Which Will Be Easier: Competing for a Title

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The reality is... there will always be teams/players that will be challenging to go past. Be it Wemby or Jokic or Curry or Lebron or Jordan. There will always be a team... or a few teams rather that are really well set to compete in any given year. The new CBA has made it really hard for teams to construct dynasties since keeping the core of the teams over prolonged periods of time becomes really expensive and really punishing. So yeah... I personally wouldn't make decisions based on what is essentially very shaky predictive foresight - way too many moving pieces to know what will happen in the league in a year or two, let alone in 5-6 years. So yeah... IMO we should largely concern ourselves with what's the best way to build a contending team ourselves, rather than trying to chase a perceived window of opportunity based on what other teams and players are doing.

We should fix our own team and set it up for success. Then worry what we can do and how we can adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of the other strong teams of the day.

That isnt the thread/poll...

Just answer the intent of the thread. It isnt hard.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The fact that some posters are dodging it so hard tells me all I need to know.

 

[stitches]

And the landscape is currently flattening a bit in that there haven't been repeat champions in a while. Who's to say that is unique to this time period though... it may be the norm and things may get even flatter. A number of teams will be forced to melt a bit with the cap stuff coming down the road. It may get even flatter in a couple years. Plus the bill is going to come due for a lot of teams that yolo'd their picks... will they liquidate their stars creating buying opportunities?

Yeah, we have 6 different champions in the last 6 years with 9 different finals teams. To me it feels very futile to be planning for a specific team.

If you got a guy... your window is now... if you don't got a guy... you should get one then decide. Get that dude however you want... tanking, FA, trade, drafting later or try to do all of the above.

Yep. Get the guy... or two... in whatever way you think is best to do it and go for it.

 

[fishonjazz]

The fact that some posters are dodging it so hard tells me all I need to know.

I think we all agree. It's easier for a team that is ready to contend to win a chip now.
Your thread was a success! We agree with you!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah, we have 6 different champions in the last 6 years with 9 different finals teams. To me it feels very futile to be planning for a specific team.

No one is asking you to declare a plan of anything.

Just which set of years do you think will be easier to compete (generally speaking, not team specific) for a title?

The fact that you want to dodge the question just lets me know that the answer is conflicting within you and would possibly change your plan, so it scares you into not answering it and dodging it and making it something it isnt.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I thought I already did but I will try again. The tanking step of the plan is to get the guy. That is the incentive. So we get the guy in 2025. Now the incentive is gone. That part is done.
Now we move to the next step. Building the team up.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

That doesn't really make sense as incentive. How are we going to know we got the guy until he starts playing? Also, just because you have one guy does that remove incentive to go get another one?

Remember, the best pick we can control is #5. I LOVE the 2025 draft and think there will be good players at 5, but it's a strong statement to say the 5th best player is going to be such a good prospect that we decide to build around him.

 

[fishonjazz]

That doesn't really make sense as incentive. How are we going to know we got the guy until he starts playing? Also, just because you have one guy does that remove incentive to go get another one?

Remember, the best pick we can control is #5. I LOVE the 2025 draft and think there will be good players at 5, but it's a strong statement to say the 5th best player is going to be such a good prospect that we decide to build around him.

The answer to your first question is that you don't. But you didn't want to tank for infinity so you get that top 5 pick and move on.
The answer to your second question is that when teams have that guy they don't try to suck. They try to win. We tank right and get a top pick. We draft the dude we hope is The Guy. We build around him assuming he is The Guy. It might fail. So might everything.

It just seems dumb to me to spend 3 years tearing it all down in attempt to draft The Guy to simply give up on that plan (when we have our tankiest team yet in the strongest draft yet) and add Ingram and then just be a team that is good and has no chance at a title and who then either has to spend a ton to keep the middling team together or tear it down again and try to get The Guy again.

Might as well continue with the plan and hope it works.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[stitches]

No one is asking you to declare a plan of anything.

Just which set of years do you think will be easier to compete (generally speaking, not team specific) for a title?

The fact that you want to dodge the question just lets me know that the answer is conflicting within you and would possibly change your plan, so it scares you into not answering it and dodging it and making it something it isnt.

I'm not dodging anything. IMO in general it doesn't matter... I don't think any particular 3 year span is more likely to be easier. What I will say is... right now there is no team that strikes fear in me like the Bulls used to in the 90s or GSW used to in the late 2010s. So... I guess the question is - what's the likelihood we get one of those teams in the late 2020s? Maybe the chance is non-zero... but I still think the biggest question any team should answer first is the question about the quality of their own team rather than the competition.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'm not dodging anything. IMO in general it doesn't matter... I don't think any particular 3 year span is more likely to be easier. What I will say is... right now there is no team that strikes fear in me like the Bulls used to in the 90s or GSW used to in the late 2010s. So... I guess the question is - what's the likelihood we get one of those teams in the late 2020s? Maybe the chance is non-zero... but I still think the biggest question any team should answer first is the question about the quality of their own team rather than the competition.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'm not dodging anything. IMO in general it doesn't matter... I don't think any particular 3 year span is more likely to be easier. What I will say is... right now there is no team that strikes fear in me like the Bulls used to in the 90s or GSW used to in the late 2010s. So... I guess the question is - what's the likelihood we get one of those teams in the late 2020s? Maybe the chance is non-zero... but I still think the biggest question any team should answer first is the question about the quality of their own team rather than the competition.

And what is harder... beating the juggernaut or the game of rock paper scissors we have now. Probably the way it is now. The new CBA makes it hard for us to go back to the juggernaut model unless one player gets super dominant or a situation occurs where a team gets two top 5-10 guys ascending at the same time.

Projecting the difficulty of the next 3 years vs. the 3 years after that is basically guessing. If that is the question. I don't think it gets harder or easier in any real way.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

The answer to your second question is that when teams have that guy they don't try to suck. They try to win. We tank right and get a top pick. We draft the dude we hope is The Guy. We build around him assuming he is The Guy. It might fail. So might everything.

I can't think of a team that started to build around a player before he played his first NBA game. If that's really our plan it would be somewhat unprecedented.

It just seems dumb to me to spend 3 years tearing it all down in attempt to draft The Guy to simply give up on that plan (when we have our tankiest team yet in the strongest draft yet) and add Ingram and then just be a team that is good and has no chance at a title and who then either has to spend a ton to keep the middling team together or tear it down again and try to get The Guy again.

We should be able to have an equally tanky team next year and could have an even stronger draft next year.

The only thing you are saying that really makes sense is that we don't want to tank forever or in other words being impatient, which is the same thing people who want to pick up Ingram are being accused of. Is it really that different that you don't want to be bad for 4 years in a row and someone else doesn't want to be bad for 3 years in a row?

 

[fishonjazz]

We should be able to have an equally tanky team next year and could have an even stronger draft next year.

Who are you predicting we trade?

You think the same team but with more experience and a top 5 pick next season and coaches and management changing the gameplan with the idea to build the team up will be the same tanky as this team?
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Also, I do think that the Jazz love Lauri and Lauri loves the jazz and both want to be together long term. Every year the pressure to build the team up increases as Lauri ages.
I think this is the last of the tank and then we move on.

Cool think is that sticking with the tank and going after the Brandon Ingrams is way better and easier than going after Brandon Ingram and then going back to the tank again.

Might as well just stick with the plan

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk