Contract years, Developing Talent & Front Office Subterfuge

The work of a General Manager is easy to criticize, yet hard to fully quantify. Team owners are like dragons sleeping on their hoard of gold coins and other priceless treasures. Coaches want to build winning resumes. Players want to get paid. The GM has to be the go-between that gets all these parties (with differing motivations) on the same page. The GM has to get a coach the players he needs to win. The players want the promises they need before signing on the dotted line (salary, role, playing time, etc). And for the team owner, well, the GM has to placate this obstacle on a near daily basis and convince the owners not to devourer the GM on sight -- while suggesting that parting with part of their hoard (on the 1st and 15th of each month) is the smart thing to do.

At times the NBA can be distilled to purer components, of winning and losing, and of the honesty of the game. Yet, at other times the NBA can expand into a complex juggling act more akin to micromanagement in a strategy game, or a RTS click-fest. For players, the game is the game. It's simple in that way, and relies on skill, speed and quick reflexes -- a Video Game analogy would be the first person shooter. For coaches, it's series of complex decisions, not unlike the original turn based strategy game called "Chess". (you may have heard of it) The GM, though, has to delve into the previously mentioned RTS click-fest:

But instead, imagine dealing with salaries, egos, scouts, coaches, players and injuries . . . also less cannons, probably . . .

*Ahem* Back to the point . . . a GM's job is rarely done perfectly because of how difficult it tends to be. Some GM's are great talent evaluators (for example, there's Isiah Thomas, just look at the player's he has drafted in his career, most of them have been All-Stars or award winners in some regard: Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Marcus Camby, Damon Stoudamire, David Lee, and so on) but poor on other sides of their job description. Other GM's have good connections with other teams, and always seem to do business with them (look at Kevin O'Connor and all the deals he has made with Philly over the years). Some GM's are really good with managing money, while others are known for turning things around in short order. At the end of the day, though, the GM is a salesman. He is essentially selling his services to a consumer -- in this case the team owner. Part of sales is to buy low and sell high. Another part of sales is to be consciously deceptive in just what your wares are. That last part does not really apply fully to the GM - Team Owner relationship, but rather to the GM to GM relationship. Sometimes you get a lemon, but you have to pass it off as a safe family sedan. Other times you (as the GM) are working not against the team owner, the other GM's, but the actual assets -- the players and their agents.

You want to keep a good player on your team for the least amount of money it's going to take to keep him there. All Team Owners expect the GM to be able to do such a thing. This part of the job ties in directly with the buy low/sell high and deceptive doctrines. If the first step is acquiring a player (via a Trade, Free Agency or the Draft), then the next step is evaluating that player (though, we hope that some evaluations have taken place before the player is traded for/signed/drafted). The next logical step would be to give playing time to that player and develop him. The last step? Making a decision on that guy -- sign him again when his contract expires, trade him, or let him walk. Parts of the last step depend greatly on each of the previous steps.

• For example, say the team acquires player A. They evaluate him, see some things they like, some things he needs to improve on, and play him accordingly. He either gets better or worse. If he does well, he becomes more valuable to the team -- and more valuable as a player. His asking price may go up, and making the last step (in this case: deciding to keep him) harder to do. An example of this Jazz fans may be familiar with would be All-Star Mo Williams.
• Player B, on the other hand, does not appear to have much upside, does not make the most of his chances on the court, and is not in the future plans of the team. They can get rid of him in a variety of ways, the team's disinterest in retaining him opens up options for his removal. An example of this Jazz fans may be familiar with would be Kris Humphries.

It's not always this simple, though.

• What about Player C . . . the team that drafts him knows him best, and knows that there is hidden potential deep inside. If they go about normally giving him playing time, allow him to develop openly (instead of only during closed practices and workouts with the team), then other GM's may wish to pry him away. Even if the original team wishes to keep him, retaining him may become very difficult as the exposure led to quicker development, which led to a greater player value. This would be repeating the same mistake with Player A all over again. What if, instead, the team decides to develop him secretly, give him less exposure, drive his asking price down, remove interest other GMs would have in him, and basically, keep him on the "down low".

This is pretty much the only way to retain those people that you think *can* blow up (in a good way), without having to give them a lot of money to make them stay. Deron Williams deserves the contract he got. It's an expensive contract though. Some teams are forced to over-pay to retain their talent (don't need to look farther than a young, uninjured Andrei Kirilenko half a decade ago). In general, you want to avoid doing that. If anything, I think we can clearly place the curious case of C.J. Miles as an example of a Player C scenario.

At the end of C.J.'s first season he was getting more playing time, and in the last game of the season he played really well. How well? 23 points (8/13 fg, 2/5 3pt, 5/8 ft), 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 blocks, 1 steal -- as a rookie with extend playing time playing against a tough Western Conference team. Every off-season since then there have been fishy things going on. He was a consistent no-show in future summer leagues, but instead opted to work on his game by himself. During times of injury he would be pressed into the starting line-up, only to return to the end of the bench only a few days later. C.J. should have played more than he did in when he was on his rookie contract. The clock struck 12 on C.J.'s contract though, and the Jazz simply put themselves in a situation to match whatever contract someone threw his way by virtue of him being a restricted free agent. No one really bit, not knowing what they would be getting . . . until Oklahoma City offered him a 4 year $15 million dollar contract. We all know how that story ended, as the Jazz eventually matched. Was $3.75 million per season too much for C.J. Miles? Perhaps . . . but at the same time, it's a lot less than it could have been had C.J. been playing like he is now at this time last season. (or perhaps, getting the playing time that he is getting now at this time last season) Back then I thought the Jazz were (in chronological order) a) not developing C.J. enough, b) using him only for spot duty, c) giving his playing time to guys who did not deserve it.

