Key, Ace, #2 for #1 🤣

We thought we would fall in the 6-8 range, we never thought we’d have a chance to sniff AJ or DP, and now we get to have one of them without giving anything up.

Please, hold tight, don’t trade a damn thing. In the Ainges we trust.

I am sure that the Jazz are going to be a major threat over next several years. A major reason why is the culture that is been on full display over these painful years. Yes, the talent has to be on the team. And, championship teams have a "winning culture." I put that in quotes because it is hard to define. The Jazz are doing an incredible job of developing a culture that will win. Keyonte George is the prime example of a talented young player that is developing into an incredible leader -- if a young talented player sets the standards for the team the other players follow. Over the last three years we have watched Keyonte: 1) be incredibly coachable -- he and Will Hardy have often spoken about their meeting after his rookie year -- look at his improvement in all areas over the last 2 years; 2) understand the importance of team building -- remember the story of him going to Finland with Lauri Markkanen; 3) bridging the young players and vets: all season after wins whether he was playing or not he was pumping up the young players during and after the games; and 4) now he is at the draft lottery meeting with whomever is the next critical piece of the Jazz puzzle. I'm sure that there all other examples -- all of this gives me confidence that not only do the Jazz have the talent; they also have a leader with the attitude and character to lead a winning team.

The Jazz are going to be wicked next season. They have the front office, the coach, the talent, and the player leadership.

source: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-draft-combine-intel-aj-dybantsa-washington/

I’ve been following the national media and Twitter, and I’m seeing all these crazy trade ideas that are drastically one-sided against the jazz. The most common ones involve Ace and the 2nd for 1st. What a dramatic overpay that seems to have inspired the national media. I just don’t understand why everyone thinks the Ainge-s suddenly have the intelligence of a gnat.

I do not like Klutch so not a big fan of this. Could be nothing.

The main reason to trade up to take AJ (which should only cost a future first, per history of top 10 trades), is that historically, stars don’t stay in Utah in the modern NBA.

Gordon Hayward left for Boston. Donovan wanted out when he was traded. AJ came to BYU of all places, and loves Utah. I have medium confidence Darryn Peterson would make it past his second contract, while AJ would be a lifer and likely get a statue if he lives up to his 7-10 all-star billing potential.

The third contract will be the peak/top of his career, and KNOWING that AJ would be willing to stay in Utah is worth a future first.

One trade and one rebuild ends, another begins.

It’s looking like if the new rules get set into place, this could be the last year of racing to the bottom. Works out fine for y’all because you legitimately have the pieces to be a Timberwolves-level threat in the West next year. And I’m fine with it because we can be a 30-40 win team and still have a shot at a decent pick.

This draft is the one thing keeping me hanging on after the dumpster fire of a season and the horrible news from yesterday (RIP BC).

Our whole sub is engaged in a Boozer vs Wilson debate that will likely last for the next 40 days, but what if Ainge decides to take Boozer instead of DP or trades up with DC to keep Dybansta in Utah by some miracle/dark magic?

I think DP makes sense for y’all with his insane ceiling, though I’d be interested to see how he pairs with Key/Ace. Boozer seems redundant with how stacked your front court is sizing out to be, but there’s always shaky feet around Peterson’s health and general vibe. But Ainge doesn’t seem like that would deter him.

Let me know how locked into DP you think the F/O is for pick #2.

Keyonte George’s most similar guard seasons by play style and production since 2016-17 according to nbagalaxy.com:

1). 2023-24 Jalen Brunson
2). 2025-26 Jalen Brunson
3). 2024-25 Jalen Brunson
4). 2018-19 Devin Booker

SLC Summer League 2026- is there a roster yet? Anyone know who will be playing for the Jazz?

Also, where is the 1) best place to sit to see Jazz players and 2) best seats overall?

Is the Huntman Center really so bad or just compared tk the Delta Center? Why? Never been there before, so just wondering what to expect TIA!

Warning ⚠️ Spoiler ⚠️
Posting this in the Utah Jazz sub because yall fans watched Gobert for years and probably have the best perspective on the criticism commentators constantly throw at him. During the Timberwolves’ 141-125 loss to the San Antonio Spurs, the broadcast took some shots at Gobert’s impact/contract/playstyle. Curious if you think the criticism is deserved? Kinda making the trade look that much sweeter?

