The Official Blow up the team thread.

[LunaticWolf]

Those teams had to suck for years to get the kind of picks that the jazz got in 2 years.

Along the way getting one EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Yet they couldn't turn it into anything.

 

[fishonjazz]

Along the way getting one EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Yet they couldn't turn it into anything.

Again, like i said earlier... those teams get only 1 every year, therefore by the time they get thier 4th one, thier first ones contract is up and they can leave, so they dont have the same opportunities to develop chemistry and grow together like the jazz do.

So like i said..... the jazz are in a unique and different situation to every one of those teams you mentioned since the jazz got 4 lottery picks in 2 years that all compliment each other well and all play a different postition allowing them to be on the court at the same time together.

I still waiting for you to tell me which one of those teams you mentioned got 4 top 12 picks in 2 years..... If the answer is zero then i am correct in saying that the jazz situation is unique and different than all those teams.

 

[fishonjazz]

Along the way getting one EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Yet they couldn't turn it into anything.

Maybe the reason that those teams "couldn't turn it into anything", is because they didn't do what the jazz did and get 4 top 12 picks in 2 years.... If those teams would have been in the jazz situation and then played thier young guys big minutes, then maybe they would be contenders... but they were in a much worse situation than the jazz since they were only getting 1 pick per year for the most part.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Again, like i said earlier... those teams get only 1 every year, therefore by the time they get thier 4th one, thier first ones contract is up and they can leave, so they dont have the same opportunities to develop chemistry and grow together like the jazz do.

So like i said..... the jazz are in a unique and different situation to every one of those teams you mentioned since the jazz got 4 lottery picks in 2 years that all compliment each other well and all play a different postition allowing them to be on the court at the same time together.

Yes, its 0. They are several with 3 in two years, none who did much with it either.

You sound like a TV/Radio broadcaster. Teams can develop enough chemistry throughout one season to win ball games. Teams spend all that time in the lottery because the odds of drafting a superstar are extremely slim, not because of chemistry and contract lengths. Players win you games.

You're going to bring up the Lakers to counter that, and the Lakers woe's have to do with Gasol and Kobe becoming old and inefficient, not bringing in Dwight.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Maybe the reason that those teams "couldn't turn it into anything", is because they didn't do what the jazz did and get 4 top 12 picks in 2 years.... If those teams would have been in the jazz situation and then played thier young guys big minutes, then maybe they would be contenders... but they were in a much worse situation than the jazz since they were only getting 1 pick per year for the most part.

Grasp those straws!

 

[NUMBERICA]

Then you have New York who traded away their draft picks every year they could and got nothing with it.

I'm not sure I understand what this means, but if I'm guessing right ('New York is fine because draft picks are worthless'), not everyone has the luxury of being dropped in the glitziest city in the U.S. where everyone wants to be. The Knicks "rebuild" wouldn't work for literally 90% of the league.

Just kidding, when Durant forces his way out of OKC and demands to come to Utah (despite the team being nothing to be excited about at all), we'll be set.

 

[LunaticWolf]

I'm not sure I understand what this means, but if I'm guessing right ('New York is fine because draft picks are worthless'), not everyone has the luxury of being dropped in the glitziest city in the U.S. where everyone wants to be. The Knicks "rebuild" wouldn't work for literally 90% of the league.

Just kidding, when Durant forces his way out of OKC and demands to come to Utah (despite the team being nothing to be excited about at all), we'll be set.

No, I said from about 2002-Carmelo, they picked every other year, because they traded away their draft picks, bringing in "big name" players. This got them nowhere.

Draft picks aren't worthless, but they aren't the secret gold recipe to success like you read here either.

 

[NAOS]

No, I said from about 2002-Carmelo, they picked every other year, because they traded away their draft picks, bringing in "big name" players. This got them nowhere.

Draft picks aren't worthless, but they aren't the secret gold recipe to success like you read here either.

Since you don't question any moves this organization has made, where does your own critical thinking begin? Because as much as I love your ability to string together baseless formalisms on the status quo, you are, ultimately, an idiot.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes, its 0. They are several with 3 in two years, none who did much with it either.

You sound like a TV/Radio broadcaster. Teams can develop enough chemistry throughout one season to win ball games. Teams spend all that time in the lottery because the odds of drafting a superstar are extremely slim, not because of chemistry and contract lengths. Players win you games.

You're going to bring up the Lakers to counter that, and the Lakers woe's have to do with Gasol and Kobe becoming old and inefficient, not bringing in Dwight.

The team you should be comparing the jazz with are the nuggets..... see both the jazz and nuggets traded a star player at about the same time for some good young lottery talent and some picks.

Denver is playing gallinari, lawson, and faried big time minutes, and they used afflalo to get iggy. So denver did a similar thing to what the jazz did but the biggest difference is that lawson, gallinari and faried are all starting and getting major minutes, where kanter, favors, and burks are not.
I think denver is in a better situation than the jazz right now because they are playing thier young guns.
If denver was like the jazz then andre miller would start instead of lawson, and they would pick up some average vets to start ahead of gallinari and faried.... but they were smarter and decided to play thier young guns.

 

[NUMBERICA]

How many high first round picks did it take the Clippers, Timberwolves, or the Hawks to become good teams?

How many high first round picks have the Wizards, Bobcats, Kings, and the Raptors had?

The Thunder played the powerball and won. You want to take the same odds?

Those odds are still infinitely better than a team where Al Jefferson is (treated as) your best player and your coaching decision is to pull the 3rd/4th assistant off the bench, promoted, then extended off of no information other than that he's been loyal.

In case you were wondering those odds, they're 0 in any number you want to list.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The jazz situation is different than the teams you mentioned.... none of those teams got 4 top 12 picks in 2 years.

Oh really? I guess you're right.

Yoy mean they picked **** players as the draft is filled with them.

Charlotte has picked 9 times in the lottery since they became a team 8 years ago.
Wizards/Cavaliers have picked 3 the last 3 years in the lottery and are probably headed for several more.
Kings have picked 7 times in 7 years
It took Portland 4 picks in 3 years to make the playoffs
Minnesota 7 picks to make the playoffs again.
Clippers spanned 9 years, making the playoffs once, with 8 first round picks to get where they are now.
Memphis took 5 picks to get where they are now
Atlanta 5 picks to make the playoffs
OKC took 7 Picks in 7 years not to mention that things got bad enough they had to sell and switch cities.

Fixed.

To clear up any confusion that might ensue, you realize you made his point, right?

 

[NUMBERICA]

No, I said from about 2002-Carmelo, they picked every other year, because they traded away their draft picks, bringing in "big name" players. This got them nowhere.

Draft picks aren't worthless, but they aren't the secret gold recipe to success like you read here either.

I'm confused by the first sentence (it is completely counter-intuitive to your argument, and I'm not sure where it came from). I agree with the second only on technicality, but as it applies to UTAH, disagree COMPLETELY as the trade market is fickle and the Jazz bring in a big-name free agent as often as... uh... never? Carlos Boozer wasn't exactly a big name when he was nabbed. And in order to make a good trade, you have to have assets anyway (draft picks are the closest thing to liquid capital as it pertains to team-building that there is, and good rookie-scale players are generally worth even more).