This season Ceejay has been everything from a solid deep threat, a versatile 2nd option on offense, to invisible . . . sometimes all in the same week. This is his 4th season in the league, and his first where he has averaged over 11.5 mpg. I'm sure he would be better, more seasoned player than he currently is if he was playing 20 mpg every season after his rookie campaign. I'm also pretty sure that he wouldn't be on the Jazz then. In effect, one could directly point to a systematic way in which the Jazz brass (Sloan and O'Connor mostly) lowered interest in a prospect, sequestered him from exposure (he only got one short stint in the NBA DL), yet did not develop him for fear of losing him. At the end of the day the Jazz have C.J., but not the C.J. he could be right now, and C.J. is not earning as much as he perhaps thought he would be after his rookie contract expired.

The Jazz financial situation is horrible right now. If it does not improve shortly than there may be a few more Player A type situations in the future with key contributors Paul Millsap and Ronnie Brewer. The Jazz would love to keep them for reasonable contracts, though their development (and production) have elicited quite a bit of exposure. Good for their bank accounts, perhaps not so great for the Jazz.

That's where the micromanagement comes back into play. You want your players to be good, productive and develop . . . but you do not want to lose them to other teams after you put in all the hard work to make them useful. Gilbert Arenas comes to mind, he was drafted, developed, and then left to get paid in free agency. Right now the Jazz are playing the "front office subterfuge game" with some other young players that could possibly be helping the Jazz right now.

Morris Almond: He is a scorer's scorer, who despite having limited quickness and has played defense only once in his life, could be doing a whole lot more for this Jazz team. He's looked horrible in his rookie season with the Jazz where he never got to be involved in the plays that the regular rotation run that get swingmen easy buckets. He didn't play a minute with Deron Williams last year, and was relegated to garbage time spot up shooting from the corner. Reason for not getting playing time: He's behind a few key guys on the depth chart and doesn't rebound or defend as well as others. For some reason this has prevented him from playing one single second in the NBA-DL this season. Something fishy: Why hasn't he played in the D-League at all this season then, if there's no space for him on our current roster? Do the Jazz know that he's a raw gem that only seems to look better when he gets to play?  Utah is healthy now, so there's no real risk to put him in the game at all . . . maybe practice with the Jazz is better than games with the Flash? Or maybe they don't want him to get too much exposure right now? Utah has opted not to extend his contract, so seemingly he is out . . . but maybe they are trying to keep his going rate low so that they *can* still have a shot at retaining him for a while. After all, they scouted him, interviewed him, drafted him, are developing him . . . Harpring's contract expires next year, and the Jazz will need a wing player who can come off that Harpring curl and hit the mid-range jumper. Financial situation aside, that sounds like something the Jazz have in their laps right now with Almond. Alas, this is exactly not the contract type of year a young player wants to have (being buried on the bench). Co-incidentally, this is exactly the type of contract year the Jazz would want him to have . . . after all, they did the same thing with Ceejay, they know what they are doing.

Kyrylo Fesenko: Very large man (7'1, 300+ lbs.) with the same wingspan and standing reach as Greg Oden -- yet uninjured and a capable passer and interior defender who has, due to injuries, been pressed into defending the likes of Yao Ming to Andrew Bynum . . . and done so well. Very likely that he is more talented than the guy ahead of him on the depth chart (Jarron Collins), but lacks experience, familiarity with the system and seasoning. Reason for not getting playing time: Work ethic and personality appear to anchor this man to the bench, though at some level talent and ability should trump that. Something fishy: As a rookie, this wet behind the ears, 2nd round draft pick center joined the Jazz and played in 70 games, and played over 20 mpg. This player joined a playoff team that was contending for a championship. This player had no experience with the Jazz system prior (as a rookie) and ended up getting playing time over a limited, soft center who had much more experience in the system. This young player was Jarron Collins. What, did you think I was talking about Fesenko? Heck no, Fesenko has played only 200 minutes with the Jazz in his 2 year career, let alone played in 70 (@ 20 per) as a rookie. Why is there such a disparity between Collins' and Fesenko's early careers? I don't know, but it seems kind of fishy to me. Even more fishy is that Fes only had one stint in the NBA-DL this season (8 games), promptly did exactly what we'd want him to do (be a defensive presence who rebounded, blocked and changed shots, shot a high percentage and eventually was averaging a double double) . . . and was called back and never played again. Ever. Hmmmm . . . he improves, shows that he's good at what he does . . . and can be a free agent this season . . . 'need to reel that big boy in, and hide him somewhere!' (which was the original plan with drafting a little known, poorly scouted player from a minor European league in the first place) More so than Almond, I think that Fesenko has a future with the Jazz, or at the very least, in the NBA somewhere as teams always want size, and if the guy is talented, he's going to get a contract somewhere. If you gave him the playing time, I'm pretty sure that he'd be able to get Rookie Millsap type of numbers for sure.

Paul Millsap: Speaking of the 'Sap, he got some great exposure this season. He produced as a starter due to injuries to Carlos Boozer. He's a free agent, and he's going to get paid this off-season. No doubt about it. Interestingly enough, at the first whiff of a hobbled, rusty Carlos Boozer the Jazz sent 'Sap back to the bench and as his fantasy owners know firsthand, 'Sap just hasn't been the same since. Reason for being sent to the bench: Boozer was the starter before he got injured, the Jazz/Sloan doctrine on this is that you cannot lose your starting job due to injury. Something fishy: No one said anything about a starting job, but just let Paul start the first 4-5 games after Boozer comes back and then let Boozer slowly work his way back into playing shape, and then give Boozer the starting spot. A lot of teams do this, they bring a starter back from injury on the bench just to test things out a bit. Out of all of my conspiracies, this is among the weakest -- though I don't see why the Jazz didn't keep starting Millsap for 4 games while Boozer (who was playing limited minutes) worked his way back into starting shape. For one thing, this almost looks like a directed attempt to reduce Millsap's exposure (for the open market). It's probably not, but it just looks fishy -- during a contract year, no less.

