CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

What the "H" are the Jazz doing?

by Brayden Green · 4/1/2011

Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
stuckinbig10country
In 04, not only did the Jazz have the 14th pick that they wasted on Kris Humphreys, but they also had the 16th pick that year. Anyone remember who that is? Here's a hint, he's currently serving time.



The Jazz are in serious, serious trouble. They will leave the market within 10 years. There won't be a major professional sports team in Utah, outside of RSL (I guess), for probably at least another generation after that. The Jazz will move to Las Vegas or Seattle.
S
Schmoe
You can talk about the draft picks, which are a crapshoot anyway, all you want, but the Jazz have done VERY well for a small market team, and a big part of that success was having a great coach. Larry never let anything get in the way of Sloan coaching the way he wanted to, but not even a year after the team goes to his dumbass son, it all goes out the window. Larry wasn't the perfect owner, but the team was in MUCH better condition when he was around.
B
Brayden Green
I disagree that they have done VERY well. The jazz have done nothing in the last 10 - 15 years. That isn't doing very well. Not moving past the first round in the playoffs (except a few years ago, when they got the godsend from the #8 warriors beating the mavs, then got rolled by the Spurs in the Western Conf finals.)



Doing very well is moving past the first round at least 1 in every 5 years. The Jazz haven't been serious contenders for 10 years.
S
Schmoe
It sure is convenient that you're only looking at the past ten years instead of the entire length of time that Larry was owner of the Jazz. Again, they've done VERY WELL for a small market team, how many small market teams have made the Western Conf. Finals in the past 10 years?
M
Mars
Schmoe wrote:
It sure is convenient that you're only looking at the past ten years instead of the entire length of time that Larry was owner of the Jazz.

Larry is DEAD Jim, he's DEAD!
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
Brayden Green
Schmoe wrote:
It sure is convenient that you're only looking at the past ten years instead of the entire length of time that Larry was owner of the Jazz. Again, they've done VERY WELL for a small market team, how many small market teams have made the Western Conf. Finals in the past 10 years?


???



Do I need to address that Greece was once the financial and intellectual capitol of the world, or can I just talk about how they are broke and super lazy in the twenty first century?



It seems convenient that I am only looking at the past ten years? What did you want, the past 20? It seems to me that a pro team with an attendance and dedicated fan base like the jazz should try to be relevant every decade or so...
S
Schmoe
If you're going to criticize Larry H. Miller as an owner, you should look at his entire body of work, not just the part that's convenient for your argument (I'm sure you think Jordan was a mediocre player, too, based on his time with the Wizards).
B
Brayden Green
I'm criticizing THE JAZZ as an organization... and I think 10 years in a row is a good enough time period to get a feel of how a subject is going?



If employer A (a teacher, let's say ;) ) was stellar the first 10 years of their career, but far below average the last ten, just coasting, and riding off of their pensions, not showing up to classes etc. does the latter 10 years hold any weight? And if so, how much?
B
Brayden Green
And besides, the discussion isn't whether or not the Jazz have been a good organization since coming here to Utah in the mid 70's (try hard as you may to steer it that way).



The discussion is what they are doing NOW, and why they are on an 8 game losing skid to sub-par teams, and why they don't seem to be taking steps to improve...
S
Schmoe
The argument I have been making (if you'll read the whole thread) is that Larry H. did a much better job of managing the team than his son has. In the past ten years the Jazz have made the playoffs 6 times, division 2 times, and conf. finals once. If you're definition of being successful is always making the finals, then sure, they failed at that. But to come down on them for not being in the hunt for a year or two after their cornerstone players left/retired is dumb, and with Williams and Boozer they got right back on the horse. Criticizing the Jazz under Larry H. Miller the way you are is like criticizing, say...a teacher, for not winning the state teacher of the year award every year even though they have been up for it many times.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
SpiffCoug
It's also not entirely fair to compare managing the team in the 80s to 10s. The NBA is very different from what it was. Free agency has changed everything. The Jazz were extremely fortunate to be able to draft Stockton and Malone and were very fortunate that the current NBA CBA wasn't in place or else the Jazz may have discovered 20 years earlier how difficult it is for a very small market team to hold on to their best players.
B
Brayden Green
I see what you are saying Schmoe, but the Jazz haven't been serious contenders for years now, no matter how many times they have been making the playoffs.



I want my professional teams to win, and I want them to want to win. The Jazz clearly have wiped that agenda clean off their slate, and have for some time.



Larry and Jerry were great back in the day. But since the mid-90's the Jazz haven't been serious contenders for years and years. It seems they are content to be one and done's. Now they are going to be lucky if they even get back to that. Other organizations are widening the gap in the West, and the Jazz aren't going to be able to compete for a long time.



As teams like the Jazz and Suns fade into non-existence, teams like the Thunder and the Spurs are not only building for the future, but winning right now. (Seriously, can you find two better small market organizations than these two? What they are doing/have been doing, is scary-impressive.)



