Game 54: Utah Jazz (26-27) vs Golden State Warriors (25-25)

[Inigo Montoya]

Spoiler:

One of the jobs of a GM is to have the longest view in the room. I think Danny and Justin have done precisely that and not overreacted as much of the fanbase has.

One glance below our record's surface will show that we weren't a playoff (or play-in) team, even with Olynyk, Ochai, and Simone. Of our wins, only 12 came against teams with a winning record. Of those 12, only six were against teams that weren't missing their star player. Of those six, only one was on the road. The simple truth is we beat up on the Blazers, Nets, Pistons, Raptors, Hornets, Wizards, and Spurs in December, and Jan caught a Philly team with no Embiid, a Bucks team with no Dame, and a Pacers team with no Haliburton and celebrated like we were a good team.

Before(!), the trades that Jazz was projected to finish with a record of 38-44. We faced the 6th hardest remaining schedule (the 2nd before we played OKC and MIL). ESPN's BPI predicted that we would finish with the 12th pick with 39 wins before the trade and finish just outside the play-in tournament. Other projections had us at a 61% chance of missing the play-in altogether (again, pre-trades).

We were a .500 team with a coin-flip chance at making the play-in. We 'punted' on that chance by trading away two players we might not be able to resign and a nearly 24-year-old prospect who had been digressing in exchange for a FRP and an excellent SRP. Coupled together, you should be able to use that to bring in someone who fits better long-term or add more potential youth via the draft.

Do I think that there's frustration right now with Lauri? Sure. But I also think there would be frustration if we allowed ourselves to become the Bulls. They are stuck in the .500 range but are not willing to make hard decisions to get themselves out of it.

Do I think maybe we should have tanked harder? Last year - definitely, and honestly I think they tried, Lauri and Mike were just too good.

Do I believe that we should have tanked harder this year? No. I think letting us attempt to be as good as we can be while still getting value for whatever we could move that would bring back value and aren't part of our long-term plans seems to be the right answer with a draft that lacks top-end talent.

I know we've got some frustrated players right now, but to jump to the conclusion that Will Hardy is frustrated and not privy to the plans of Justin/Danny seems a bit far-fetched to me.

I also find it interesting how quickly both the fanbase and it seems the team has potentially given up when I think Hardy is a wizard (there's a Harry Potter meme in there somewhere) and can still fight for a play-in spot. I also believe one of the under-appreciated parts of this is what does Lauri do? A franchise guy will put the team on his back and get wins. Putting Lauri into this situation is stretching him, especially considering that we need to know what we've got there before we give him a Supermax in the offseason.

Now all of that said I think there are something that I don't agree with when it comes to the current FO / Will Hardy's decisions.

1.) Playing Keyonte over Dunn is an awful decision. Keynote has had a lot of minutes to develop. Forcing him into the starting lineup seems to hurt other players and his own development.
2.) The John Collins experiment in Utah has been a minor disaster. I get why we took the chance on him, but he's taking minutes from Kessler / Hendricks and putting up what seems like hollow stats from my perspective (and from the +/- perspective). He feels like he needs to be the 7-8th man on a team.
3.) Our current obsession with small guards is killing me. You need one JC on our team... we've got three (KG,JC,CS)

The issue with those moves is that they present very little upside, to the point that the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so to speak.

You do this kind of thing in the beginning of the season, not at the trade deadline. It's very possible that the Jazz wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway but now no one will ever know. All the fans and players know is that they were in a good position to get there and the front office pulled the rug from under both the players and the fans and put them in a tough spot for the second season in a row, and this time they did it for what is very likely to be an inconsequential return. It breeds resentment among the players towards the front office, and among some of the fans as well. I'm all for accumulating assets but not all assets are worth accumulating, given the cost, and the cost is not only measured by what assets you gave back. On the face of it, the Jazz got decent value in the trades they made, it's just that it doesn't feel like it was worth making those trades in the first place. At least not at the timing they were made.

[bkohler]

Spoiler:

One of the jobs of a GM is to have the longest view in the room. I think Danny and Justin have done precisely that and not overreacted as much of the fanbase has.

One glance below our record's surface will show that we weren't a playoff (or play-in) team, even with Olynyk, Ochai, and Simone. Of our wins, only 12 came against teams with a winning record. Of those 12, only six were against teams that weren't missing their star player. Of those six, only one was on the road. The simple truth is we beat up on the Blazers, Nets, Pistons, Raptors, Hornets, Wizards, and Spurs in December, and Jan caught a Philly team with no Embiid, a Bucks team with no Dame, and a Pacers team with no Haliburton and celebrated like we were a good team.