Kosta Koufos: Let's just say that if this 19 year old was playing Brook Lopez type of minutes on a bad team we'd see Brook Lopez-ish production out of Kosta. Yet, a guy who is clearly more talented than Collins, and is a very hard worker (much more than Fesenko has shown), is completely lost on this team. Kosta isn't on the active roster right now, isn't playing in the development league, and isn't developing. Reason for not getting playing time: Apparently he doesn't know the plays. Sure, he's a smart shot blocking 7 footer who has a nice offensive game AND is a very hard worker who hustles . . . but he's not going to get to play because by playing him he would then be in a position to actually learn the plays, and then we would have even less of an excuse for why he isn't playing. He's almost a gestalt character that takes the size (mostly) and shot blocking of Fess, with the hustle and work ethic of Collins . . . and gets none of the playing time that he should. Something fishy: There is no good reason not to play this guy, develop him with real NBA minutes, or even send him to the NBA D-League for some in game action. He hasn't seen the developmental league at all in his career, instead getting better by wearing suits next to Carlos Boozer for 50+ games. That's another thing, he got some very minor playing time just because of injuries . . . this season was a prime season to be forced into playing and developing younger talent. Sloan had to work many games without being able to call on veteran bigmen . . . but still he elected to instead play Matt Harpring at power forward. Huh?

It's not that difficult to imagine that the Jazz are hurting their futures by risking not getting these guys playing time because they do not want to lose them to other teams . . . but they also get nothing out of these guys. Other teams play younger players during the regular season so that they may become contributors to that team . . . and even help them in the playoffs. Heck, our team did this with Paul Millsap as a rookie, or Shandon Anderson (more on him later), or Bryon Russell and a host of others. There's no doubt in my mind that if Fess of Kosta were getting 12-15 mpg this season that one of them would be able to contribute in the playoffs for us. Instead the development time has become much longer for a bunch of guys who could be helping us now. Also, it's not that difficult to imagine that the Jazz are hurting the values of their players by flat out burying them during contract years. No playing time = no exposure and no stats = bargain prices. They did this with C.J., and if they had a time machine, would probably like to do so with others as well.

The way that the Jazz develop talent seems to be highly unequal. Some young guys get regular burn, while others don't. This time is directly proportional towards development. I think that Jazz Brass feel the financial side to all of this needs to take precedence over the immediate development and returns from the players on the roster. The Jazz gave good minutes to a solid player (Shandon Anderson) as a rookie, and eventually left the team, the Jazz get nothing in the long term for it. The Jazz gave good minutes to a very talented player (Andrei Kirilenko), and end up having to really over-pay to keep him on the team. The Jazz don't want to get into anything like that again, and now underplay most guys during the span of their rookie contracts, so they they do not have to over-pay.

C.J., only after the Jazz matched an offer he got from another team, is finally getting playing time -- but as a 4th year guard with the potential that he had when he was drafted, he is behind where he should be. They seem to be guilty of doing that with Almond and Fesenko by not playing them in the NBA, nor allowing them to rack up stats in the D-League . . . which would have been a great way to audition for other teams during contract years -- or you know, actually get better and be able to help OUR team.

Some Jazz apologists feel like the practices the Jazz have are of greater value to a younger player than actually playing in the development league, or even playing in the NBA on poorer quality teams. I think that this is a very haughty thing to say . . . especially with how closely the Jazz *can* keep an eye on things with their development team being only a few miles away and the coach of that team is related to Jerry Sloan -- it almost seems like a no-brainer to send the kids down at least once each when none of them are even on the active roster with the Jazz. They threw C.J. a bone once by doing that, by giving him a chance to play, and that improved his morale. Why not do the same for a younger player this season? Sloan even goes out to harp on how great the D-League is, and how he wishes they had that when he first came into the league. If it's so great, why not use it, now that the rest of the guys are healthy?

As for how great the Jazz practices are . . . they rarely get a chance to practice on the road (they only practice on days off, and now at the end of the season, with the playoffs coming up, there may be less than the regular number of practices on off-days), so the younglings are getting even less time to improve than normal. This clearly is the case where the GM, at the behest of saving the team owner money, works with the coaches to screw the players out of money / job satisfaction. Or maybe that's by design, especially in their contract years?

Flashback Friday: Some other young Jazz players that got better after their rookie seasons or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Long Bomb (from Morris Almond)

No doubt by now you've heard that Morris Almond is out, or will be soon. The Jazz did not end up picking up his contract extension. They are planning on trading him, and Almond himself admits that he saw this coming -- basically ever since this happened. It really sucks, because I kind of called it a while ago (read #3) . . . but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Morris Almond is not a finished product, which NBA Rookie is? (Take Karl, for example: he didn't shoot FT's well at all, and surely did not average 30-10 as a rookie) Almond is competitive compared to the 'average' NBA shooting guard. He's only going to get better. I think that he can be a good player, and heck, he knows how to score. He gets to the line. He would be one of the most talented 5th options out there in the L, if he started. (Is CJ really that much better than him on defense? Really?)

