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?

Things to look for this season: Jarron Collins

We'll get to Jarron in a minute, but first we have to look at how we got to Jarron in the first place. Jarron is a product of the Utah Jazz scouting team and has developed during his entire career as a product of our system. This, invariably, causes a player to have more relative value in our system, than in any other. (Look a guys like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and countless others) He would have a hard time finding a spot on another team -- especially with the suggestion that refs will call flopping more seriously this season. What is Jarron Collins? He's a 6'11 molasses footed center who does not rebound, does not play defense, and does not play offense. Really, he is only good at the mental aspects of the game -- pretty much the only things he has done right on the court have been to flop, and get offensive fouls called on Shaquille O'Neal back in the day -- which would make Shaq frustrated, and have him make more mistakes down the road. If we were smart, we'd get rid of him. We just may get that chance as Jarron is in the last year of his insane contract extension that he got a few seasons back -- insane in that he got one in the first play. During this 2008-2009 season Jarron Collins will make approximately $2,074,302. (More than double what Paul Millsap expects to make this season.)

There are several obstacles which prevent us from making a clean break from Jarron though. First of all, he's pretty much well liked by the rest of the team. He's like the token nerdy/smart guy that you keep around when you are having trouble with your Digital Video Recorder, or when you need someone to set up your wireless Internet at home. Heck, he's a member of the Kappa Alpha Order . . . how do you replace someone like that? Most likely the same way that we got him -- through scouting, drafting and developing his replacements.

I've love to just let him walk, but if what we've done with Harpring is any example, he's probably going to get some ridiculous golden handshake deal for all of his services to the franchise over his career. He was drafted in 2001, and as a Rookie he started in 68 of the 70 games he played for the Jazz. He's going to turn 30 years old this season and has played in over 450 games for Utah. The first 5 seasons here he was averaging 20 mpg, and these last two he's hovered around 10 mpg. He has made a stink about this though. (Apparently the Internet cannot currently support my argument, but I've read it that he was unhappy with having his minutes slashed in half) That said, what are three things to look out for this season, from the man we affectionately call Tree?

1. What you see is what you get: Jarron Collins does not improve, and actually, you can argue that he's only gotten worse over the past 7 seasons. He shot nearly a career low last season (43.9 fg%) and did manage to shoot a career low from the ft line (62.2 ft%). His rebounding numbers extrapolated over a 36 minute stint are 1.5 rebounds less than when he was a rookie. Collins is not going to improve vastly this season, one can only hope that his play continues to slide (in this, a contract season) that the Jazz Brass decide to just roll the dice on Kyrylo Fesenko, Kosta Koufos and Ante Tomic next season.
2. Must work hard on transition: Do I mean he has to work hard running up the floor to get transition baskets? No, I mean he has to work hard on developing into a veteran coach in the locker room type of guy. He needs to hang out with Coach Ty Corbin quite a bit and find a way to tap his vast storehouse of NBA Lore and use it to teach younger players. Jeff Hornacek did not have to do any of this, he just retired and called it a career. Then he became a coach after. Collins probably still wants to earn an NBA paycheck for another few seasons . . . hence, the need to transition. By Drafting/Trading for three guys 7 foot and above in the past two seasons it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be hoping to keep Collins around as a player for the next 10 years.
3. If he plays 70 games again this season, it is bad news: He played in 70 games last season. That is a lot games to go out and manage to grab a sum total of 116 rebounds, or score 118 points, or block 6 shots. 70 games, wow! That tells me a few things -- that for whatever reason, we had to use him and instead of playing Fesenko for 10 mpg, Kyrylo was sitting behind the bench in a suit. If guys like Koufos and Fesenko spend this next season with DNP-CD's and DNP-INJ's then it is bad news for the Jazz. Collins just isn't that good. And if he continues to play in games (stifling the development of our younger centers) then it just may very well mean that Kevin O'Connor is going to offer Jarron a contract next off season.

If Jarron Collins isn't playing with Gordan Giricek in Europe next season, it means we are in deep trouble, Jazz fans . . .

Returning to the Promised Land

The Jazz brass, coaches and owner have done three things well in the post Stockton-to-Malone era:

Retuning to the NBA Finals does not occur by chance, but by following out a long term plan.

