Should we be looking at the draft??

[Wurider05]

If we do get the top pick in the draft and take Durant or Oden, we are not at the point to wait on these guys to develop. Both guys are going to need to put on weight and probably 2-3 years to develop. We can't afford that anymore. We need to add veterans to this team who are proven. For instance I like the idea that we are trying to get Ridnour from the Sonics. He is a veteran we know what he can do for us. I think that we should not obtain anymore young talent. We don't have time to wait for them to develop. We need to start winning ASAP.

[vdunkndunk]

I think Oden would actually make a more immediate impact for us than any free agent center would could get. Durant may take a little while before his defense comes around, and it may even take him a while on offense, but I think he's so talented we'd have to take him too if we got the chance. But I would maybe think about trading the 3rd pick if we could get a nice established player.

[Diesel]

Well, there's some rumblings about either one coming out. Durants father has recently been quoting as saying that he thinks his son will stay another year?

Still, with the way that this season is shaking out, we could use some bigs who can play defense, so Oden would be a welcome sight. So would Noah.

Should we beat all of our chips on them...

NO.

I think that FAcy has it's place and I would love to see us get a hold of Magloire at the trade deadline (for cheap). At least then, we have a bargaining chip.

Another guy who might be of interest is Petro. He's young, athletic and I think he'd fit in with our youth. I don't know if he has the abilities that we're looking for, but he's worth a try!

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

Well, there's some rumblings about either one coming out. Durants father has recently been quoting as saying that he thinks his son will stay another year?

---

Do you think Walter will admit he was wrong about tanking if neither Durant or Oden declare?

As for the topic at hand, I wouldn't trust too much in the draft. After the initial 4 or 5 people who have the "game-changer" capability touted (for the record, Joakim Noah will be a bigger bust than Shelden. It was commonly known that Shelden was a reach as the 5 spot , but Noah, while not as undersized as SW, has been perpetually a top three pick, and will bust hard) the draft is a pretty big crapshoot depending on who does and does not declare. And if Crittendon DOES declare, he'll be gone long before the Indy pick, leaving a bunch of risks at the PG position. While it's possible that a Marcus Williams or a Sergio Rodriguez will fall that far again, it's a lot more likely that we get a Rajon Rondo, when we'd be better served just taking a big risk on an unknown or trade the pick away for whatever.

Though if Thabeet keeps free-falling and end up at our spot (which I highly doubt, seeing as Sene barely cleared the top ten), he would absolutely be the right man for the team, raw as he is.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Do you think Walter will admit he was wrong about tanking if neither Durant or Oden declare?

---

...If neither Oden or Durant come out I will admit it would have been wrong to tank. I have no problem with this. I've never said that tanking ensures you anything. I've always said that this team isn't in any position to demand assurances. It is fatally flawed with an ownership crisis that precludes spending precisely when we're about to eat up our cap space and the team is without an impact pick to significantly improve itself. We are going to have to make a bold move here somewhere and tanking was bold and better than any other suggested.

Simply, you tank with the intel that you have, not the intel you wish you had. I am all but certain both Oden and Durant come out this year and have to base my desire to tank on that certainty. Of course, there are other players that would be very good. Brandan Wright for instance. A top 3 pick, even in a draft without Oden and Durant can bring back alot of talent. However, I wouldn't endorse tanking for Wright or top-3 pick trade value (minus Oden and Durant in the draft).

My question would be, if both Oden and Durant come out and we don't make the playoffs, will others admit they're wrong for not wanting to tank?

I see a few moral victories as significantly less impactful than even Brandan Wright or whatever a traded top 3 pick could get you added to your squad but of course tanking doesn't ENSURE either which is why I wouldn't endorse it in this case. However, certainly moral victories are FAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR less impactful than either of Oden or Durant and with one or both in the draft the odds are far greater of getting more out of tanking than the intangibles of not and not making the playoffs.

I'm certain others would cry about team morale following tanking. I believe team morale hits an all-time low in 1, 2, or 3 years when this team is essentially unchanged, continuing to lack a Pg, a post player, and a center of merit with at least of MW, JS, JC gone due to finances.