Well, Almond isn't the only young Jazz player to be (apparently) shipped off after a very short audition. The startling thing is that so many players (almost all) get better in their 2nd and 3rd seasons in the league. Are we really ready to get rid of him so soon? [Some people are ready to move on already . . . ]

What if we got rid of John Stockton after his rookie year? In his rookie season he shot 18% from three, a low 70% from the FT line and a solid 47 fg%. He played quite a bit though, 18 mpg and had a very impressive 5 ppg and 5 apg. The next year after that he upped his playing time and got 7 and 7. He still shot 13% from deep that year. The year after that he averaged 7 and 8. Hmmm, has his reached his plateau? (5 and 5, 7 and 7, 7 and 8) If there was no space for John then I guess the current Jazz brass would have gotten rid of him, try to trade him away for a roster spot . . . or, well, do what they actually did. They gave him the minutes and he went from 7 and 8 one season to 14 and 14 the next. It would have been a shame to give up on John after three seasons, as his 4th was the charm.

Almond doesn't have to become a super star in order to be useful though . . . look at Kris Humphries.

We all hated that guy, but he's become a solid rotation guy for the Toronto Raptors. Last season he ended up averaging 6 ppg and 4 rpg. He played in Utah for two seasons, but he was just too young to be any good in the league, he did not have any NBA experience (same with Almond, btw) and when he played -- he only played with players worse than him (also like Almond, btw). Is Humphries a guy who deserved to be picked in the lotto? Based on what people thought of him back then the answer is yes. Has his NBA career backed that up? No. Is he better than Jarron Collins [1.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg] -- a guy who we continue to pay as he gets worse every season since his Rookie year -- and could a guy like Humphries be useful to us, as our current back up centers all suck? The answer better be yes, or you are lying to yourself. Even if Almond never becomes awesome he can still be a great rotation guy on any contending team . . . how great at defense is Eddie House? All he did was sub in the game and shoot threes.

Probably the best case (because Stockton didn't have 2 guys ahead of him) is Mo Williams.

He plays for the Cavs now, and looks a little lost, but as a rookie for the Jazz he got to play 13.5 mpg (for the record, Almond only played 4 mpg as a rookie). That was enough for Mo Williams to get 5 ppg and 1.3 apg. Nothing too great, much worse than Stockton got . . . but unlike the 3 year internship Stockton got, Mo got the boot after 1 year. Since then he's put up seasons of 10 ppg and 6 apg and 17 ppg and 6 apg -- twice. Sure, I'm happy that we got Deron Williams running things now instead of Mo Williams -- but there's no causality in there that prevented us from getting Deron. We could have just as easily sucked with Mo being there as Andrei and Boozer both got injured that season before Deron.

Is Morris Almond a Stockton to CJ's Green? Or is he more a Mo Williams to Arroyo and Lopez? I love Brewer, but I don't think that he can become a complete player for a two guard, as I fail to see him ever being able to consistently (40%) knock down the three. CJ has all the potential in the world, but he's still developing an NBA body and this is his 4th season in the NBA -- he's not very consistent either, even from quarter to quarter. Almond, on the other hand, seems like he can be a complete player (though he suffers from Boozer-itis on defense), and he is consistent. Brewer is the guy now, and he is the most exciting and athletic. CJ is young and has shown flashes of brilliance. I do think that out of the three, though, the one who is most likely to be a prime time contributor in the playoffs on a contending team would have to be Almond -- once people figure out a role for him, let him do what he's good at, and then give him minutes.

And that's the crux of this argument . . . there just does not seem to be any minutes for him. There were minutes for Stockton AFTER FOUR YEARS WITH THE TEAM, and he got a chance to produce. There were minutes for Humphries in the two years he was here, but he did not produce -- though he has developed into a rotation player (he was 19 with the Jazz, btw, and has no brain) in the years he's had outside of Utah. Mo Williams was dropped after only one season, and out of the guys he was dropped in favor of, he's currently the only one who is any good. Unlike those three guys, Almond did not even get a chance to play 5 mpg with the Jazz -- he did entirely destroy the NBA-DL, and set their scoring records on fire. It's a dirty damn shame that the Jazz are just taking the easy way out and not working him into the lineup (or future plans) . . .  Almond has to go while Harpring stays. With that type of thinking then I guess Johnny boy is going to move into the White House while Obama looks for a new job. For the record, I don't like either candidate -- but I like Almond over Harpring anyday. At least Almond is healthy and can learn to play better defense. Harpring is just physiologically incapable of it.

Things to look for this season: Andrei Kirilenko

It's seems like it's Andrei Kirilenko day here at:All That Jazz . . . or at least it does if you read this rant (basically Part 1 of what to look for from Andrei this season).
	Blocking Yao Ming	Using hair Gel	Looking to dime

Speaking of which . . . what are the three things should we look for from AK-47 this season:

