I'll start by talking about Mormons and food storage, even though that's a concept that's largely fallen off in the past decade. Some people prepare food storage with the idea in mind that this will sustain them in the event of some kind of apocalypse. So short of an apocalypse, this food sits on a shelf until it's expired and junk. Meanwhile, several financial hardships occur over the years and the food storage remains untouched "because then I'd be robbing from my supply." In short, the whole idea of food storage may be missed, because if you're waiting for the complete breakdown of society to access that food, it's probably going to be pointless at that juncture.
Now change gears to our current 5 spot dilemma. Spencer Checketts sums it up appropriately:
In contrast to this, though, Tony Jones is absolutely right: the Jazz aren't looking to sign anyone and they are rolling with who we've got. This has been our M.O. for a while, which has been fine because we have been in team-building phases.
When we traded for a 32 year old Conley and let half our team go last year, however, we pushed all the chips on the table and put ourselves in the position of no longer being in team-building mode, but contending mode. You can't lay all blame on one of many variables for the past two games, but you have to look at the controllable variables. If one or two variables would be stabilized, it puts us in a position to likely win both games. Teams lose games, and that's not an issue. It happens in an 82 game season. But when you have a spot that's so atrocious, then as a contending team it becomes unacceptable to roll with the idea of "we'll weather this storm, and if we lose a couple games, then so be it."
Now to the part about being drastic. Surely to some, emphasizing this sounds like one is yelling that the sky is falling. I'd go back to the food storage analogy. We've got 6 months worth of food storage. The kids have food to eat -- no need to panic, right? Of course we'll prioritize the kids eating. But we're going to have to hold off on sending Timmy to the dentist. Jane needs some new glasses, but damnit, we'll hunker down until this is over. No. No. We can't touch the food storage to free up money in the budget because we don't have the resources to replace it! What will we ever do when Yellowstone erupts and ash is covering the planet? What's your plan then?
We've got some guys at the end of the bench. Historically, teams would sign guys to 10-days to patch up leaks. We can't do that because of "flexibilty." We've got guys on the end of the bench who function as that "what if the zombie apocalypse comes and we need Stanton Kidd as a defender off the bench?"
What if Davis is out instead another month instead of 2 weeks? What if he gets injured again? What if Rudy gets injured? Last night, for the first time in franchise history, we played one rebounder. One. This isn't sustainable. If this costs us a couple games, that's not a small issue. It's cool if we're team building, but we're not. We sacrificed all our flexibility to contend the next two years. We need to act like it and protect that investment, rather than protecting a couple guys at the end of the bench who may need to be waived to bring in something of need now. The argument to keep them is the idea that there's a hypothetical need in the future. And we'd be neglecting our current tangible need to protect a future hypothetical need.
Now change gears to our current 5 spot dilemma. Spencer Checketts sums it up appropriately:
In contrast to this, though, Tony Jones is absolutely right: the Jazz aren't looking to sign anyone and they are rolling with who we've got. This has been our M.O. for a while, which has been fine because we have been in team-building phases.
When we traded for a 32 year old Conley and let half our team go last year, however, we pushed all the chips on the table and put ourselves in the position of no longer being in team-building mode, but contending mode. You can't lay all blame on one of many variables for the past two games, but you have to look at the controllable variables. If one or two variables would be stabilized, it puts us in a position to likely win both games. Teams lose games, and that's not an issue. It happens in an 82 game season. But when you have a spot that's so atrocious, then as a contending team it becomes unacceptable to roll with the idea of "we'll weather this storm, and if we lose a couple games, then so be it."
Now to the part about being drastic. Surely to some, emphasizing this sounds like one is yelling that the sky is falling. I'd go back to the food storage analogy. We've got 6 months worth of food storage. The kids have food to eat -- no need to panic, right? Of course we'll prioritize the kids eating. But we're going to have to hold off on sending Timmy to the dentist. Jane needs some new glasses, but damnit, we'll hunker down until this is over. No. No. We can't touch the food storage to free up money in the budget because we don't have the resources to replace it! What will we ever do when Yellowstone erupts and ash is covering the planet? What's your plan then?
We've got some guys at the end of the bench. Historically, teams would sign guys to 10-days to patch up leaks. We can't do that because of "flexibilty." We've got guys on the end of the bench who function as that "what if the zombie apocalypse comes and we need Stanton Kidd as a defender off the bench?"
What if Davis is out instead another month instead of 2 weeks? What if he gets injured again? What if Rudy gets injured? Last night, for the first time in franchise history, we played one rebounder. One. This isn't sustainable. If this costs us a couple games, that's not a small issue. It's cool if we're team building, but we're not. We sacrificed all our flexibility to contend the next two years. We need to act like it and protect that investment, rather than protecting a couple guys at the end of the bench who may need to be waived to bring in something of need now. The argument to keep them is the idea that there's a hypothetical need in the future. And we'd be neglecting our current tangible need to protect a future hypothetical need.