To tank or not to tank... that is the question that the Suns [and Hawksquawk members] ponder

[Admin]

Gordon has a 4 year, $58M contract max contract and just missed most of the last 2 seasons and has never performed at a level materially above where Harden was last season. Either way, it is a max extension so it literally can't get above that if a team other than OKC is signing him. I would definitely rather build around a true superstar plus 2 midlevel studs getting salaries significantly above 12M per (like Harden) than 4 guys in the 10-12 million range.

You can want that all day long and I'm not saying that I'm opposed to that, but is that more likely to happen than getting 4 non-superstar max level players to agree to play here? I mean we already have 2 of them plus good enough PG play from Teague / Harris / Lou and we'd just need to convince a couple of guys to take our ample cap space next year while the money is drying up elsewhere around the league with the few teams competing for the superstars. To me I just see it as far less likely that a Howard, Paul or Bynum agrees to play in Atlanta than an Iggy / Harden type of player so I'd rather be smart with our money and go after players whom we actually have a shot at signing.

[Admin]

Now could that team win a title? Probably not. Could they get to the EC Finals? Yeah, they probably could. But even THAT team is stockpiled with the "right" type of talent that you would find in the lottery and late in the 1st round. To build the "Detroit Model", you not only have to have a GM that knows what the hell he's doing, you also need a good to great coach who could maximize the talent on that roster. Drew couldn't coach that team.

We were able to beat or compete with the NBA Champions last year with A LOT less so yeah I absolutely think that team could win the title... in fact I don't even think you'd have to have a team quite that good.

[Admin]

A couple of problems with the Team Model or Detroit Model...

For one, you have to build it. There is going to be a problem getting these guys to come play for us without overpaying them. Otherwise, they're going elsewhere. To sit here and talk about adding productive players at reasonable contracts implies that Atlanta is a preferred destination. Players want to win. The best follow the best. They may not pile up all on super teams, but they're going to look at us and ask what we have to offer.

We're not going to sell them on building a team of pretty good players and being competitive. They may not be Dwight Howard or Carmelo Anthony or Deron Williams, but they will follow suit much the same way. They'll ask for SnT's to their preferred destinations. The only way we'll get them is by overpaying. The only other argument here is that we'll be signing max free agents...in which case, we're back to square one and nobody is debating that point. We're still going after max quality guys (whether it be draft or FAcy).

The other big problem here is the pudding...or rather, the proof in it. These good but not great teams compete. No matter how you build your competitive team, you're still talking about Mookie/Smitty/Deke or Joe/Al/Josh. You're not talking about building a serious contender or a team that can go deep in the playoffs. You're talking about the same kind of team we've trotted out on the court for the past 20 something years.

Unless you are now talking about the actual Detroit Model...in which case, you're still off. That team won because it was supremely talented. It was not a fluke and honestly, they don't get the credit they deserve - offensively or defensively. To replicate that team, you'll need Ben Wallace. While I have personally argued that Josh Smith could be a better Ben Wallace, the fact is...he has yet to show any interest in being that kind of player. What he's going to give you is great production on both ends...but he's going to kill you with inopportune shots and turnovers. Lots of them. You can't have that Detroit Model and have Josh playing that way too. You also need a Billups/Hamilton backcourt in their prime, but personally, I don't think this warrants discussion.

So the short of it is: we'll have to overpay for average talent or pray that someone wants to be here and not with a better organization or a more talented core. Both counter the building the "good" team method. Even if you build the "good" team, you're still hitting a 2nd round ceiling. That has been the case in the NBA for as long as any of us have been watching. You need an engine...not just a bunch of good parts. Lastly, I think people vastly under appreciate how talented that Detroit team was.

BTW...San Antonio is still San Antonio. No matter how old those guys are. That team has ran in the NBA's dominant circles for eons now. They know how to play and more importantly, they know how to play together. We'd have to build that team in it's prime first and let it settle into what it is today. In it's prime, you're still looking at anchoring that team with one of the best players in the league.

So what is your solution? We're not going to be in a position to draft a superstar. We're unlikely, based on our history, to sign a superstar in FA, and we'd have to give up talent that we already have to be able to trade for one. So do you just refuse to sign an 'A-' level player (like an Iggy / Harden) while you allow the team to get worse and sink into the lottery?

For those that think the team model doesn't work, provide a working and plausible alternative as I'd love to hear it.