1. Role Play: Being the 4th or 5th option on offense with the starters and standing around watching other guys play with the ball didn't really work for Andrei. His stats suggest that he "can" be the same guy, but it's hard when he's playing only 24 mpg, and in the time he's playing he doesn't get to see the ball except on shots that he blocks. Being more involved with the ball as one of the major cogs on offense for the bench is going to help quite a bit. I saw this one move from this preseason that had me absolutely drooling. Millsap posted up on his man and got the ball from Knight. Andrei's man went over to help and Millsap picked up his dribble. Andrei cut from the perimeter towards the basket and Millsap found him. Andrei sucked in all the defenders as he had a clear path to the basket -- and instead of shooting it he kicked it out to the right corner where Korver was all alone. Naturally, Korver buried the three point shot. Last season our bench had two plays: the Harpring curl (sometimes used for Korver instead), and the turn over. Having Andrei play with the bench is going to make our bench so much more dynamic. If the starters can tread water on defense for long enough when Andrei sits then our team can be quite good -- especially with a 6th man who can basically play starter minutes, defend and give you 14.5/6/5/2/2 in that time.
2. Be a glue guy off the bench: Andrei explained that when he gets to watch the game develop he can take note of things that are happening right on the floor, and stuff that isn't going so right as well. When he comes in he can try to help fill the gap of whatever was missing. (Most likely it's going to be defense, but hey, call me a cynic) Coming off the bench is going to be really good for him as the 2nd quarter usually starts off as a time for Harpring to have the green light to shoot. Andrei's points were down the last few seasons because he just plan stopped shooting the ball. The last five seasons have gone from 11.9 fga as an All-Star to 10.2 fga, 10.6 fga, then 6 fga and last season 7.6 fga. I don't think Andrei needs to be shooting over 10 times a game, but when he shot around 9 times a game he ends up scoring 14 points or so. Supplanting Harpring at this juncture may allow him to shoot if a bit more. However, my concept of glue guy doesn't mean shooting the ball all the time -- it's just that being on the floor with less talented offensive players may mean that coach calls his number a bit more often.  Knowing Andrei, if Sloan drew up a play for him to shoot, he'd probably find a way to pass off the shot to someone else anyway. Still -- Andrei's versatility may work to everyone's advantage as a glue guy, instead of a guy who is more talented than Battier being forced into playing a Battier like role with the starters.
3. Expect the unexpected: This could mean a variety of things . . . I fully expect Andrei to throw some really crazy passes this season. Having him handle the ball more with the 2nd unit and pass to guys who he doesn't get to play with a lot is going to result in some really spectacular early season turn overs. This could also mean that Andrei -- him, and not the fans -- should expect the unexpected. Harpring is gingerly participating in shooting drills now, and as I mentioned previously, the main reason why AK is going to the bench is to replace the heady play of veteran shooter Matt Harpring. What happens when Harpring comes back? Jerry Sloan already talked about how Harpring doesn't need to participate in pre-season because he knows his role and what 'we' are trying to do here. What if the starting frontcourt gets clobbered on defense without AK watching their back? The whole AK as a super 6th man concept may end before the honeymoon period of having him anchor the 2nd unit does! We may see Andrei back in the starting line-up before we know it.

Personally I don't really care, after developing a massive migraine looking at over 250 games I can say that he just needs to play 35+ mpg to be awesome. The last two seasons he played 29 and 30 mpg. He also wasn't awesome. Three seasons ago he played 37 mpg, and got 15/8/4/3 and 1.5 steals per game. Five seasons ago he played 37 mpg and was an All-Star. Doesn't take a genius, or a 70 million year old coach, to figure it out.

Flashback Friday: Andrei back when he was AK-47

Once upon a time, there was a promising young forward who was all over the court, blocking shots, catching alley-oop passes and making crazy passes. Fast forward through a few injury plagued years, one trip to the All-Star game, and numerous role changes and we have a new incarnation of Andrei Kirilenko -- the dynamic pass first Point Forward springing to life off the bench to wreck havoc like the monster created out of the mind of Coach David Blatt. Unlike what some people think, Andrei's ego didn't explode by being 'benched', nor did the former MVP of Europe (2007) cry about it at all. His own team owner said that Andrei is all about winning, and will do whatever it takes to win. If coming off the bench is going to help the team win, he will do so. This isn't the Andrei is the 6th man article though, this is the Andrei as a player article . . .

A major criticism that I find to be very unfounded (and confounding) is that some people don't think Andrei plays with heart anymore; and that his statistically inferior recent seasons are bereft of desire. (If he didn't care why did he cry a few seasons ago about not being able to help the team?) They look at the stat differences from the good old days and now and they think that it's simply an effort issue. I looked at the stats, I looked at the stats harder than they did (I spent over two days looking over 258 games over the 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 seasons). It's not an effort issue. It's a playing time and role issue.

A youngster	An All-Star	An MVP and Champion	Mr. Everything on D	A 6th man?

Sure, there are other factors at play, like the quality of the roster, the number of shots he takes, the shift from power forward to small forward and the like . . . but there is a very visceral consistency in his play over the last five seasons (his All-Star year till now) when you view his stats in games where he plays around the same number of minutes. Sure, his season averages look like they are going down, but Andrei is actually improving in some ways -- it's just that his minutes have gone all over the place the last few seasons, from 37 one season to under 30 the next. (Really, this happened -- 37.7 mpg in 2005-2006 and 29.3 mpg in 2006-2007.)

When he was an All-Star (and averaged over 37 mpg) back in 2003-2004 he was on a team without Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur, Deron Williams, or young guys like Paul Millsap and Ronnie Brewer. He was the only guy with real talent, and had to do a lot of everything. His season averages were (with rounding) 15.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 3 apg, 3 bpg and 2 spg -- all the while his points to FGA ratio was 1.31.

Last season, 2007-2008, on a team with Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur, Deron Williams, with younger players like Paul Millsap and Ronnie Brewer he played the three, instead of the four as an all-star. In games where he played more than 35 mpg (and he played in quite a few and in those games averaged 37 mpg, just like his All-Star season) he averaged 14.5 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg, 2 bpg and 2 spg. (again, rounded up and down accordingly)

	MPG	PPG	FGA	Points/FGA	Rebounds	Assists	Blocks	Steals
2003-2004	37	15.5	12	1.3	8	3	3	2
2007-2008	37	14.5	9.5	1.5	6	5	2	2
		-1	-2.5	+0.2	-2	+2	-1

What's the difference? He's not playing inside anymore (and he has more competition for boards and blocks) and ended up getting 2 less boards and 1 less block. Guys get less rebounds and blocks when they are defending the three point line instead of the paint. [Though this point is debatable...] He scored less, but he shot less (2.5 less FGA per game, and his points/FGA ratio was actually higher -- 1.5 to 1.3 when he was an All-Star) as well. The only other difference was that he got 2 more APG.