I. The first thing that the Jazz brass (and co.) has done well is they've established a winning formula, and have enjoyed a consistency that other franchises have lacked. While this has the drawback at some level of inherent stagnancy, the NBA mandated rules changes have kept the Jazz coaches on their toes. One particular rule change which threw a major wrench in the system was the removal of the previous Illegal defense rules. Now Zone Defenses are allowed -- even pseudo-Zones are hard for the Jazz to handle as it's man-to-man defense, but an extra guy to rove around and get in passing lanes -- daring the pound it inside Jazz to shoot from outside. (This was particularly difficult for the Jazz to do during December of that 2007-2008 season, which resulted in many losses)

The Zone Defense friendly NBA forced the hand of the Jazz brass and they have endeavored to start playing 5 on 5 basketball on offense for the first time ever (but more on that later). They needed to avoid Zone defenses in order to properly run their offensive sets. Previous versions of the Jazz would run their forward based offensive sets (Malone, Dantley, Bailey) and involve strong guard play all while the center fell asleep at the top of the key.

This has always been the case as the Jazz used to park Mark Eaton up at the top of the circle while he watched the finesse guys do their thing. Then Greg Ostertag came in and was able to use his height to exploit a high-low passing game inside. If you did that now, no one would follow Mark or Greg outside, and the paint would get clogged very quickly. To counter that the Jazz have further evolved by getting one of the few true bigmen (check out his rebounding games in the playoffs if you don't believe me that he's a bigman) who has a very legit three point shot -- Mehmet Okur. While the NBA has made several rule changes since the Stockton-to-Malone era, the evolution of the Jazz sets has been sped along because of smart roster moves.

The signing of Okur allows for the Jazz to move him farther than Jerry Sloan had ever imagine moving Eaton or Ostertag -- out beyond the three point line. Furthermore, Okur needs to be defended out there -- thus necessitating luring out the guy who defends him (a defensive big), or a smaller guard (causing a miss match somewhere else on the floor). The biggest benefit to this roster quirk is that it retains the floor spacing that is needed for the majority of the Jazz sets: pick and roll with the PG and PF, or finding a cutter in the vacuum left by a vacating center for easy dunks for Andrei and Brewer. I'm surprised at how well it works, and encouraged by this -- it shows that the coaches are working with the front office to get players that can do good things on the court, and work within a system. You couldn't get away with this offensive set back in the Stockton-to-Malone days . . .

II. The second thing that the Jazz brass (particularly the coaches) have done well is that they've tried to learn from their mistakes. Often Stockton was the only guy on the floor who could get the job done; and often, he was the best player on the floor. All too often (save for that elimination game 4th quarter vs. the Rockets where it was Stockton vs. Houston); unfortunately John didn't call his own number enough -- and that hurt the team. What have the Jazz done now? They've got a good passer and floor leader at the point guard -- but someone who is ultimately the most confident in his own abilities. We've had Deron for three seasons now, as we know that when it counts he's not afraid to be 'The Man' -- something Stockton always deferred to Karl (who, honestly, was not as clutch) about.

Another example happens to be expanding the game to involve more people on offense. At their most dangerous the Stockton-to-Malone teams were filled with subordinates like Hornacek and Russell, or Bailey and Griffith. Never did they fully get a chance to have 5 good offensive players on the floor at the same time (thanks, Rony Seikaly -- you could have really helped against Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls back then). It's hard to win titles playing 4 on 5.

This version of the Jazz has the ability to play 5 on 5 on offense for the first time in franchise history -- and this has not come at the expense of needing to change the entire playbook. Once the Jazz secured a good, smart point guard to tandem with their beast of a power forward (acquired as a free agent) it was going to be the pick and roll show all over again. This play used to kill teams back in the illegal defense era. Now people are allowed to zone, and as a result, relying on the pick and roll is harder to do.

In order to prevent the picker getting immediately double teamed by bigmen the Jazz need to lure out a bigman outside. Chicken and egg thing with Point I and Point II -- but that displays how inter-related things are: in order to learn from your mistakes you have to have a winning game plan. Thus, if the Jazz wanted to keep relying on forward based offensive scoring sets from the paint, some tweaks were going to be needed to be made.

III. The final thing that they have done well is that they've been able to key in, identify and get similar types of players on the roster -- attempting for coax lightning to strike twice. The obvious comparisons exist -- Carlos Boozer plays like an older, jump shooting Malone. Deron Williams is an adept passing lead guard who is clutch at the end of games, like Stockton. As always, it's more than just replacing Stockton and Malone.