[frosgrim]

I don't like the Detroit model. That championship was won more because the Lakers hated each other than what Detroit was doing. Shaq and Kobe were tryint to prove they were the MAN on that team and I suspec that lockeroom was highly divided as well. Detroit was a very good team and exploited that rift, but if Kobe and Shaq were actually playing team ball, Detroit would have been SMOKED, like 4-1.In terms of the alternative routes. Gotta try and trade for a guy and convince him this is the place to be, e.g. DH12. Get him, get him to recruit one more guy, and now you have a shot.In terms of building the roster with a group of good but not great, see the current version of Detroit as the parable of what NOT to do. Gordon and Villanueva were AWFUL signings, but Detroit had cap space they were determined to use to pull together the sum is greater than the parts team, la duex.

[Admin]

I don't like the Detroit model. That championship was won more because the Lakers hated each other than what Detroit was doing. Shaq and Kobe were tryint to prove they were the MAN on that team and I suspec that lockeroom was highly divided as well. Detroit was a very good team and exploited that rift, but if Kobe and Shaq were actually playing team ball, Detroit would have been SMOKED, like 4-1. In terms of the alternative routes. Gotta try and trade for a guy and convince him this is the place to be, e.g. DH12. Get him, get him to recruit one more guy, and now you have a shot. In terms of building the roster with a group of good but not great, see the current version of Detroit as the parable of what NOT to do. Gordon and Villanueva were AWFUL signings, but Detroit had cap space they were determined to use to pull together the sum is greater than the parts team, la duex.

Detroit made horrible decisions with their money and with their draft choices. I don't like the term of saying 'The Detroit Model' with their championship team either as I have no desire to see us play like the Pistons did, although I agree with the poster above who said they are under valued now. I guess it's been so long that people forgot how good they actually were though. I'd love to be able to trade for a superstar and sign another but that doesn't guarantee you squat either. Look at the Thunder and their squad of 2 surefire and possibly 3 superstars and the beat down they took in the finals. The Knicks have 2 superstars and they're no better than we were last year. You can find examples to support or criticize the superstar or team model all day long but the bottom line is that either way we go, we're not guaranteed anything, regardless of which model we follow.

[AHF]

The Knicks have 2 superstars and they're no better than we were last year.

The Knicks have zero superstars. Amare never was a superstar and is less now. Chandler is a great defender but has never been confused with a superstar with his one season as a third team All-NBA guy. Carmelo is one of the most overrated names in the game but I see him as closer in value to Al Horford than Lebron James. (You clearly don't think he is a true superstar either given that you passed on him with the 24th pick in our summer dynasty draft.) They aren't the example to use but if you want to use them as an example of a team for the type you want to build I actually think that works if they just matched Lin: Camelo Amare Chandler Lin They will end up spending some real dollars on the bench to give you the depth that you want on your 10-12 million model team and you have the exact kind of core of a team like the one you are looking to put together. It isn't a team with a superstar but is a team with a core of 4 guys whose value is close to 10-12 million per season. That isn't championship material, IMO. Edited July 31, 2012 by AHF

[Admin]

The Knicks have zero superstars. Amare never was a superstar and is less now. Chandler is a great defender but has never been confused with a superstar with his one season as a third team All-NBA guy. Carmelo is one of the most overrated names in the game but I see him as closer in value to Al Horford than Lebron James. (You clearly don't think he is a true superstar either given that you passed on him with the 24th pick in our summer dynasty draft.) They aren't the example to use but if you want to use them as an example of a team for the type you want to build I actually think that works if they just matched Lin: Camelo Amare Chandler Lin They will end up spending some real dollars on the bench to give you the depth that you want on your 10-12 million model team and you have the exact kind of core of a team like the one you are looking to put together. It isn't a team with a superstar but is a team with a core of 4 guys whose value is close to 10-12 million per season. That isn't championship material, IMO.

Perhaps Amare isn't a superstar anymore, but he certainly was (22 / 9 career averages) and Carmelo is absolutely a superstar and has been for years. Just look at what he's been doing in the Olympics and tell me he's not at least close to the player that Durant is. A healthy Knicks team last year gave Miami all sorts of trouble and if Miami are the golden standard right now for what is championship material and what you're saying about NY being a similar model to what I'm talking about building then you're kind of proving my point that it can work. The only trouble is that Carmelo is far better than anyone on our team and they have 2 guys making 20 million and that certainly won't work here. Regarding our summer draft, I would have taken Carmelo in a heartbeat but there's so few quality starting 7' C's that I had to grab one.