I could (if I wanted to), present the full breakdown from each season, and each different playing time block (all games, only games where he played 30+ mpg, only games where he played 35+ mpg, only games where he played 38+ mpg, or only games where he played 40+ mpg) . . . but I don't need to belabor the point here. Every season for every playing time block since his all-star season his AVERAGE in points / FGA has been between 1.4 and 1.5. His rebounds have been between 6 and 8. His blocks between 2 and 3, his steals between 1.5 and 2, and his points between 13 ppg and 16 ppg. [If you've been following along, those are the same numbers that he has now when playing those many minutes]

His teammates make a little bit of difference, as does his role -- but the major variable in his production is time. Not between 35 mpg and 38 mpg . . . but between playing 35 mpg and playing less than that. (It's a bigger jump than between playing 30 mpg and less than 30 mpg surprisingly!)

Long story short, Andrei isn't a worse player. He's shooting less (he used to shoot it 12 times a game, the season where he cried he shot it 6 times a game and was playing 8 mpg less); and more than anything else -- he is playing much less than he used to. When he gets to play the same amount of time as he used to, he produces similar statistical results. (Again, this is not opinion, I worked it out between season stats, and the stats for the past 5 years where he played 30+ mpg, 35+ mpg, 38+ mpg and 40+ mpg . . . but he's not going to get a shot to average 38 mpg over a season, so basically I just did more work than I needed to.)

He's the same guy, he just has an insanely high contract that he could never justify, especially when his coach changes around what position he plays, or how many minutes he gets to play. He shouldn't be playing 30 mpg, especially not when a lot of that time on the floor has him just watching other guys handle the ball and shoot. But I'm getting ahead of myself here . . .

If he gets enough time he has shown that even with a stacked roster, and on a winning team, he can get crazy stats. Or at least, stats that are very similar to what he used to put up in his All-Star year. He's a consistent producer when he gets consistent minutes. He's actually gotten better as a distributor over the years.

I wonder why some people still think that he's gotten so much worse? Just because his Coach doesn't play him enough minutes? That's a poor reason.

Things to look for this season: Matt Harpring

Love him or hate him, we can all be pretty secure in the knowledge that when (not "if") Matt gets back off the IR, that he's going to play at least 10 mpg at small forward for the rest of the season [Unless Ceejay levels up a few times while Matty is out and becomes a real NBA Starter, of course, but I'm not going to hold my breath]. I could go on and make this a very short post, but I think Matty deserves better.

Like so many other players (Mark Eaton, Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone, David Benoit, Donyell Marshall, etc), his best years were playing off of Stockton and Malone -- but those years were almost a lifetime ago. In my mind he is now probably best suited as a 'life coach' for our younger players . . . if they could adopt his work ethic then I think we'll be sitting pretty at the center spot in a few seasons. That said: he is still useful on the court. Before you leave this website forever let me further explain what I mean. Harpring is a physical three who rebounds well for his position and doesn't back down from anyone. In recent seasons he's been a thorn in the side of everyone from Carmelo Anthony to Ron Artest. Guys like Korver, Miles and Almond are just not going to be able to make Ron Artest get ejected or take 'Melo out of his game. He's useful in specific situations, especially because we do not have anyone who can replace what he gives on the 'toughness' angle just yet. [I highly recommend this uploaded video by xunlucky17x]

That does not mean I think he needs to be playing big minutes, but he's a special type of player that is useful in certain situations. He's like your 2nd string fullback in American football -- he may not be the starter, or useful in all situations, but on a 3rd and short he's going to get the job done. If you put Harp out there to muscle up against another physical small forward then he is actually useful.

If the other team isn't using a physical small forward then don't put Harpring in the game. Simple as that. Why? Well, for starters: statistically he is getting worse, his shooting range seems to be positively correlated with my shrinking hair line. Back in the early 2000's Harpring could hit threes and I had a full head of hair. Now Harpring misses layups and I have to comb my hair down. It's a sad time for both of us. You don't want to have Harpring on the floor unless you really need to have him on the floor. (Especially when we're close to a title and need to have our younger guys be developed now rather than later) If you need any other reason why you don't want him on the floor just ask yourself if you think Harpring is quick enough to defend any perimeter small forwards any more. The answer is, of course, no.

Harp will not let go of playing time without a fight, just like he wont let go of this ball unless he gets to keep Luke Ridnour's forearm as a prize.	Click on the image to make it bigger

Here's a chart that (tries to) depict how many games Matty has played in each of the 6 seasons that he's been with the Utah Jazz. [This is the dark blue bar] This chart also (tries to) depict how many minutes he plays per game.[This is the light blue bar] As you can see he usually plays over 70 games per season (he has averaged 75.5 games per season in the last four seasons). He played 36.6 minutes per game back in 2003-2004 -- his most as a Jazz player -- but since then there's been quite a decline which corresponds with accumulated injuries and advancing age.

If you've done the math (and I have, if you want I can e-mail you the spread sheet) over the last four seasons (from age 28 to 31) his minutes per game has been going down by (on average) 4.625 mpg in each successive season. [Data: -3.5 between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004; -5.7 between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005; -1.9 between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006; and -7.4 between 2006-2007 and last season, 2007-2008] For you math geeks out there who remember their y=mx +b and slope = y2-y1 / x2-x1 formulas the average rate of declined MPG (in this case, -4.625) is also equal to the slope if you use the points (2, 36.6) and (6, 18.1).

If you extrapolate this to the next season, this current season (2008-2009), then you get 18.1 - 4.625 . . . or 13.475 mpg. I could live with Harpring playing 13.5 mpg this season, I'd be happier with 12, but I'll take what I can get. It remains to be seen if his playing time decline is going to be so linear . . . he may very well just play in under 70 games this season, but in those games play closer to 20 mpg for all I know. All of this gobble-dee-gook aside, what three things can we look for this season from Matt Harpring?