Before(!), the trades that Jazz was projected to finish with a record of 38-44. We faced the 6th hardest remaining schedule (the 2nd before we played OKC and MIL). ESPN's BPI predicted that we would finish with the 12th pick with 39 wins before the trade and finish just outside the play-in tournament. Other projections had us at a 61% chance of missing the play-in altogether (again, pre-trades).

We were a .500 team with a coin-flip chance at making the play-in. We 'punted' on that chance by trading away two players we might not be able to resign and a nearly 24-year-old prospect who had been digressing in exchange for a FRP and an excellent SRP. Coupled together, you should be able to use that to bring in someone who fits better long-term or add more potential youth via the draft.

Do I think that there's frustration right now with Lauri? Sure. But I also think there would be frustration if we allowed ourselves to become the Bulls. They are stuck in the .500 range but are not willing to make hard decisions to get themselves out of it.

Do I think maybe we should have tanked harder? Last year - definitely, and honestly I think they tried, Lauri and Mike were just too good.

Do I believe that we should have tanked harder this year? No. I think letting us attempt to be as good as we can be while still getting value for whatever we could move that would bring back value and aren't part of our long-term plans seems to be the right answer with a draft that lacks top-end talent.

I know we've got some frustrated players right now, but to jump to the conclusion that Will Hardy is frustrated and not privy to the plans of Justin/Danny seems a bit far-fetched to me.

I also find it interesting how quickly both the fanbase and it seems the team has potentially given up when I think Hardy is a wizard (there's a Harry Potter meme in there somewhere) and can still fight for a play-in spot. I also believe one of the under-appreciated parts of this is what does Lauri do? A franchise guy will put the team on his back and get wins. Putting Lauri into this situation is stretching him, especially considering that we need to know what we've got there before we give him a Supermax in the offseason.

Now all of that said I think there are something that I don't agree with when it comes to the current FO / Will Hardy's decisions.

1.) Playing Keyonte over Dunn is an awful decision. Keynote has had a lot of minutes to develop. Forcing him into the starting lineup seems to hurt other players and his own development.
2.) The John Collins experiment in Utah has been a minor disaster. I get why we took the chance on him, but he's taking minutes from Kessler / Hendricks and putting up what seems like hollow stats from my perspective (and from the +/- perspective). He feels like he needs to be the 7-8th man on a team.
3.) Our current obsession with small guards is killing me. You need one JC on our team... we've got three (KG,JC,CS)

The issue with those moves is that they present very little upside, to the point that the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so to speak.

You do this kind of thing in the beginning of the season, not at the trade deadline. It's very possible that the Jazz wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway but now no one will ever know. All the fans and players know is that they were in a good position to get there and the front office pulled the rug from under both the players and the fans and put them in a tough spot for the second season in a row, and this time they did it for what is very likely to be an inconsequential return. It breeds resentment among the players towards the front office, and among some of the fans as well. I'm all for accumulating assets but not all assets are worth accumulating, given the cost, and the cost is not only measured by what assets you gave back. On the face of it, the Jazz got decent value in the trades they made, it's just that it doesn't feel like it was worth making those trades in the first place. At least not at the timing they were made.

The timing argument is a good one, but the deals for those players may not have been there at the beginning of the season. It certainly wouldn't have been there for Simone. I know it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under the team, but maybe an apt analogy isn't the rug pull but rather the training wheels taken off. If Lauri, Sexton, Walker, and Keyonte are the real deal, they should prove it - and I think they will!

[Inigo Montoya]

The timing argument is a good one, but the deals for those players may not have been there at the beginning of the season. It certainly wouldn't have been there for Simone. I know it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under the team, but maybe an apt analogy isn't the rug pull but rather the training wheels taken off. If Lauri, Sexton, Walker, and Keyonte are the real deal, they should prove it - and I think they will!

It's true that some players wouldn't have had the same value at the beginning of the season, like Fontecchio, but Olynyk is a proven commodity at this point and his value probably was the same the whole way through. Agbaji's value probably decreased since he hasn't played all that well and not even to the level of last season.

Either way, a late first and a second round picks in a weak draft aren't what's going to change the franchise's fortunes in all likelihood. And if the Jazz fall and keep their own pick, are they going to draft two or three more rookies and add them to the roster? It doesn't seem realistic. They'd probably trade some of those picks anyway, not to mention they already had plenty of picks.