[AHF]

Perhaps Amare isn't a superstar anymore, but he certainly was (22 / 9 career averages) and Carmelo is absolutely a superstar and has been for years. Just look at what he's been doing in the Olympics and tell me he's not at least close to the player that Durant is. A healthy Knicks team last year gave Miami all sorts of trouble and if Miami are the golden standard right now for what is championship material and what you're saying about NY being a similar model to what I'm talking about building then you're kind of proving my point that it can work. The only trouble is that Carmelo is far better than anyone on our team and they have 2 guys making 20 million and that certainly won't work here. Regarding our summer draft, I would have taken Carmelo in a heartbeat but there's so few quality starting 7' C's that I had to grab one.

I think there is quite a big difference between Durant and Carmelo and consider only the former to be a superstar. I can tell you that if your best player is Carmelo, I don't think you are likely to seriously contend for a title. Carmelo's ideal scenario is the olympics where all his faults can be covered up by superior players doing the heavy lifting and Carmelo can nail mid range jumpers and use his range of offensive moves without significant defensive pressure. In addition to Durant being a significantly better defender, Durant is both more prolific at scoring and MUCH more efficient than Carmelo. That makes a huge difference. Carmelo is better than but closer to Joe Johnson than he is to Durant (not a compliment). I don't consider the Knicks to be legit contenders next season.

[Wretch]

So what is your solution? We're not going to be in a position to draft a superstar. We're unlikely, based on our history, to sign a superstar in FA, and we'd have to give up talent that we already have to be able to trade for one. So do you just refuse to sign an 'A-' level player (like an Iggy / Harden) while you allow the team to get worse and sink into the lottery?

For those that think the team model doesn't work, provide a working and plausible alternative as I'd love to hear it.

My solution....

1) Do not rule out anything. Not free agents. Not the draft. Not someone rising to be our new star.

2) Evaluate pros and cons of lottery vs. 1st/2nd round beating. Both are bad, only one has the chance to be better. I will chose the draft over dicking around in the playoffs with a mediocre team.

3) Add talent that could support a major star, but keep caproom in case we get in a position to land one. This means, I'm not going to fill my roster with Joe Johnsons, Al Horfords, and Josh Smiths.

4) Do not fear change. Everybody is available for the right price.

5) Keep the team flexible so that when the time is right, we can make the right move.

That's how you do it. It's much like panning for gold. It takes persistence, patience, strategy, and a little bit of luck. Once you hit the pay dirt, that's when you set up shop and throw everything you've got at it. After all this time, we still don't get it. People still want to do this completely backwards. Get all the equipment, set it up, and invest all of your resources...and you're not on the money.

Do I have specific names? No. Because we all agree who the talents are and who aren't. I'd like to have quite a few of the guys listed here actually. Once I start studying the draft again, I'll tell you who I'd like to go after (I always have...). Though, the most important thing is sticking to the plan and not rushing. I think trying to field a competitive team is rushing and settling. It's trying to avoid being a bad team again for fear of being stuck there.

People keep throwing up these low statistics on drafts; It's even worse when you look at the draft as a whole and not just the lottery. However, you've got to see the big picture. It's not about building the next big 3 or drafting the next Ewing. The point is that you have GOT TO get your hands on a player. There is no way around that. This is the guy that puts asses in seats. He's the guy that draws the talent. This is the engine that drives you to the big games.

You're not going to get there without it. There's another guy who thought the Hawks could win without losing. His name was Pete Babcock and hearing him and Lenny Wilkens talk about it was where I first heard the phrase.

It turned out mediocre and set us back. We built the same kind of team again and we just imploded it. Now we're talking about doing the same thing AGAIN?

[Guest]

A problem with history is that people are continually tricked into thinking time is linear. What has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future, or at least trend in the same way. So people get confused and confounded that they think they are actually able to see trends when this could just be tea leafs.Anyone dismissing the Detroit model because of the past is being closed minded and fooled by time. Those that think the Detroit model is the future are equally foolish that they believe they can see something in the future. Someone who believes it is plausible for either the Detroit, superstar, or whatever else model is at least being realistic.Tank? No thanks, I understand probabilities and all it entails. I seem to remember posters on this board claiming back in 07 or 08 saying there were 3 legit franchise big men we should tank for: Oden, Noah, or Thabeet. Probably better ways of getting better than tanking to improve your chances on a lottery to then draft a player who is risky in becoming a good player. When you start multiplying probabilities, things get worse and that is what tanking entails. Yes it is a 25% chance for the 1st pick, what then think about the probability of that pick being a game changer.

[Vol4ever]

Carmelo has the physical talent to be a superstar but be has the same problem between the ears as Josh Smith.

[yungsta]

I dont consider carmelo a superstar I just consider him an elite scorer but yall might have a different definition of a "superstar". Yall might say a superstar is someone who is better than your average all star.To me a superstar player is basically a franchise player. there are only about 5-6 of those in the league.