1. He's not going to be rushed back: The Jazz have enough wings to weather the storm until he comes back to "anchor" the 2nd unit with his veteran play. (Anchor, as in, he brings the play down, check out his +/- stats sometime, 4th worst on the team last season) In as way, his injury has come at a good time when Sloan is more open to trying out different line-ups and open to developing his young talent. We've already seen C.J. Miles take the starting role while AK supplants Harpring and the key bench veteran. Matt Harpring's current injury is the main reason why Jerry Sloan has had to change up the line up this off-season. (Sure, Deron's injury is an acute issue right now, but the line up was changed before he got injured) You can be sure that when he comes back that Jerry Sloan will shuffle things all over again. Right now AK is being put in the veteran off the bench role that our second unit really needs for stability. This is usually Harpring's role, and I can easily see Jerry Sloan immediately revert to putting AK at the 3 in the starting line up after Harpring is back. Though, Jerry does some funny things time to time, like how in 2005-2006 to finish the season Memo was the starting 4, and Carlos was the 5, because Memo had been playing the 4 most of the season while Carlos was on the injured reserve. I can't really predict what's going to happen when Harpring gets back, but I know that he's going to play. He's not going to give up playing time without a fight either. Thankfully, there is no current time table for his return, so we're not going to see him for a while.
2. Frustrate the fans: Some fans are going to complain that when he comes back that he still plays too many minutes. Some will complain that he's not playing enough and that "we need his _____" (defense, rebounding, toughness, scoring, veteran play, hustle, flops, crew cut, fouls, whiteness ?). Both sides are not going to be placated until he retires from the NBA and joins the Georgia High school Football Hall of Fame. (Apparently there is such a thing, and here's Harpring's high school team's record) He's one of the most divisive players in Utah Jazz history, and part of the reason stems from the fact that many fans would rather develop his eventual replacement instead of keep giving a guy all these minutes as he breaks down every season. (Jazz career average for games played per season: 68.5) He's injured right now, and there's no time table for his return -- so the "sit Harpring" contingent will have an undisclosed amount of time to sit Harpring all they want. To be clear, I think I fall neatly in that contingent as well, but I don't think that it's time to take him out behind the barn and shoot him yet. (That's next season...)
3. Continue to play physical, smash-mouth basketball: If the Jazz are in the playoffs, he is going to play in them. I don't know when his immune system is going to be back online, but I can empathize with him as I've been a little sick lately. When he does come back, I feel bad for the forwards that'll match up with him when he's finally been given the green light to play at full velocity. (Speed just isn't a strong enough word to describe his game) He only knows how to play the game one way, and you can be sure that he'll be a force to be reckoned with when he's on the court this season. (Just a force for which team, ours or theirs, remains to be seen) If we have to face a team with a physical small forward in the playoffs I can see him getting a lot more burn than 10-14 mpg like he will this regular season. I'm pretty sure that he can rattle a guy like Artest if they face off against each other in the playoffs.

I don't know when he's going to play for us, but it's a safe bet that the Jazz may start off by watching his minutes very closely. This may contribute to continuing a downward trend in minutes played per game for Matt, and as a 32 year old with the knees of a 45 year old, I'm sure his body (if not his mind) will appreciate it. Now only if he can continue to teach the younglings (Kosta and Kyrylo) how to throw their body around and play physical like he has all these years . . .

The Five Epic Qualities of Jerry Eugene Sloan

An eternity ago I wrote about The Five Epic Errors of Jerry Eugene Sloan. There were a variety of reactions to that article, some in agreement, others in argument -- ultimately though I think it was a pretty interesting take on things. Jerry isn't perfect -- and the points I made way back in September seem to elucidate that point quite nicely. That said . . . there are very few coaches that I'd want to be the coach of my team (the Jazz), and I can't really think of any off the top of my head. (Maybe Lenny Wilkins? Maybe not . . . no, definitely not.) It's not all bad with Jerry, in fact, there is a lot of good out there. Here are just five:

Photographed by David Zalubowski for AP Photo

1. He's a no nonsense guy:

Jerry is a straight shooter. He tells it like it is. If his team gets beat on the glass he'll say it like it is. If he messes up, he'll own up to it. If he wants a player to do something, he'll try to communicate it. Jerry probably doesn't think himself to be 'smart enough' to be any other way but humble, direct and honest. He may miss out on some of the cerebral mind games that some other coaches play (against their own rosters as much as they play it against the media and refs) like Phil Jackson. (Btw, he's not zen. That's bullshit. Really, stop calling him the zenmaster. Zen Buddhism isn't about making $10 Million dollars per year, possessions are fleeting . . . but he wouldn't know that, because he's a fraud) Anyway, back to Jerry . . . Sloan isn't going to be all smug and cryptic all the time, and then whine to the media in post game interviews about the other team.

I remember reading an interview of Jackson's years ago when he was first coaching the Lakers -- they lost a game and he blamed the loss on everything from his players injuries, the crowd noise, the pre-game festivities, to refs, the style of play, and on the fouls not called -- he basically blamed the loss on everything BUT the other team doing things well.

That's just a sore loser to me.

Jerry may not have any Coach of the Year awards, or coached any team that's won a ring, but when he does lose, he does it graciously as he's a no nonsense guy. Even better than Jackson, he also wins with humility, and he tries to treat his players fairly (which is subjective). Maybe a more touchy-feely coach would have been able to coax more out of the Ostertags and Giriceks that Sloan has had to coach . . . but that's just not Jerry's strong suit.