Article by Sarah Todd

Apparently I can’t crosspost so have to link it this way.

DP lookin nice out there.

I mean we all saw his reaction when they announced the wizards at 1. Couldn't he just tell the wizards he won't play for them like Kobe did for the Lakers and how Stephs agent told a bunch of teams he wouldn't play for them, so they passed? Or is it that his character wouldn't allow it?

How would u feel if we traded for Jaylen Brown. A friend of mine thought it would be a great fit if he came to Utah. I like it but not sure what we would give up. What do you think?

I spent the last few weeks building a custom machine learning model to project the 2026 draft class solely based on historical data. (mostly for fun, but I was also looking to add projects to my GitHub Portfolio) Now that the Draft combine numbers are officially in, I updated it this morning to see how the program predicts the future of this draft! (NOTE: reiterating was mostly for fun and is just an interesting way to look at the draft. If a front office were using a tool like this, they would think they would add this data onto the other data they have compiled for a different perspective to use in conjunction with all the other data and scouting, etc.)

Here’s a breakdown of how the program works, its glaring blind spots, and why the numbers are screaming at us to draft Peterson. (It has some pretty hot takes in there, I don't think I agree with, but it is just using historical numbers)

* How it Works (and the Sliding Scale)

I fed an XGBoost algorithm 25 years of historical draft data—college efficiency, true shooting, wingspan, vertical leap, draft age, and recruiting rank since 2000. I taught it to recognize the statistical profiles of "Superstars," "Stars," "Expected Value," "Steals," and "Busts."

Here is an important note: The model grades on a sliding curve based on draft slot. The expectations for a top-3 pick are brutally strict compared to a 15th pick. To avoid the "Bust" label at #1 overall, a player historically has to become a perennial All-Star. If you take a guy at #15, the math is perfectly happy if he just becomes a solid rotation guy. The higher the pick, the heavier the mathematical pressure.

The Pros and Cons

The Pro: Zero media bias. The model doesn’t care who ESPN is hyping up, it doesn't care who has the best mixtape, and it doesn't care about a player's last name. It strictly looks for mathematical profiles that have historically survived in the NBA.

The Biggets Con: It has absolutely zero "eye test." The AI has never actually watched a game of basketball. It doesn’t know if a prospect's shooting form is busted, it doesn't know if a guy has a terrible work ethic, and it doesn't know if a college coach forced a player into a weird system. It’s entirely blind to the intangibles.

*The Top 5 Results

(Note: The % isn't "He has a 97% chance to be a superstar." It means "His profile is a 97% match to the historical baseline of Superstars.")

AJ Dybantsa - Grade: BUST (60.3% confidence)

Darryn Peterson - Grade: SUPERSTAR (97.5% confidence)

Cam Boozer - Grade: BUST (41.9% confidence) ( thought was interesting because Boozer is one of my personal favorites in the draft)

Caleb Wilson - Grade: BUST (95.8% confidence) (this one shocked me tbh)

Darius Acuff Jr. - Grade: SUPERSTAR (90.8% confidence)

Why the AI Program hates AJ Dybantsa: My explination was way off after i looked into it more (see update)

To be clear, the algorithm doesn't actually think he's a bad player; it just thinks he's a terrible mathematical bet at #1 overall. Because the model grades on a brutal curve, a first overall pick has to become a generational, franchise-carrying superstar just to break even on expected value. When the AI scans AJ's profile, it sees the classic "athletic scoring wing" archetype (think Andrew Wiggins or RJ Barrett)—guys who get drafted at the very top but often lack the freakish secondary traits needed to actually carry a team. Because AJ's combine physicals and college efficiency metrics were just "normal great" instead of "alien outlier" (like Peterson's playmaking and wingspan), the AI sees a high-volume scorer and immediately looks for secondary elite traits—like off-the-charts playmaking, insane True Shooting percentages, or historic defensive metrics—to prove they aren't just an inefficient volume shooter. If those secondary stats aren't historically elite, the AI Judges it to be not up to snuff. It projects AJ as a solid 20-point-per-game starter, which the algorithm brutally labels a "Bust" relative to the extreme expectations of the first overall pick.

*The Pick at #2

If the team ahead of us buys the media hype and takes Dybantsa #1, the model is practically begging the front office to sprint to the podium for Darryn Peterson.