And as "small market" as you claim the Jazz to be, they are the only thing going on around here, so like I mentioned, they have year in and year out top 10 best attendance in the league. Top 5 some years... And if you take out Sunday games out of the equation, I would say they are some of the best attended and most loyal fans around.
S
stuckinbig10country
BlueIsBetter wrote:
I see what you are saying Schmoe, but the Jazz haven't been serious contenders for years now, no matter how many times they have been making the playoffs.



I want my professional teams to win, and I want them to want to win. The Jazz clearly have wiped that agenda clean off their slate, and have for some time.



Larry and Jerry were great back in the day. But since the mid-90's the Jazz haven't been serious contenders for years and years. It seems they are content to be one and done's. Now they are going to be lucky if they even get back to that. Other organizations are widening the gap in the West, and the Jazz aren't going to be able to compete for a long time.



As teams like the Jazz and Suns fade into non-existence, teams like the Thunder and the Spurs are not only building for the future, but winning right now. (Seriously, can you find two better small market organizations than these two? What they are doing/have been doing, is scary-impressive.)



And as "small market" as you claim the Jazz to be, they are the only thing going on around here, so like I mentioned, they have year in and year out top 10 best attendance in the league. Top 5 some years... And if you take out Sunday games out of the equation, I would say they are some of the best attended and most loyal fans around.


And the key to these two franchises success (Spurs and Thunder) has been winning the lottery out of position. The Spurs were the last team to make it into the lottery the year that they got the number one pick and drafted Duncan. That is the reason why the NBA changed the lottery process from each team having balls in the hopper (one for the Spurs, two for the next team in line, etc.) to teams getting a group of numbers out of 1000 random numbers (I think it's 1000). The team with the worst record has 25% of those random numbers.



Well, lightning struck again when Seattle/OKC won the lottery. They weren't the team with the best record in the lottery, but they jumped from something like 9th to 2nd. Then they lucked out again when Portland (who also jumped that year) selected the often injured Oden with the first pick. Then they sucked for a year (a lot of that due to coaching) and picked up Westbrook. Then they lucked out again and Durrant decides to sign the max extension instead of doing a Lebron/Carmello/Bosh/Williams deal. We'll see if Westbrook does the same. Also, unlike the Jazz, they know how to draft complimentary players to surround the two superstars.



You know the similarity between the two clubs: the GM of the Thunder used to be in the Spurs organization.
S
Schmoe
I don't see how the Spurs are "building for the future." They have a bunch of really old players, the difference is that the players are team guys who listen to their coach (the same coach they've had for quite awhile now).
B
Brayden Green
"spurs are a bunch of old guys"... - I'm not sure if you've watched much of the NBA this year, But those "old guys" only play half the game anymore. George Hill, Gary Neal, DeJuan Blair, James Anderson, and Thiago Splitter. Those 2nd teamers would beat the jazz current day roster 1st teamers. I can promise you that. And none of these guys were before the 25th pick. And the "superstar old guys" one was the 28th pick (parker) and one was the 57th pick (ginobili).



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
Schmoe
I hear what you're saying, but that team is a sub-.500 team without their big (old) three, and me (5'9") and four short friends could beat the jazz current day roster 1st teamers.
S
snoscythe
From 1983-1986, the Jazz made the following first round draft picks:



#7= Thurl Bailey

#16= John Stockton

#13= Karl Malone

#15= Dell Curry



Not too shabby to pick those four guys four years in a row.





Now let's review their first round draft history twenty years later, from 2003 to 2006:



#19 Aleksander Pavlovic

#14 Kris Humphries

#16 Kirk Snyder

#3 Derron Williams

#14 Ronnie Brewer



Given that the Jazz were drafting at about the same place in the draft, this is simply UGLY. The only pick that panned out for the Jazz came with Williams, when the Jazz were in a "hard-to-whiff" position in a year where they needed a PG and both Williams and Paul were available.



Small market teams need to build through the draft, and Jazz have pissed away their picks in the draft over the last 10+ years. You either draft the guys who are going to play for you, or you draft the guys you can develop into trade assets. The Jazz simply haven't done that, and they were fortunate to have been able to ride the D-Will train for as long as they have. Right now, their top player/trade-bait is a big guy who was only excited to be here because he wanted Sloan's structure and D-Will promised to make him an All-Star. Whoops.
S
Schmoe
Ronnie Brewer was a great get, he was the most consistent player on the Jazz and that's why he was paid more money elsewhere.
S
snoscythe
Schmoe wrote:
Ronnie Brewer was a great get, he was the most consistent player on the Jazz and that's why he was paid more money elsewhere.


Yeah, because when you are picking at #14 you are looking for a guy who can give you 20 quality minutes a game off the bench.....
S
Schmoe
Except he averaged 31 minutes a game
Page 2 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.