NBA anymore is because he doesnt want to be. He was never the hardest worker or most ambitious player. That's why he wanted to stay in Utah and why he was OK being 2nd fiddle to Rudy despite having the talent for more.

 

[infection]

Based on?

Teams seem to think the end of the bench/later roster guys are very important for team culture/chemistry. There are a ton of talented basketball players who arent in the NBA because of that thought.

Of course. Because end of bench guys often lack talent and any chemistry issue isn't worth keeping you around. Wood is moved from being a starter to being end of bench guy (in large part, presumably) due to non-basketball reasons. Your end of bench guys may not play a lot, so you certainly want culture. But that's not the only reason you end up with end of bench guys. Many situations afford you the opportunity of filling out with some diversity.