[Guest Walter]

Going back to tanking, there is a difference if this team were to tank and when the team did tank (perpetually unsuccessfully) earlier. Let's say Howard gets traded elsewhere and Harden resigns. Is this team able to retain the same cap flexibility for another year (although the FA class isn't that great)? Would JS resign regardless? Maybe, but we'd likely have to overpay him (without it gaining us Howard) costing up more cap space. What then?When we last "tanked" we didn't have ANY resources. However, if we were to trade JS and Horford we would have at least 2 more lottery picks and likely another 1-2 1st rd picks depending upon the salary we take on. This would be like us several years into our last rebuild. Not a great rebuild idea but not bad either. Face it. If several of the FAs no longer become options we may be heading that route. W

[Wretch]

A problem with history is that people are continually tricked into thinking time is linear. What has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future, or at least trend in the same way. So people get confused and confounded that they think they are actually able to see trends when this could just be tea leafs.

The only problem I have with this is it sounds like we want to ignore the past. From a pure analytical standpoint...this is bad. The past is your data. It's your method of establishing patterns and trends. You don't live in the past, but you can use it to avoid undesireable results. There is no mistaking what we've traditionally done and there is no denying the results.

Over a 40 year sample (discounting the expansions and whatnot), we are one of two teams that hold the distinction of not being able to advance to the final four...in ALL of professional sports. You can say many things about that, but it tells you one big thing: we're doing it wrong. Some common threads amongst all these eras:

[*]No true superstar

[*]Teams full of Tier 2.5/3 players (good but not great)

[*]HORRIBLE drafting

[*]Throwing away draft picks

[*]Bad contracts (Koncak, Ken Norman, Joe Johnson)

Now, how do we respond to that.....? According to some of you guys:

[*]We say, "screw a superstar. It's too hard to get one."

[*]We plan to fill the team with "good" players and create a "Detroit Model"

[*]We say, "screw the draft."

[*]We chase down teir 2.5/3 players, realize we have little to offer their championship dreams, and are forced to OVERPAY them into BAD contracts.

All of it's a gamble. This is the part that people just don't get. Trying to control every aspect of building a team is much like trying to control every aspect of the game itself. There are some things that you just can't plan for...and yet, you can't ignore them either. All I'm saying is that we have to take into account every aspect of rebuilding in order to do it right. My personal opinion is that building a legitimate core is priority #1. You don't build that with the kind of guys that aren't in that top tier of players.

When it's all said and done, while we try to ignore the obvious, SOMEBODY is going to sign those players. Those teams are going to attract the best free agents. They'll be on the tongues of all the players, fans, and media. ALL of this is an advantage to them. It means money, exposure, FAN SUPPORT. This is what an NBA player wants on top of wanting to WIN. Meanwhile, we'll continue to roll out a team that only a diehard fan could love.

When we meet these teams in the playoffs...no wait, FIRST we have to claw over the other middling teams out there because we won't be any better than the other 4, 5, 6 seeds out there. So IF we can manage to scrap it out with these guys, then we meet the teams that we've always met: Bulls, Knicks, Magic, Celtics, Pistons... What's going to happen is when we need a bucket, we don't have that guy that can get us one. We will get punched in the gut and we won't be able to punch back.

People will point out that we had a Superstar in Nique...and that we did. They will point out attendance flaws...which we had. They will point out failures...that we did endure. Funny though, how that is the closest we've been to the ECF's in 40 years. What's really sad when you think about it is that the ineptitude doesn't stop as just not being able to make the final four of the NBA. What's sad is that we haven't had a team strong enough to even CONTEND for a ECF spot.

[Guest]

You use the past as a means to avoid doing the same thing for your future.

[Admin]

Let me ask you "blow it up / tanking is the way / cannot win without a superstar" guys a question. Do you consider Dirk to be a superstar? Or more importantly, was Dirk at 33 years old a superstar? He put up 23 and 7 with pretty good efficiency, but he's a liability on defense and I'd argue that Josh Smith in 2011-2012 was overall just about as good of a player with his 19/10 and defensive impact. And yet the Mavericks were able to win a championship with Dirk being their best player and no "super" star on their team and really just a collection of good players around him, many who were already 30+ years old. Did Dallas blow it up or tank or anything like that prior to winning their championship and after years of failing in the playoffs? Heck no, they kept trying to add good players to the team until they found a mix that worked and they won as a team while making the most out of their less than ideal draft positions.

Now for me, I look at what the Mavericks did with that strategy and I cannot help but think that's the best thing for the Hawks, barring being able to add a superstar or two, which are at best a long shot.