Then:	Now:	Difference:
John Stockton	Deron Williams	Not better: but more willing to step up in crunch time
		Stockton was the consummate professional and floor leader. Possessing not just physical tools (like good health and excellent stamina), he also had vast amounts of Basketball IQ -- essentially being another coach on the floor. There would be no success without John. Similarly, Deron Williams is the heart of this version of the Jazz. He is adept at passing (had over 10 apg in his 2nd NBA season, John didn't break that barrier until his 4th). He's not the coach on the floor though, but the Quarterback who calls his own plays -- and is much more willing to do it himself. Sadly, the Jazz could have used a more selfish version of John Stockton. They may have the next best thing in Deron Williams.
Jeff Hornacek	Kyle Korver	Gives up floor game and passing for a more min/maxed player
		Jeff Hornacek, some people forget, was an All-Star for the West. He was the principle piece that the Sixers got back for trading Barkley -- and all he did was put up 19 ppg (.47/.39/.87), 7 apg, and 2 spg in return. Not too shabby. Hornacek had every shot, and was a much more skilled NBA player. His age and lingering injuries prevented him from being a great defender for the Jazz. Kyle Korver, also acquired in a mid-season trade from the Sixers, is more of a specialist. He is statistically a better three point shooter and free throw shooter. Over this last season Kover received shooting training with Hornacek -- and Jeff admits in his 'aw shucks' type of way that Kyle is a really great shooter, maybe better than Jeff. Jeff brought more to the table though and started.
Bryon Russell	Andrei Kirilenko	Better: much more creative and a great shot blocker
		Before being emasculated by Jordan in the finals Russell was a confident and competent forward who was the best defensive stopper on the Jazz who could run, dunk, do whatever was asked of him, and unassumingly hit threes just when the Jazz needed them. Sound like anyone we know? Andrei is more versatile -- playing everything but center in the playoffs for us between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008; though, let's not forget that in 1998-1999 Russell had to guard Chris Webber in the playoffs due to foul trouble. Like Russell, AK-47 always has to guard to other teams' best offensive player and as often as he gets beat, he comes up with a timely deflection, steal, or block at a more critical juncture in the game. His offensive ability is truncated in his role with the Jazz, but is the most talented player on the team.
Karl Malone	Carlos Boozer	Worse: but possibly owns more left-handed post moves though
		Carlos Boozer is a beast by today's standards. (at least in the regular season) If you put Karl Malone at his peak in today's game he would own all of these passive, physical play avoiding bigmen. (Seriously, Amare Stoudemire never step on the same court against Charles Oakley.) Both have (at least in the eyes of jaded Jazz fans) built a reputation for not being able to equal their production in the playoffs. Unfortunately for Boozer, his drop off is so severe that it's pure folly to even talk about these two forwards in the same breath. If you want to really get a picture of how ridiculous the comparison is then read this.
Antoine Carr	Paul Millsap	The same: the only difference is age and experience vs. youth
		The "Big Dawg" was taller and at that stage, a very savvy veteran who had all the sneaky, esoteric knowledge on how to get away with fouls. Millsap gets called for a ton of fouls -- though they are essentially the same player. Millsap is younger, has some upside, and has a lot more energy and vigor. Both had surprisingly developed offensive games -- but mostly scored close to the basket, often on put backs / tip ins. Carr was a great bench guy for any playoff team, who defended the paint, got boards and blocked some shots. He even had a 20 point game in the NBA finals once. It's not impossible to see Millsap do that well.
Howard Eisley	Brevin Knight	Better: Knight + Price > Eisley + Vaughn
		Eisley's career before the Jazz was nothing to write home about, and his NBA career after the Jazz was almost as pathetic as Shandon's was. Because of this many people fail to realize that he was the best back-up point guard the Jazz have ever had since John Stockton was coming off the bench. He could push the ball up the floor, knew all of the sets, was active defensively and was able to shoot the three with deadly accuracy and even hit game winners. That game winner that Deron had vs. the Cavs last season? Well, Eisley used to do that type of thing back for the Jazz in 1998. While there is little chance for Knight to be as good all-around as Howard was for the Jazz, Knight is a very solid veteran who can run a club, never turns the ball over, and is a good steals guy. This looks like another downgrade; however I'd take Knight and Price (basically a younger, more exciting Howard Eisley with less playmaking and more highlight making skills) over Eisley and Jaques Vaughn any day of the week.
Shandon Anderson	Ronnie Brewer	Better: by sheer virtue of Brewer being taller and able to play the 1, 2 or 3
		Shandon Anderson was a young, athletic, defensive minded player who played within his limitations. He never tried to become an outside bomber. His bread and butter was to sneak around and find an open spot on the floor as the other team was concentrating on the other guys (Stockton, Hornacek and Malone) more than they were on him. He turned hard cuts into layups and dunks. Ronnie Brewer is much the same, being an offensive opportunist using his speed, size and athleticism to get easy dunks as the defense pays him no attention. Both benefited from playing with eager passers (Stockton, Hornacek and Malone for Shandon; Williams, Kirilenko and Boozer for Ronnie). Both are the 2nd member of their families to be part of the NBA (Shandon's older brother, and Ronnie's dad both played). Ronnie is longer, faster and has top 5% NBA athleticism (as seen in the pre-draft combine). His shot is broken, but appears to give more to the Jazz than Shandon did -- for one thing, Ronnie starts.
Greg Foster	Mehmet Okur	Better: and it's not even close
		Foster was an occasional starter during the two finals seasons, managing to do so in over 50 games. Okur is our full-time starting center. Both were outside shooting bigmen who were not regarded as big-time rebounders. Memo is a much better rebounder, defender, outside shooter, inside player, and is a serious playoff perform who does all the clutch things you need to win (game winners, or offensive rebounds). Foster was a better dunker -- and both guys are some crappy fight in them. Foster getting into it with the Lakers' Rick Fox, and Memo coming close to throwing down on Juwan Howard among others. Foster was an okay player, but was very annoying in that Sasha Vujacic type of way. Memo has been an All-Star and is a serious upgrade for the Jazz.
Adam Keefe	Matt Harpring	Better: and also a better fitting role for this type of player
		I guess we need a frame of reference when bad mouthing our own players. Adam Keefe used to start on one of our NBA Finals teams. (and play 25.6 mpg!!!) How insane is that? Keefe, who may be a better beach volleyball player than basketball player, couldn't shoot, and hardly ever caught passes. At least those are two things that Matt Harpring does (sometimes). They both were solid rebounders from the small forward spot, and both did not have three point range. Both used to get torched on defense -- but at least Harpring occasionally has one of those games where he gets 14 points, 1 steal and 5 rebounds. Keefe didn't even give us that as a starter. Harpring is a good bench guy.
Chris Morris	C.J. Miles	Not Better, Not Worse: Anything we do get will be better though
		By the time Chris Morris made his way the Utah, he was a serious NBA performer who could put the ball in the basket. After three NBA seasons C.J. Miles is a guy who can't get off the bench, but who could one day be a serious NBA player. Both are taking lesser roles to play here -- Morris was a starter in New Jersey; and C.J. Miles could start for some teams (or at least, get more playing time). Both have legit three point range and can bust out for some nasty jams. Both have had clashes with Jerry Sloan -- especially over their roles. Right now we can only hope that C.J. can one day become the player that Chris Morris was before coming to the Jazz. If not, then whatever, we still have Morris Almond . . .

The Jazz brass has done a more than adequate job of emulating the roster of those Finals teams. Those finals teams sported a good mix of talent -- two Olympians, who were also All-Stars mixed in with another former All-Star and a variety of (mostly older) veteran role players. There were no specialists off the bench save for Foster who could hit an outside jumper better than most centers in that era. This team currently has three Olympians, an All-Star mixed in with two other former All-Stars (and one to be in Deron Williams). The bench is almost exclusively comprised of specialists -- Korver is the shooter, Harpring is the hustle guy, Millsap is the paint terror. There have been improvements on all major archetypes save for the fact that Morris/Miles, Carr/Millsap and Hornacek/Korver are all pretty much washes. Okur is clearly better than Foster and while Stockton is ahead of Williams in career ability, Deron Williams is far from a bad player on any given playoff game. Malone destroys Boozer, but the overall talent is upgraded. Kudos to the Jazz for being able to (at least on paper) recreate their championship contending team. Is that all? Is this team NBA Finals worthy?

One large piece is missing . . . you know, a big (7 feet tall at least), rebounding and shot blocking guy. It's a roughly Greg Ostertag sized hole. A Mark Eaton or Ostertag -- something the Jazz has always had the advantage of having, is just not an archetype that the Jazz Brass has been able to duplicate on this version of the team. Three potential prospects exist though -- one is an American born, 7'0, 19 year old Greek who can block shots, but is more likely to make them; another is a 7'1, skinny Croatian who is far removed from playing in the NBA; and the last is a 7'1 Ukrainian who has a questionable work ethic. The previous Jazz teams had to fight against the passage of time. The limiting reagent in this equation happens to be the salary cap.

Compared to those glory year teams, our current roster is better -- but we are behind in the big defensive galoot department. Does that mean that the one guy who is hated for his play, but loved for his goofiness (Ostertag) is the dividing line between serious championship contender and what the Jazz currently have? Essentially, this appears to be more truth than fiction -- as the only major weakness exists as a lack of a shot blocking presence stationed in the paint. Ideally internal improvement of our young centers will satisfy this component -- we do not need a quantum leap in center ability, we just need to get Kosta or Kyrylo to channel their inner-Ostertag. And then we'll be back in the promised land.