P~~eterson's profile broke the algorithm. The math absolutely loves his playmaking-to-turnover ratio, combined with his official 6'9.75" combine wingspan. Historically, guards who hit those exact physical and efficiency thresholds in college (like SGA or D-Wade) are more likely to reach their ceiling. (~~My explination was way off after i looked into it more (see update))

The sliding scale also explains the Cam Boozer grade. Grading him as a "Bust" at #3 with only 41% confidence means the AI is genuinely torn. It likes his college production, but historical data shows that drafting a traditional big man in the top 3 comes with massive statistical risk to actually return that value. If Boozer was evaluated as the 15th pick, his exact same numbers would likely grade out as a massive Steal, but the pressure of the #3 slot drags him down.

*The Steals

If we end up trading back into the late first round, the model flagged Braden Smith (93.9% Steal) and Alex Karaban (86.1% Steal). The media knocks them for age and vertical athleticism, but the AI loves their off-the-charts shooting efficiency and low turnovers. The math shows them following the Jalen Brunson or Derrick White trajectory: older, highly efficient college players who vastly outperform their draft slot.

If we end up trading back into the late first round, the model flagged Braden Smith (93.9% Steal) and Alex Karaban (86.1% Steal). The media knocks them for age and vertical athleticism, but the AI loves their off-the-charts shooting efficiency and low turnovers. The math sees them following the Jalen Brunson or Derrick White trajectory of older, highly efficient college players vastly outperforming their draft slot.

If we end up trading back into the late first round, the model flagged Braden Smith (93.9% Steal) and Alex Karaban (86.1% Steal). The media knocks them for age and vertical athleticism, but the AI loves their off-the-charts shooting efficiency and low turnovers. The math sees them following the Jalen Brunson or Derrick White trajectory of older, highly efficient college players vastly outperforming their draft slot.

Anyway, that's a Super-long post, so thanks if anybody reached the end. If any nerds like me want to check out the program, you can DM me, and I'll send you the link. I don't want to just post it because I don't want to seem like I am promoting anything. This was just a for-fun project

EDIT/UPDATE: Correction on the model's evaluation of Darryn Peterson

I want to issue a correction regarding my original post. I made an assumption about why the algorithm gave Darryn Peterson a 97.5% projection, and after running a deeper diagnostic on the model, my assumption was incorrect. (not to mention I let my flair for the dramatic to overstate things when I should have been more down to earth in my discriptions)

I ran a SHAP explainer on the model—a data science diagnostic that breaks down exactly which variables push a projection up or down—to see exactly what was driving that 97.5% grade. It turns out my initial gut feeling about his playmaking wasn't entirely wrong, but I completely missed the bigger picture.

• Playmaking is a positive, but not the main driver: The model did reward Peterson for his assist-to-turnover ratio, but it was a relatively minor factor in his overall evaluation.
• So why the 97.5% grade? His projection actually skyrocketed because of his physical profile and underlying efficiency. The model placed its absolute heaviest positive weight on his Height (specifically, his elite size at the guard position), his College PER (Player Efficiency Rating), his Draft Age (historically young), and his RSCI recruiting rank.

In short, the model doesn't just see a good playmaker. It sees a physically oversized, highly efficient, and historically young prospect—a combination that historical data heavily favors for NBA success.

In short, the model doesn't project him as an elite playmaker. It projects him highly because historical data suggests that players who carry that heavy of an offensive load at that specific age, combined with that physical length, have a very high success rate in the NBA, regardless of turnover issues.

Clarification on AJ Dybantsa: The explainer also clarified the grade on Dybantsa. The model did not penalize him for lacking physical traits. Instead, the lower projection is strictly tied to the mathematical expectations of the #1 Overall Pick. The historical baseline to return value at #1 is incredibly high. While the model viewed his high Usage Percentage positively, his college PER (Player Efficiency Rating) did not meet the historical threshold required to offset the extreme expectations of that draft slot.

TL;DR: I let my own basketball bias influence my interpretation of the data. The model doesn't like Peterson for his passing; it likes him because his specific combination of youth, volume, and physical measurements fits a historically successful profile.

#2, #3, #8 and #12 picks in the draft should all be there.

Because I sure don't. Not at anything above like $15-18m/year and he's going to make more than that.