Quote:

---

Though if Thabeet keeps free-falling and end up at our spot (which I highly doubt, seeing as Sene barely cleared the top ten), he would absolutely be the right man for the team, raw as he is.

---

YES! We should really consider trading up for Thabeet. Resign Deke to tutor him for a year or two.

W

[BusBoyIsBack]

So if Durant and Oden come out we are wrong for not taking if we miss the playoffs?

What unbelievably sh*tty logic.

How about having something to build off of next year. You think a terrible team just goes from terrible to instantly making the Finals?

It doesn't work like that especially when you build a team from the ground up. You edge closer and closer to the playoffs and then when you get to the playoffs there is another level you have to climb.

To think that our season is a failure if we don't land Durant or Oden is absurd.

We have confidence going into the season next year and more importantly our young pieces actually have reason to re-sign with this team.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

So if Durant and Oden come out we are wrong for not taking if we miss the playoffs?

What unbelievably sh*tty logic.

---

...it doesn't make it "sh*tty" or illogical.

Quote:

---

How about having something to build off of next year. You think a terrible team just goes from terrible to instantly making the Finals?

---

I happen to think that Oden or Durant would be everything much less something to build off next year. Don't you?

Quote:

---

It doesn't work like that especially when you build a team from the ground up. You edge closer and closer to the playoffs and then when you get to the playoffs there is another level you have to climb.

---

That other level is the problem. Look at GS for the past 4 years. Look at the Clippers. Look at Washington. Memphis and Boston, both recent playoff or near playoff teams realize this and are tanking like a pro. It's not getting to the playoffs that's the goal or the hard part. It's becoming a contender and hopefulling a champion. Reaching "another level" takes mediocre bound teams draft currency, incredibly well utilized cap space, or a VERY fortunate trade in that order as fewer impact FAs leave their orignial teams these days and trades usually involve (soon to be) has beens (which is the shock surrounding Gasol who is not).

Quote:

---

To think that our season is a failure if we don't land Durant or Oden is absurd.

---

It all depends upon how you define failure. I believe in the Don Nelson description of failure. It's mediocrity. Nothing worse than that in this league as you are too bad to ever win and too good to ever lose enough to gain the capitol to ever win.

Quote:

---

We have confidence going into the season next year and more importantly our young pieces actually have reason to re-sign with this team.

---

Again, as if Oden, Durant, or whomever we got for a top 3 pick wouldn't be 10 times the reason that playing on a mediocre, fatally flawed team would. We can't afford to resign all of them certainly.

W

[Popeye]

[Guest Walter]

...desperately overuse ignorant emoticons and attack them personally.

W

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

...desperately overuse ignorant emoticons and attack them personally.

W

---

Um, I'm on Walter's side on this one.

Yes, Walter is very stubborn, and very pessimistic about the current team, as well as most teams past. But he also knows more about basketball than probably 95% of the board, and unless you're going to make a well-thought out, in-depth refute to his point, he's not going to concede a thing. We've reached the point that the "beating a dead horse" emoticon is, in fact, "beating a dead horse."

And, for the record, Walter, I will not admit that tanking is a good idea if we finish this season out of the playoffs. If, by midseason next year we're not in position for a decent playoff birth, then THAT will prove that you were right and the current team does not have it in them to succeed. Fair enough?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

And, for the record, Walter, I will not admit that tanking is a good idea if we finish this season out of the playoffs. If, by midseason next year we're not in position for a decent playoff birth, then THAT will prove that you were right and the current team does not have it in them to succeed. Fair enough?

---

Most fair. I think that is a very reasonable time frame and can certainly respect this position. I'd be very happy to title a post "I was wrong about this team as designed. Where's my crow?" sometime in February of next year. I assuming then that even if we can't resign all our forward prospects we could at least trade one for similar value.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

...desperately overuse ignorant emoticons and attack them personally.

W

---

Um, I'm on Walter's side on this one.

