This franchise doesn't want to win a title

[gregbroncs]

I gave him a -4 to help balance it out.

I added mine to help as well.

 

[Headtrip]

So why support it?

This season:

Raja Bell
8.6 ppg. 2.5 rpg. 1.5 apg. 0.8 spg. 42.9% fg.

Wes Matthews
16.1 ppg. 3.1 rpg. 1.6 apg. 1.2 spg. 43.9% fg.

For the Jazz, it always comes down to this. When that extra money needs to be spent to make the Jazz a championship team, the owner flat refuses.

The Lakers won two championships, because their owner Jerry Buss was willing to pay the luxury tax. The Jazz owner? Not so.

Have fun getting KO'd again in the 1st or 2nd round. It's becoming a Jazz tradition.

I'll bet if the FO could have looked into your crystal ball and seen the production of both players, they would have made different decisions. I don't recall many people here saying Wes was a must keep, in fact I remember most people saying they thought Portland offered him way too much.

As It turns out, they got a bargain and we are playing like ***.

 

[D Will> CP3]

Sloanfeld- How is Wes not fit for a Jazz system. He was perfect IMO. He could slash, hit the open three when Booz was doubled, he could run in transition. I'd love to hear why you think it wasn't built for a player like him

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Dont quite get what you are trying to say.Are you saying that the Spurs, despite being a small market team(although it has been shown on this board that they are a bigger market than advertised) have the incentive to win while we dont? I am not talking about winning a title for winning sake or for pride sake. Iam asking what does Greg Miller stand to benefit $wise by going a couple more rounds deeper in the playoffs. Yeah ideally you cannot put a price tag on a championship. But then maybe for some businessmen it is the $$ that matters. And if so, does winning it all guarantee prize money?

Because the Jazz have already been going over LT the last 2 years and yet losing in the firts two rounds. why should they pay even higher LT unless winning it all guarantees big prize money?

I have always thought that the Jazz ownership have been smart and frugal spending-wise. But that was during LHM days. In the last 2 years they have been spending more to get the same, if not worse, results than they got in 2006-2007. That is not smart spending.

The Spurs are a unique case. San Antonio benefitted from two high lottery picks that yielded them David Robinson and then Tim Duncan. The only reason they got Duncan was that Robinson got hurt one year, and they tanked the season, and then won the lottery against high odds. They were damned lucky in these regards.

That said, they also drafted Ginobli and Parker, so give them credit for that. But without fortune smiling on them in ways unlikely replicated again, at least by Jazz, they would be mired in mediocrity like other small market teams.

So yes, kudos to the Spurs, but acknowledge that they were also beneficiaries of extreme good fortune outside their control.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Sloanfeld- How is Wes not fit for a Jazz system. He was perfect IMO. He could slash, hit the open three when Booz was doubled, he could run in transition. I'd love to hear why you think it wasn't built for a player like him

I never said he wasn't a fit for the Jazz system. Please re-read my post then decide if you want to rewrite yours based on what you have re-read, then I shall respond.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

When Sloanfeld makes more sense than JAZZFAN_2814, something is wrong.

When has JF2814 ever made sense?

 

[zman1527]

The Spurs are a unique case. San Antonio benefitted from two high lottery picks that yielded them David Robinson and then Tim Duncan. The only reason they got Duncan was that Robinson got hurt one year, and they tanked the season, and then won the lottery against high odds. They were damned lucky in these regards.

That said, they also drafted Ginobli and Parker, so give them credit for that. But without fortune smiling on them in ways unlikely replicated again, at least by Jazz, they would be mired in mediocrity like other small market teams.

So yes, kudos to the Spurs, but acknowledge that they were also beneficiaries of extreme good fortune outside their control.

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

 

[LogGrad98]

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

The issue is not career accolades, the issue is putting a team around said pairing to get them to the next level. So yes, that in bold was correct, when it counted.

 

[vj_74]

zman will keep bitching about Sloan no matter how much facts you throw at him. In 98, after Malone who was a 27ppg guy, the next best scoring option the Jazz had was a bum-kneed Hornacek at 14ppg. And thats about it. Stock was always a reluctant scorer and Russel was just a so-so role player. It is not enough if you have couple of hall of famers on your team, because there might be other teams that can have the same and then more. zman will probably realize this sometime in his next life, when he would (hopefully) be reborn a Spurs fan.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Garsh darn it, and all the Jazz could ever come up with was John Stockton and Karl Malone, aka chopped liver. Amazing they could ever win a game with those two slouches.

If the Jazz had won a couple rings with those two, as they should have done, Malone would be thought of as being every bit as good as TD. Funny how so many Jazz want to discount that they had two of the all-time greats for all those years. TD + DR >> JS + KM? I don't think so.

Unfortunately for them they came across Michael k
Jordan and the Bulls in their prime.
Who did San Antonio beat in finals? New Jersey and who else?
My point is that timing and luck have a lot to do
With it. San Antonio is exception not rule.
And it benefitted immensely from luck and good timing.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

The issue is not career accolades, the issue is putting a team around said pairing to get them to the next level. So yes, that in bold was correct, when it counted.

Well, that's convenient. Just as a base argument and viewpoint.

The Spurs, yes, are champions. But as to whether that proves Duncan and Robinson were superior to Malone and Stockton...well, I think the extrapolated logic dictates that you then believe that the former beat a 69-win Bulls team, while the latter lose to a Nets team that didn't even win 50 enroute.

So far as Robinson as a star player...he is one of the most ridiculous outliers for playoff failure I've ever analyzed. Losing? Okay. But it's the fact that the losses, in his prime and at his peak, so closely align with matchup meltdowns. This is known in regards to Hakeem, but the fact is that the much-maligned Karl Malone owned this guy over the course of 90s playoff basketball. Just decimated him, on both sides of the ball. Which is quite something, considering how much, for instance, Robinson's D is hyped to this day; in a man context (as opposed to...), I would argue very strongly that Malone was superior to Robinson there, as well.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

When has JF2814 ever made sense?

All those times you were busy avoiding (missing? Unrequited) reading comprehension.

And trying to get Darwin out of the classroom.

So far as a parallel (well, in your case, inverted) argument of evolution, the Nets are an interesting guideline. Just the overall understanding of roster building, but also how promotion, location and Q-rating move a team a lot closer to title contention. The Brooklyn move has already paid off handsomely, a priori, but it could bring the team titles by changing the perception of the franchise from the league office and media monopoly onward.

Careful not to hurt your knuckles when replying.