And again, I want to re-post what I posted in the initial, umm post, about the extensive research that the Suns have done and hopefully that extensive research will resonate with those of you who believe your opinion is greater than the Suns.

http://www.nba.com/2...ls=iref:nbahpt1

"We went back and looked at all teams over the last 30 years and how they rebuilt," Sarver said. "The reality is that if you go bad for a few years to get good, there's no assurances you're ever going to get good. There are a few exceptions like Oklahoma City, but the majority of the teams have taken six to 10 years to rebuild."

[Admin]

Going back to tanking, there is a difference if this team were to tank and when the team did tank (perpetually unsuccessfully) earlier. Let's say Howard gets traded elsewhere and Harden resigns. Is this team able to retain the same cap flexibility for another year (although the FA class isn't that great)? Would JS resign regardless? Maybe, but we'd likely have to overpay him (without it gaining us Howard) costing up more cap space. What then? When we last "tanked" we didn't have ANY resources. However, if we were to trade JS and Horford we would have at least 2 more lottery picks and likely another 1-2 1st rd picks depending upon the salary we take on. This would be like us several years into our last rebuild. Not a great rebuild idea but not bad either. Face it. If several of the FAs no longer become options we may be heading that route. W

It would be difficult to retain the same flexibility year in and year out if we're not adding star players because we'd have to keep signing enough quality players to 1 year contracts to reach the minimum team salary allowed (which I believe is near $50 million) and keep having max times 2 cap space available the following year. We could trade Al and Josh for lottery picks... and then we'd get to pray that any of those lottery picks turns out even remotely as good Al or Josh. For me, I'd much rather keep those guys or trade them for proven NBA players, than to play the NBA lottery unless it was a last resort.

[Guest]

The only problem I have with this is it sounds like we want to ignore the past. From a pure analytical standpoint...this is bad. The past is your data. It's your method of establishing patterns and trends. You don't live in the past, but you can use it to avoid undesireable results. There is no mistaking what we've traditionally done and there is no denying the results.

No, if you think I said to ignore the past then you are reading something else. Now when you talk about trends you fall right into the pitfall I warned of, you are being fooled because you have an implicit assumption that time is linear. Trends? What trends? At some point in time people claimed trends in our weather lead to global cooling, now its warming, now its 3 superstars, then it was superstar...this is all a bunch of tea leafs when you start imposing trends. I have no problem with analysis that talks about the NBA today and what moves to be made based upon this. I do have a problem when people start digging up the past and essentially LOL the idea of the Detroit model because it didn't work. Or LOL the notion that the early 90 Trailblazers could have won the championship. Or start rambling off lists of past superstars winning. Its pointless when you try to draw a trend which is what a lot of this thread has in it. /rant

[Admin]

No, if you think I said to ignore the past then you are reading something else. Now when you talk about trends you fall right into the pitfall I warned of, you are being fooled because you have an implicit assumption that time is linear. Trends? What trends? At some point in time people claimed trends in our weather lead to global cooling, now its warming, now its 3 superstars, then it was superstar...this is all a bunch of tea leafs when you start imposing trends. I have no problem with analysis that talks about the NBA today and what moves to be made based upon this. I do have a problem when people start digging up the past and essentially LOL the idea of the Detroit model because it didn't work. Or LOL the notion that the early 90 Trailblazers could have won the championship. Or start rambling off lists of past superstars winning. Its pointless when you try to draw a trend which is what a lot of this thread has in it. /rant

So what path would Hawksfanatic take from today as GM of the Hawks?

[Sothron]

No, if you think I said to ignore the past then you are reading something else. Now when you talk about trends you fall right into the pitfall I warned of, you are being fooled because you have an implicit assumption that time is linear. Trends? What trends? At some point in time people claimed trends in our weather lead to global cooling, now its warming, now its 3 superstars, then it was superstar...this is all a bunch of tea leafs when you start imposing trends. I have no problem with analysis that talks about the NBA today and what moves to be made based upon this. I do have a problem when people start digging up the past and essentially LOL the idea of the Detroit model because it didn't work. Or LOL the notion that the early 90 Trailblazers could have won the championship. Or start rambling off lists of past superstars winning. Its pointless when you try to draw a trend which is what a lot of this thread has in it. /rant

I hardly think it can be called a "trend" when the entire length and breadth of NBA history shows two teams that won a title without a superstar. A "trend" is the Run N Shoot offense in the NFL in the 90's or the plethora of zone blitzing in the 90's on defense. That is a trend. When every single NBA champion in history with the exception of two teams (that never repeated as champions) had at least one superstar then you can safely call that a rule of thumb.