2. Jerry fights for his players:

One of his strong suits is that he'll never throw his players under the bus (or, you know, write a book about a particularly difficult season, airing out all the secret details without his players' consent and laugh all the way to the bank while talking trash about his meal tickets). Jerry does the exact opposite, as he's frequently ejected from games because he cares so much about his players. What does Phil Jackson do? He sits with his legs crossed in a chair all game long and occasionally whistles at his players. That's inspiring. Jerry Sloan gets into it with refs when he feels like his players are getting the short end of the stick.

Players are going to be willing to fight if they see how hard their coach his fighting. Very rarely do the Jazz lose games (to the best of my memory) that Sloan is thrown out of, they tend the get fired up and play harder. Not to make this one of those really weepy eyed, inspirational deals . . . I can see Sloan making a Tony D'Amato type of speech while Phil Jackson would be reading a poem about rabbits and hoping that his talented roster does all the work.

Jerry Sloan was a fighter as a player, and as a coach he is responsible for taking care of his team out there. It's not the place of the players to really talk to the refs, but it's the Head Coach's duty to do so when he feels like his guys are getting the screwjob. I'd rather have a coach who actually reacted to the game than one who sat down and did a Sudoku puzzle.

3. Superb game to game adjustments:

I mentioned this in the other write-up, but I honestly don't see the Jazz getting beat the same way more than once, unless in the rare cases that the are playing a team that just has our number (like the Minnesota Timberwolves or Portland Trailblazers last season), or one really unstoppable guy (Kobe Bryant). There's one good reason why we don't get beat the same way often -- it's because Sloan (and his staff) make really good adjustments in-between games. Sloan does his homework, and his vast experience makes it a bit easier to see patterns and develop strategies. He's a very under-rated X's and O's guy -- people talk about Rick Pitino knowing about shooting range and shooting percentage ratios. Pitino was a horrible NBA coach though, and didn't do anything in the league. Partly because he relied a little too much on the three point shot.

Sloan, on the other hand, doesn't rely on anything except rebounding, hustling on defense, and playing fundamentally sound basketball -- especially on offense (layups are emphasized, one on one play and three pointers are not).

4. Fundamentals aren't just buzzwords with him:

Frankly, this is one of the reasons why the Jazz have won so many games under Sloan (closing in on 1000 with the Jazz). If you don't box out your man he'll replace you with someone who will. If you don't run the plays, you'll sit on the bench. There are really three components of Jerry's offense: move the ball around for a layup, get to the foul line, don't try to be a hero -- pass the ball instead of taking a contested shot. There are really three components of Jerry's defense: funnel guards into bigmen, don't leave shooters open, don't foul jump shooters. This is pure, distilled fundamental basketball that can be applied to grade school ball all the way up to the NBA.

Some coaches play lip service to fundamentals, and when the game starts, their players play some undisciplined monkey ball, or alternatively, the game plan shifts to a series of gimmicks . . . like posting up their PF at the three point line (like what Avery had Dirk do instead of posting him up near the basket), or just relying on one player to do everything for his team, and have no real plays or anything ("Chris Paul -- go dribble a lot, and when the defense collapses on you, pass to an open guy. Do this 40 times a game! Go!" -- Byron Scott). Is it any wonder that teams coached by those types of players rarely impress in the post season?

If you play fundamentally sound basketball your team has a chance to win -- regardless of the make up of the roster, or how many super star calls you get. He almost made the playoffs with Carlos Arroyo and Ben Handlogten. Phil Jax would have retired that season because he didn't have any top 2 players on his team. (Seriously Phil, take a chance on your coaching ability and actually coach a team instead of relying on your player's star power . . . remember what it was like when you got beat by Detroit and Boston in the finals the last few seasons? Those teams were coached... yours was on autopilot after having the West given to you on a platter.)

5. Expects you to leave it all on the floor

He may hate you in a game, but off the court, he may be one of your staunchest supporters -- Jerry Sloan was this way with Greg Ostertag. All he wants is your best effort -- which is why he rewards players that play hard. (Like the Adam Keefe's of the world) Why is Jerry so hung up about effort? Probably because he knows that's what got him where he is today -- and if a simple farm boy from southern Illinois can be an NBA All-Star and make it in the NBA that anyone can (well, most gifted athletes that make up current NBA rosters) if they work hard enough. He can't do it for his team, but he can try to make his team work hard, so that they can do it for themselves. His teams can do it for themselves if they work hard.

Simple, huh?

Now watch this video of Al Pacino showing us how to inspire professional athletes/professional actors playing professional athletes. It's not just because it's a good scene, but I'm sure there's a lot of Jerry in this scene . . . especially the part about the guy who's willing to die being the one who's going to come out alive. Sloan's not a perfect coach, but just like how I ended the critical article, I still feel like there is no other coach I'd want to coach the Jazz this season.

His faults are still faults, and his propensity to make people have to earn it when they are clearly better can be a problem at times -- but really, aren't you happy that Jerry coaches the Jazz, and not that smarmy, self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual Phil Jackson?

I know I am.

101

Wow, I've posted 100 times so far on this blog. My initial thought was: "man, I'm such a loser". My secondary thought was that maybe I should do something special every time I break a multiple of 100. Honestly I thought that I'd have the time to post close to 50 things per month when I started as I had 42 posts in July, my first month posting, and I didn't make my first post until July 14th. I guess this is it, though . . . gotta make this post count . . .

CAPTION CONTEST!

What's going on in this picture?

Post your caption submissions in the comments section, the winner (decided by me) will get a prize. Don't be shy in offering up a caption, as the next time this will happen will be after post #200 . . . so we have a looo-ooong time before you'll get another shot at this.