Bud traded A. Payne

[AHF]

1 minute ago, HawkItus said:

That is the wrong way to look at it.  You spent the pick.  You traded AP for 2 2nd rounders.  The wolves couldn't even get that now.  He is a depreciating asset.  Just forget about the #15 pick.    

It is a debacle to end up with two second round picks half a decade later after starting with the #15 overall selection.

If you pretend like we never had the pick that could have been Rodney Hood, Jusuf Nurkic, Clint Capela, Kyle Anderson, Jerami Grant, etc. and just look at trading a bust of a player then that it is a fine trade (as I mentioned earlier in this thread).  

That perspective is kind of like being psyched about watching Marvin Williams play for the Hawks.  If you ignore the fact that the Hawks passed on Chris Paul and burned the highest pick the team has had since 1975 on a role player, then you can really enjoy the marginal improvement that Marvin made each year as a contributing role player with the Hawks.  

If you learn to ignore the past, you can enjoy the value from wasted assets without the bitter regret! 

[Guest]

AHF would be a dreadful financial adviser with this perspective. It's a sunk cost, the "pick" ceases to be a "pick" when it turns out to be Adreian Payne. And talking about who else you could have should have maybe would have picked is using the benefit of information *not known at the time* to evaluate a past decision. Which is a big no-no since, yaknow, it wasn't known. We operate in a world of uncertainties and you use known information at the time, not something that is fundamentally unknowable.

It's ok to say the Hawks missed on the #15, except well it isn't that high of an expected value to begin with so it's not an egregious error. It's totally asinine to say the Hawks screwed up with the trade because 1) it freed up a good chunk of cap space and 2) no way Minnesota could get an equivalent dealright now.

[AHF]

58 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

AHF would be a dreadful financial adviser with this perspective. It's a sunk cost, the "pick" ceases to be a "pick" when it turns out to be Adreian Payne. And talking about who else you could have should have maybe would have picked is using the benefit of information *not known at the time* to evaluate a past decision. Which is a big no-no since, yaknow, it wasn't known. We operate in a world of uncertainties and you use known information at the time, not something that is fundamentally unknowable.

It's ok to say the Hawks missed on the #15, except well it isn't that high of an expected value to begin with so it's not an egregious error. It's totally asinine to say the Hawks screwed up with the trade because 1) it freed up a good chunk of cap space and 2) no way Minnesota could get an equivalent dealright now.

You just can't help but start all your posts with a personal shot, can you?  It is sad for someone as smart as you are to see you keep dipping into  one of the many variations of "that other poster must be stupid or ignorant" insults that you let loose in nearly every critical post.  

I've said at least twice on this thread that it was a good trade to get rid of Payne because it was a sunk cost.

This is like investing in a stock that tanks.  If you pay $20/share and buy 500 shares that costs you $10,000.  If the stock tanks to $4/share and you sell then you get $2,000 back.  If the stock continues to tank and ends up at $.50/share then you can look at it two ways.  From one perspective, you F'd up and lost $8,000.  That is picking Payne in the draft.  From the other perspective, you saved yourself $1,750 by getting rid of a bad stock before it lost even more value.  That is the Payne trade.

If you look at a financial adviser that keeps saving you $1,750 at the cost of $8,000 and think "Wow!  That was a sunk cost so I'm so happy he saved me that $1,750!" that is like being excited about how the whole Payne scenario went down.  If you look at that and say, "I'm happy to save the $1,750 but that was a huge mistake to lose out on the $8,000 to begin with" then that is like being ticked off because we pissed away the #15 overall selection and only ended up with the Minnesota trade in return.

[Guest]

Aw yeah, back in the saddle just in time for some good ol' HF v AHF schmack-talk.

[Guest]

"I understand sunk costs!!!"

--proceeds to make a post that demonstrates lack of understanding--

Fantastic!

--proceeds to make a tangential description of sunk cost, which implies Hawks are always bad at drafting--

Oh yeah, that Danny Ferry he kept screwing those picks up huh!?!?! Payne and Lucas and Jenkins yuuup. But what about Dennis? I guess he doesn't count, or something. That must be the takeaway here huh? It can't POSSIBLY mean that there's fundamental uncertainty which renders draft picks difficult to judge, huh?

--grumbles in another thread about THJ, dang huh they could have drafted someone else! -----forgets he just argued that Atlanta sucks at drafting though----

Dang the world is crumbling around us, this team makes so many bad moves we should have tanked since we are so good at drafting talent!

[Guest]

I also fail to see how saying one would be a poor professional in an unrelated field to what their actual profession is can be thought of as a personal attack. Lawyers aren't financial advisers, different skill sets and it's more likely happenstance that an attorney could also be a strong quantitative analyst.

I'm not a counselor or politician or kindergarten teacher (I'm thinking of Kenny in Half-Baked here). If someone told me I'd be dreadful at any of those, I'd just nod my head as probably the rest of this board would. I also wouldn't be offended because it's not an insult or meant as an attack.

[MaceCase]

All I know is that you'd both make horrible astronauts.  Yea, I went there, you non-astronaut ass s.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

All I know is that you'd both make horrible astronauts.  Yea, I went there, you non-astronaut ass s.

I dunno, in the words of Dr. Dre "I get plenty of ass, so call me an ass-tronaut"

..........

OK well call me an asstronaut because I'm an asshole whatever dude, you're not Webster's these words can mean many things.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MaceCase said:

All I know is that you'd both make horrible astronauts.  Yea, I went there, you non-astronaut ass s.

Not your best effort, sir.  Try again.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, hawksfanatic said:

"I understand sunk costs!!!"

--proceeds to make a post that demonstrates lack of understanding--

Fantastic!

--proceeds to make a tangential description of sunk cost, which implies Hawks are always bad at drafting--

Oh yeah, that Danny Ferry he kept screwing those picks up huh!?!?! Payne and Lucas and Jenkins yuuup. But what about Dennis? I guess he doesn't count, or something. That must be the takeaway here huh? It can't POSSIBLY mean that there's fundamental uncertainty which renders draft picks difficult to judge, huh?

--grumbles in another thread about THJ, dang huh they could have drafted someone else! -----forgets he just argued that Atlanta sucks at drafting though----

Dang the world is crumbling around us, this team makes so many bad moves we should have tanked since we are so good at drafting talent!

Understanding the concept of a sunk cost does not necessitate ignoring how that sunk cost came to be.   I don't take the position that picks are certain (they obviously aren't) or that Atlanta is inherently unable to draft but I do call a spade a spade when we fail to convert those picks into value. 

If the Hawks were financial advisers running a fund and picking stocks instead of players, they would have no business left anymore.  People would run from that craptastic track record.  Even with the change in "fund managers" the results have consistently under performed over the years.

You call out the Hawks GMs who have done a good job maximizing the value of our first round picks (there may be some moving parts here that I haven't correctly detailed as far as picks coming in or going out):

Stan Kasten - #4 (Al Wood), 5 (Jon Kontract), 10 (Keith Edmonson), 11 (Willis!!)), 19 (Billy Thomson), 21 (Dallas Comegys), 23 (Roy Marble) - I also give Kasten credit for trading for the draft rights to Nique here though he did not draft Drew who landed us the pick.

Pete Babcock - Even worse than Billy.  Good argument for being the worst drafter in NBA history.  Please don't make me recount this.

Billy Knight - Do we need to go here?  Nailed Horford and a few mid-first round picks.  Blew lots of lottery picks.

Rick Sund - #19, #24 -> Jeff Teague

Danny Ferry - #15, 17, 18, 23 -> Dennis + 1 pick between #15 and 2 second rounders years down the line

Wes Wilcox - Too early to rate.  #15 pick -> 2 2nd rounders + THJr

I will say that could change tomorrow.  We now actually employ more robust scouting resources and other key support systems for our GM. so there is nothing inherently bad about the Hawks or anything that prevents the Hawks from nailing the draft.  The historical results are just not there.

Probably the best case for getting good bang for our best picks in the draft is for Rick Sund, with Sund having only one hit but a limited number of picks.  Peachtree Hoops did a number of articles a few years ago on our GMs and used the "Goodman Scale" to conclude that our past GMs were collectively incompetent as far as picking winners in the draft.  I haven't researched the Goodman Scale enough to buy in (a quick glance makes it look like an ad hoc system to me) but I reach the same conclusion in looking back.

 

[Hawkmoor]

Its the Hawks.....................They went from blowing picks under Knight, to not caring about picks under Ferry/Bud.........

Edited April 12, 2016 by Hawkmoor

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, AHF said:

If the Hawks were financial advisers running a fund and picking stocks instead of players, they would have no business left anymore.  People would run from that craptastic track record.  Even with the change in "fund managers" the results have consistently under performed over the years.

Ah yes, because the draft is the only way to obtain players.

The Hawks sure did shit the bed with Carroll, Millsap, and Bazemore. SMDH. Terrible financial advisers!!!! Great egg-sample to prove your point! Wait, what is your point? It's slowly turning away from the original asinine statements you made.....

5 hours ago, AHF said:

It is a debacle to end up with two second round picks half a decade later after starting with the #15 overall selection.

Ummmm well errr see you say wha-ha-happen-was this wasn't a #15 pick traded for two 2nd rounders half a decade later because 1) Adreian Payne is a human being not a draft pick and 2) we also don't know the outcome on what the Hawks even receive.

See, you're saying "sunk cost" in other posts but yet when your argument surfaces it totally lacks an understanding of the concept. Then you go ahead and get pissy about how all these other players turned out:

5 hours ago, AHF said:

If you pretend like we never had the pick that could have been Rodney Hood, Jusuf Nurkic, Clint Capela, Kyle Anderson, Jerami Grant, etc. and just look at trading a bust of a player then that it is a fine trade (as I mentioned earlier in this thread).  

None of which were thought to be ranked ahead of Payne before the draft with a possible exception of Hood. None of which were actually touted by you as the selection we should make.....oh what *did* you actually have to say with respect to this pick anyhow?

On 6/27/2014 at 11:28 PM, AHF said:

I don't hate this pick.  With his length, athleticism and shooting he would have to be a tool on or off the court not to have a role in the rotation.  The two things I don't like about it are:  23 & PF.  Seems like we are getting a guy with a lot less growth potential who will be coming off the bench for a while for us.  While the frontcourt is the place you want to have excessive depth, it seems like we have a screaming need at the wing spot.  Thus, we are taking a "win now" player at a position of luxury (stretch PF) onto a roster that really isn't ready to win now.

 

Hopefully it will work out well, but I fear we are going to regret having passed on a stud wing that was available when we picked.  

 

Well, now that he is part of the Hawk family...welcome aboard Payne!

HHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......so who was the stud wing we passed up? The wang players taken afterwards were James Young (lolz, obviously who you were talking about at the time and likely "bust"), Gary Harris, Jordan Adams, Rodney Hood, PJ Hairston, Bogdan Bogdanovic, CJ Wilcox, and Kyle Anderson (is he a wang?). Of those, Harris and Hood are on the up-and-up enough to say they aren't "busts" while the rest are right about the same as Payne. Which should be a way to illustrate uncertainty (that's a hit rate of around 1 in 3) but instead you'll draw the conclusion of "see, I told y'all we'd be kicking ourselves for not grabbing that STUD WANG that I was clamoring for."

You see, after selecting someone you passed up a large pool of other players. What's more likely to produce the superstar, the selected player or the field? This is just like trying to determine who might win a tournament: Tiger Woods or the Field? Well, you're not going to have the ability to select a Tiger when you're sitting at #15. Which should be a way to illustrate that you're way more likely to observe a superstar after your draft pick than with the person you drafted simply because of the vast player pool as your alternative.

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Not your best effort, sir.  Try again.

Oh look, it's the Simon Cowell of the Squawk. 

You can kindly direct your opinions here:

 

But be sure to make room by getting your head out of there first

[AHF]

56 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

Ah yes, because the draft is the only way to obtain players.

The Hawks sure did shit the bed with Carroll, Millsap, and Bazemore. SMDH. Terrible financial advisers!!!! Great egg-sample to prove your point! Wait, what is your point? It's slowly turning away from the original asinine statements you made.....

Ummmm well errr see you say wha-ha-happen-was this wasn't a #15 pick traded for two 2nd rounders half a decade later because 1) Adreian Payne is a human being not a draft pick and 2) we also don't know the outcome on what the Hawks even receive.

See, you're saying "sunk cost" in other posts but yet when your argument surfaces it totally lacks an understanding of the concept. Then you go ahead and get pissy about how all these other players turned out:

None of which were thought to be ranked ahead of Payne before the draft with a possible exception of Hood. None of which were actually touted by you as the selection we should make.....oh what *did* you actually have to say with respect to this pick anyhow?

HHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......so who was the stud wing we passed up? The wang players taken afterwards were James Young (lolz, obviously who you were talking about at the time and likely "bust"), Gary Harris, Jordan Adams, Rodney Hood, PJ Hairston, Bogdan Bogdanovic, CJ Wilcox, and Kyle Anderson (is he a wang?). Of those, Harris and Hood are on the up-and-up enough to say they aren't "busts" while the rest are right about the same as Payne. Which should be a way to illustrate uncertainty (that's a hit rate of around 1 in 3) but instead you'll draw the conclusion of "see, I told y'all we'd be kicking ourselves for not grabbing that STUD WANG that I was clamoring for."

You see, after selecting someone you passed up a large pool of other players. What's more likely to produce the superstar, the selected player or the field? This is just like trying to determine who might win a tournament: Tiger Woods or the Field? Well, you're not going to have the ability to select a Tiger when you're sitting at #15. Which should be a way to illustrate that you're way more likely to observe a superstar after your draft pick than with the person you drafted simply because of the vast player pool as your alternative.

The #1 player for the entire class with 8.2 win shares is Rodney Hood.  He is the obvious miss.  2 years younger, plays a position where we had a screaming need, and actually worked out.  He was also generally rated higher by the eggsperts.

http://www.nbadraft.net/2014mock_draft

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2014/list/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/draft/2014/06/22/common-sense-mock-andrew-wiggins-cleveland-cavaliers/11241409/

We went against the grain to get the older player with more limited upside at a position where we had plenty of talent.  I had hoped that Bud saw something in Payne that would bring an athletic stretch forward to the team that he could use immediately.  And then from Day 1 he blew chunks.

That cannot be qualified as anything other than a bad miss.  If you are going with an older player, you should at least have a greater degree of certainty and to miss that badly is embarrassing.

There is no way that pick is defensible except to resort to generalities about the uncertainties of the draft world.  I agree that uncertainty is there, but it doesn't excuse poor performance or render good performance meaningless.  It still doesn't change the fact that the Jazz acquired the #27 pick and got Rudy Gobert and then used the #23 pick to get Hood in consecutive drafts and the Hawks haven't hit on two first round picks that good outside of the lottery in consecutive years...ever.  Looking at the Hawks' draft history, I find it hard to find two consecutive years where we found two guys that good in the first round ever.  I think it is Teague/Horford and then you have to go back to the 1970's.

Utah gets the better grade.  Uncertainty is a part of the draft process but it doesn't reduce every team's performance to equal.  Misses still are bad things and misses where you ignore need and upside to draft a "safer"player and then miss badly are just brutal.  

Payne has the worst win share score of the entire class.  It is worse than people who have never played a game in the NBA.  60th of 60 picks.  With the #15 pick.  That is brutally bad.  Talk about vagaries of the draft process all you want -- that is just brutal. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, AHF said:

The #1 player for the entire class with 8.2 win shares is Rodney Hood.  He is the obvious miss.  2 years younger, plays a position where we had a screaming need, and actually worked out.  He was also generally rated higher by the eggsperts.

So then, why didn't you suggest this at the time oh wise one? You went with a blanket statement that would have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting, thus highlighting the uncertainty. Instead, you actually liked (errr...or "don't hate") the pick at the time to then only go back in time to say that it was an error. So it was an error at the time even though you agreed with it? Which is really about the only way to evaluate things here.

[AHF]

36 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

So then, why didn't you suggest this at the time oh wise one? You went with a blanket statement that would have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting, thus highlighting the uncertainty. Instead, you actually liked (errr...or "don't hate") the pick at the time to then only go back in time to say that it was an error. So it was an error at the time even though you agreed with it? Which is really about the only way to evaluate things here.

I don't claim to be infallible.  I am fully capable of blowing a draft pick.  If I had been drafting and passed on Mike Scott (as I would have as I am sure you remember)  that would be on me when he worked out as a pick.  I am only applying that same scrutiny to our actual GM.

You can't do worse than picking the guy who is #60 of 60.  When you are talking about the #57 pick, that is fine.  When you are talking about the #15 pick, it is not.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

I am only applying that same scrutiny to our actual GM.

Who didn't actually draft him ......

.... but did trade him.

You'd need to be taking Payne in conjunction with other Ferry picks: Jenkins, Bebe, Dennis, and Payne all within the same range. One out of four hit. That's not exactly egregious, especially if you believe the rumors that Ferry wanted Giannis and LD screwed it up for him. Somehow you've got this idear that you gotta hit all your picks and that's also the only way to build, but nah it's not. It's also so clearly not the way the current front office operates and you can argue yourself to death on what the front office should do, but no matter what your argument is it won't change what happens. It's waaay more interesting and enlightening to try and think about what they will do...

Nothing here jumps out as something to get your panties in a bunch. And nothing here should be boiled down to a #15 for two 2nd rounders since, like, that's not at all what happened.

 

And as the last tangent, should we even be results based or process based in analyzing decisions? Ya really should be attaching some loose probabilities associated with decisions instead of having a binary outcome of winning or losing a decision.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, hawksfanatic said:

Who didn't actually draft him ......

.... but did trade him.

You'd need to be taking Payne in conjunction with other Ferry picks: Jenkins, Bebe, Dennis, and Payne all within the same range.

You know I'm not blaming Wilcox for that pick and am blaming Ferry right?  You saw that I listed Payne with the other Ferry picks, right?

I am praising Budcox on this thread for turning a turd of a pick into some residual value and crapping on Ferry for putting us in a position where in less than a year we had to pull the rip cord and try to recover some diluted value for that bust of a pick.  For the Hawks organization, the combination of the two is a failure.

[NBASupes]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

You know I'm not blaming Wilcox for that pick and am blaming Ferry right?  You saw that I listed Payne with the other Ferry picks, right?

I am praising Budcox on this thread for turning a turd of a pick into some residual value and crapping on Ferry for putting us in a position where in less than a year we had to pull the rip cord and try to recover some diluted value for that bust of a pick.  For the Hawks organization, the combination of the two is a failure.

Ferry biggest d*ck move was the failure to sign Carroll for more than two years.

[NBASupes]

I know I will catch hate but why not bring back Marvin