Yes, Walter is very stubborn, and very pessimistic about the current team, as well as most teams past. But he also knows more about basketball than probably 95% of the board, and unless you're going to make a well-thought out, in-depth refute to his point, he's not going to concede a thing. We've reached the point that the "beating a dead horse" emoticon is, in fact, "beating a dead horse."

---

I'm definately a skeptic and after 9 losing seasons I feel it. I might even subconsciously choose to be skeptical here to temper the rampant faith-based enthusiasm. I am so accustomed to personal attacks in this forum. I appreciate the defense.

W

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

Yes, Walter is very stubborn, and very pessimistic about the current team, as well as most teams past. But he also knows more about basketball than probably 95% of the board, and unless you're going to make a well-thought out, in-depth refute to his point, he's not going to concede a thing. We've reached the point that the "beating a dead horse" emoticon is, in fact, "beating a dead horse."

---

Well here's the simple logic. We're closer to the 8th seed than we are to being in the lottery.

Even if we are in the lottery, we'd have to have the worst record in the NBA just to have a 25% chance of landing the 1st pick in the draft.

We are closer to a home playoff game than we are to that.

And anyone who knows the luck of this franchise knows there is no way in hell that our luck would be that good.

Also, it should be noted how hard our players are playing with our 2nd best player quickly blosomming making all this tanking talk ridiculous because obviously our team does not plan on doing this.

[Diesel]

Walter, let me put up a few of your quotes...

Quote:

---

I've never said that tanking ensures you anything.

---

Quote:

---

My question would be, if both Oden and Durant come out and we don't make the playoffs, will others admit they're wrong for not wanting to tank?

---

These two quotes are fighting one another. ON the one end Walt, you readily understand that tanking guarantees nothing at all. ON the other end, you want people to admit that not going for LUCK (while destroying the team) makes us wrong.

Shelly was one of the cutest girls in school we had gone out a few times, and the most we had ever gotten from Shelly was a friendly hug. Shelly was very conservative, on her way to college, was the president of the saving it for marriage club. She was still cute and fine.

Walt, are you wrong for not asking Shelly out to the prom?

The other issue...

Quote:

---

I've always said that this team isn't in any position to demand assurances.

---

Why not? If you're going to ruin the whole morale and psyche of the team, shouldn't there be some assurance that what you're doing will lead to something that helps the team either now or in the immediate future?

I understand the notion of high risk, high reward. However, sometimes, the risk is too high and the reward is too little. The fact that we MUST get one of the first three picks or lose out altogether makes tanking one of the stupidest suggestions ever made. The risk has become too high. The fact that Smoove and JJ are playing on such a high level right now means. THE risk has become too high. The fact that we're 6-4 in the last 10 and lots of tankers thought we would lose out in Feb...means that the risk has become too high. The fact that we have wins over Phoenix and LAC with our losses coming from league best Utah and Toronto says that the risk is too high.

Then when you see the Oden and Durant are the only players that's worth all this losing and they may or may not enter the draft... The reward is too low!

[bfwolf]

Quote:

---

Well here's the simple logic. We're closer to the 8th seed than we are to being in the lottery.

Even if we are in the lottery, we'd have to have the worst record in the NBA just to have a 25% chance of landing the 1st pick in the draft.

We are closer to a home playoff game than we are to that.

And anyone who knows the luck of this franchise knows there is no way in hell that our luck would be that good.

Also, it should be noted how hard our players are playing with our 2nd best player quickly blosomming making all this tanking talk ridiculous because obviously our team does not plan on doing this.

---

Just for the sake of accuracy:

If the season ended today, we'd be in the lottery. Obviously, we're not closer to being the 8th seed than being in the lottery, as you stated.

The idea that there is some sort of bad luck attached to the Hawks which would prevent us from winning the lottery is absurd.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

ON the one end Walt, you readily understand that tanking guarantees nothing at all. ON the other end, you want people to admit that not going for LUCK (while destroying the team) makes us wrong.

---

I admit there are no guarantees. However, there are probabilities! That is the sophisticated position you run from. Tanking well does ensure a significantly greater probability of success, just not guaranteed success. On your end you argue that moral victories ensure us a greater probability of success. You don't guarantee success this route do you?!? You'd be a foolish fool to.