As for Lauri, Sexton, Walker, and Keyonte, there is only so much they can do with an ill-fitting roster. There isn't one true wing on this team now. Yes, they are good players but they're not superstars. The damage done by what the Jazz did is greater than the benefit of the assets they got back unless they somehow manage to swing a huge trade using those assets or hit a home run with one of them.

[bkohler]

The damage done by what the Jazz did is greater than the benefit of the assets they got back unless they somehow manage to swing a huge trade using those assets or hit a home run with one of them.

I guess this is where I see it differently than most. I think the damage done is minimal to non existant in the long run of things so the value of the picks even if they're not home runs is more than any damage done. I might end up being wrong long term but I've seen too many teams tank at various points and maintain good and sometimes even legendary cultures, ei: Heat, Mavs, Spurs, etc.

[Inigo Montoya]

The damage done by what the Jazz did is greater than the benefit of the assets they got back unless they somehow manage to swing a huge trade using those assets or hit a home run with one of them.

I guess this is where I see it differently than most. I think the damage done is minimal to non existant in the long run of things so the value of the picks even if they're not home runs is more than any damage done. I might end up being wrong long term but I've seen too many teams tank at various points and maintain good and sometimes even legendary cultures, ei: Heat, Mavs, Spurs, etc.

I don't remember the Heat tanking but maybe I'm wrong.

The Mavs have a terrible culture.

The Spurs do have a great culture but the difference is that they were tanking from the start both times and didn't sandbag their players and fans (twice in a row) mid-season. I don't think anyone would have complained if the Jazz chose to tank from the start (well, in that case people would have complained about the fact the Jazz were tanking at all but you get the point).

The damage done long-term is that:

1. the fans lose confidence in the Jazz management/ownership and question their commitment to winning a championship or to being competitive.

2. players would be even more apprehensive about playing for the Jazz. It's already not a desired destination for players, but those that would think about signing with the Jazz will have to also now factor in that the management might sabotage the team in the middle of the season and cause them the miss the playoffs when it's in reach. Players are competitive by nature, but let's also keep in mind that many of them have performance-based incentives in their contract and some of them might lose money by missing the playoffs.

[AGE1207]

I don't remember the Heat tanking but maybe I'm wrong.

The Mavs have a terrible culture.

The Spurs do have a great culture but the difference is that they were tanking from the start both times and didn't sandbag their players and fans (twice in a row) mid-season. I don't think anyone would have complained if the Jazz chose to tank from the start (well, in that case people would have complained about the fact the Jazz were tanking at all but you get the point).

The damage done long-term is that:

1. the fans lose confidence in the Jazz management/ownership and question their commitment to winning a championship or to being competitive.

2. players would be even more apprehensive about playing for the Jazz. It's already not a desired destination for players, but those that would think about signing with the Jazz will have to also now factor in that the management might sabotage the team in the middle of the season and cause them the miss the playoffs when it's in reach. Players are competitive by nature, but let's also keep in mind that many of them have performance-based incentives in their contract and some of them might lose money by missing the playoffs.

This!

[JazzUte88]

The damage done by what the Jazz did is greater than the benefit of the assets they got back unless they somehow manage to swing a huge trade using those assets or hit a home run with one of them.

I guess this is where I see it differently than most. I think the damage done is minimal to non existant in the long run of things so the value of the picks even if they're not home runs is more than any damage done. I might end up being wrong long term but I've seen too many teams tank at various points and maintain good and sometimes even legendary cultures, ei: Heat, Mavs, Spurs, etc.

I don't remember the Heat tanking but maybe I'm wrong.

The Mavs have a terrible culture.

The Spurs do have a great culture but the difference is that they were tanking from the start both times and didn't sandbag their players and fans (twice in a row) mid-season. I don't think anyone would have complained if the Jazz chose to tank from the start (well, in that case people would have complained about the fact the Jazz were tanking at all but you get the point).

The damage done long-term is that:

1. the fans lose confidence in the Jazz management/ownership and question their commitment to winning a championship or to being competitive.

2. players would be even more apprehensive about playing for the Jazz. It's already not a desired destination for players, but those that would think about signing with the Jazz will have to also now factor in that the management might sabotage the team in the middle of the season and cause them the miss the playoffs when it's in reach. Players are competitive by nature, but let's also keep in mind that many of them have performance-based incentives in their contract and some of them might lose money by missing the playoffs.

The Utah Jazz have a terrible culture going on right now ever since Ryan Smith bought the team from the Larry H. Miller trust.

I don’t see much hype in Utah anymore around the team since Donovan Mitchell left.