Any "victory", moral or tangible, is helpful up to a point. I insist that the "point" with this current team given the current franchise restraints is at best mediocrity. Again, the point is and has always been about which avenue leads to the greater probability of title contention...not which side more likely acheives mediocrity or assures title contention (as that is not a credible position).

I don't need to respond to the rest. It's more of the same simpleton strawmanning you put forth in contrast to the tank position. I know you would never acknowledge that tanking is a viable option even if we finish say 7th or 8th and ceremoniously hand the pick over to Pheonix. I've not interested in "convincing" you Diesel as you consistently demonstrate an unsophisticated grasp of this argument whether intentionally or not.

W

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I admit there are no guarantees. However, there are probabilities!

---

You're like a kid with raffle tickets...

Yes, Walt, somebody has to win... But also there's 12 other teams that will lose.

If the worse record only has a 25% chance at winning... again, the risk is too high for the reward. Especially when the reward is still unknown.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

If the worse record only has a 25% chance at winning... again, the risk is too high for the reward. Especially when the reward is still unknown.

---

Walt's fundamental assumption, though, is that this team is not constructed to win "as is" and needs a big man to succeed. His point has been that the odds of getting a big man through free agency or trade is very small - so small that the odds are better of getting a big man with a top 3 pick in the lottery this year by tanking. Therefore, the relatively small odds of getting a top 3 pick are still better than the odds of really improving without winning the lottery and it makes sense to tank.

He won't disagree too much with your analysis of our odds (except that he doesn't see the #1 pick as being essential) but will disagree with your analysis of the value of our alternatives to tanking.

[Diesel]

The fundamental flaw in his thinking is this:

You risk too much for such minute odds.

If there was a 60% chance that we could get Oden, I might be on board.

If there was a 80% chance that we could get Oden, I'd be on board.

If there was a 60% chance that we could get Oden and a 90% chance that we'd fall into the top three either way, I might take those odds.

However, a 25% chance that we get Oden and a 35.8% chance that we fall out of the lottery altogether when we have the worst record in the league...

That's not going to fly.

The risk is too high.

There's a greater chance that we give Phoenix the 4th pick than we get Oden.

I haven't even begun to talk about the damage that it would do to the team win or lose the lottery. Like I have said before: You can't tell the team that you suck one year and then the next year tell them to go out and win...

So let's get to the question that has escaped us from the beginning

Can this team win without a dominant Big man?

The answer is yes indeed.

Right now, we're not in the time of dominant big men, so why do we need to go out and risk our team to get one. I think we ought to either pick up a cheap big, go after another big in trade or just play this hand out. Either way, we can surivive and we may even make the playoffs. As I look at some of the better teams:

Utah, Toronto, Phoenix... Do they have dominant Bigs?

If you want to call out Bosh, Boozer, and Amare, then let me call Smoove and re-ask the question...

This team is built to outrun and outdefense other teams. Let's play that hand out before we lay our hand down.

[Guest Walter]

Great shot! The strawman is dead.

Quote:

---

Yes, Walt, somebody has to win... But also there's 12 other teams that will lose.

---

No, there are 10 teams that "lose" (because it's about top 3), if we're one of those 10 we lose significantly more because we will have no pick with which to improve, and the probability of "losing" isn't stagnant, decreases significantly the more you lose, and even decreases to roughly 50% if your are bottom 3.

The odds of getting a similar top 3 talent in any draft in FAcy are all but nil and the odds of getting one through trade, while better than FAcy, cost you much of your existing talent and rely upon another team to help you.

Keep the strawman burning as it is the only thing lighting your path to nowhere.

W

[bfwolf]

Diesel, frankly, I am shocked at the kind of odds you would demand to make tanking worth it. MAYBE at a 60% chance at Oden? Maybe? Are you kidding me??? If we get Greg Oden, we are a guaranteed title contender for the next 10 years, and MAYBE you'd go for tanking if we had a 60% shot at getting him?