Going to the dark side

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

San Antonio with Leonard.

How many chips have they won without Duncan again?  Zero?  What did Duncan do in the playoffs their last championship?  Lead the team with a 21.1 PER?  Lead the team with 3.2 playoff win shares?  So you are saying he wasn't a cornerstone to that championship.

Try to expand that long list of 1 team that doesn't even count.

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

How many chips have they won without Duncan again?  Zero?  What did Duncan do in the playoffs their last championship?  Lead the team with a 21.1 PER?  Lead the team with 3.2 playoff win shares?  So you are saying he wasn't a cornerstone to that championship.

Try to expand that long list of 1 team that doesn't even count.

Trying use your model and point out the MVP of the finals.  I can also use Miami since LeBron was the MVP of both finals there.  Same with Cleveland when he signed as a free agent there last year.

[NBASupes]

1 hour ago, Watchman said:

And with our #1 pick, we'll draft Andrew Bogut instead of Kevin Durant.  Bogut was considered a "can't miss" player.  However, he was at best a decent role player.  You could build some pretty crappy teams from all the #1 picks that didn't pan out.

No he wasn't, he was seen as the safe player. Marvin was the super potential guy. No one was can't miss in those drafts. We was bad during bad lotteries is what Atlanta issue with the first tank as well as bad management, development and coaching 

Edited June 1, 2017 by NBASupes

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

No he wasn't, he was seen as the safe player. Marvin was the super potential guy. No one was can't miss in those drafts. We was bad during bad lotteries is what Atlanta issue with the first tank as well as bad management, development and coaching 

Uh, yes he was seen as a 'can't miss' player.  The problem is people who advocate we tank chose to ignore the fact that guys like Bogut/Williams were considered 'can't miss' guys.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[NBASupes]

20 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Uh, yes he was seen as a 'can't miss' player.  The problem is people who advocate we tank chose to ignore the fact that guys like Bogut/Williams were considered 'can't miss' guys.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

They weren't. You are lying. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

They weren't. You are lying. 

Yes they were.  You are lying.

See how that works?

[AHF]

51 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Trying use your model and point out the MVP of the finals.  I can also use Miami since LeBron was the MVP of both finals there.  Same with Cleveland when he signed as a free agent there last year.

I guess if you want to arbitrarily change what I asked and answer a different question you can sleep better at night advocating treadmilling. 

 

The reality is that the Spurs built their championship foundation around MVP and Finals MVP Tim Duncan after winning less than 30 games and the Heat built their championship foundation around All-NBA and Finals MVP Dwyane Wade who is the reason that Lebron was willing to sign there.

Think he considered signing with Atlanta who didn't have an All-NBA/Finals MVP player?  

Don't think so.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Uh, yes he was seen as a 'can't miss' player.  The problem is people who advocate we tank chose to ignore the fact that guys like Bogut/Williams were considered 'can't miss' guys.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I don't ignore it at all.  Playing in the lottery gives you much, much higher odds than picking say 19th but it guarantees you nothing and the odds are still low.  Bogut was not considered a can't miss All-NBA type player but he was considered far and away the top guy in that lottery.  

Williams was not considered can't miss - he was considered high ceiling with a current relatively modest floor.  He was the guy who didn't start in college but had superstar potential.  

Again, we all know that in every sport that there is a very real bust rate even at the very top of the draft.  In basketball, the #1 pick isn't bulletproof but it is the most reliable spot in all of sports to land a very good player.  The %s on each pick after that fall pretty quickly.  By the time you get outside of the lottery the odds of getting a star worthy of building a contender around are dramatically lower still.

It is a very uncertain proposition.

Now ask me if the chances of us signing that MVP level player in FA is uncertain?  IMO, it carries none of the uncertainty that the draft does.  Instead, we know we aren't getting that player and you can be certain that banking on FA to land that cornerstone player who gets you a ring is a path of failure.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't ignore it at all.  Playing in the lottery gives you much, much higher odds than picking say 19th but it guarantees you nothing and the odds are still low.  Bogut was not considered a can't miss All-NBA type player but he was considered far and away the top guy in that lottery.  

Williams was not considered can't miss - he was considered high ceiling with a current relatively modest floor.  He was the guy who didn't start in college but had superstar potential.  

Again, we all know that in every sport that there is a very real bust rate even at the very top of the draft.  In basketball, the #1 pick isn't bulletproof but it is the most reliable spot in all of sports to land a very good player.  The %s on each pick after that fall pretty quickly.  By the time you get outside of the lottery the odds of getting a star worthy of building a contender around are dramatically lower still.

It is a very uncertain proposition.

Now ask me if the chances of us signing that MVP level player in FA is uncertain?  IMO, it carries none of the uncertainty that the draft does.  Instead, we know we aren't getting that player and you can be certain that banking on FA to land that cornerstone player who gets you a ring is a path of failure.

See, this is a well-articulated and thoughtful response.  Unfortunately many here are unwilling or unable to do the same.

The first difference I think you and I have is on the definition of 'can't miss'.  When I think 'can't miss', I'm thinking moreso of a guy that's expected to have a solid NBA career.  To me, if you get that from the top pick, then the pick was 'acceptable' although not exceptional.  Obviously you prefer the exceptional but that's dependent heavily on what year you happen to be drafting.

The problem I have is when people suggest we tear everything down to chase this uncertainty and act as if it's a sure thing that you end up with a HOF-level player in the end.  The reality is you're more likely to end up perpetually in the lottery.

It's like folks look back on 2005 and think, "Well, if we would've had the top pick then we would've had Chris Paul and he's a HOFer therefore tanking works".  No, it doesn't work that way.  The top pick was Bogut or Williams that year and anyone suggesting otherwise is practicing revisionist history.

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I guess if you want to arbitrarily change what I asked and answer a different question you can sleep better at night advocating treadmilling. 

 

The reality is that the Spurs built their championship foundation around MVP and Finals MVP Tim Duncan after winning less than 30 games and the Heat built their championship foundation around All-NBA and Finals MVP Dwyane Wade who is the reason that Lebron was willing to sign there.

Think he considered signing with Atlanta who didn't have an All-NBA/Finals MVP player?  

Don't think so.

By your logic...If LeBron signed with the Hawks 2 years ago and we won a championship, it would been because we drafted Al Horford in the Lottery?

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

By your logic...If LeBron signed with the Hawks 2 years ago and we won a championship, it would been because we drafted Al Horford in the Lottery?

You are reversing things.  If Horford was able to land LeBron I'd totally credit that even though Wade was a Finals MVP before LeBron arrived because I view landing those generational players as opening a gateway to recruiting other generational players.  If LeBron viewed Horford in that class and that was enough to land LeBron then that would be enough to get you a ring, IMO, and the Hawks would deserve to be counted.

Of course, Horford wasn't remotely close to good enough to entice LeBron.  When Wade recruited LeBron, Wade was coming off consecutive seasons on the All-NBA first team and All-NBA defensive team.  He was MVP of that year's All-Star game when he was recruiting LeBron.  He was a 5-time All-NBA player who had 5 times been in the top 10 of MVP voting including top 5 the prior two seasons.  

Horford's resume at that time?  1 All-Star game in which he put up 8 points and 4 rebounds (in the same game Wade had 28 points, 11 assists, 6 rebounds and 5 steals); 0 All-NBA appearances (he would get his only third team appearance the next season); 0 All-Defense teams; 0 MVP votes.

For LeBron, Wade was a difference maker to his championship prospects while Horford wasn't on the radar.

Two years ago, Horford was no more enticing but the prospect of signing up with lottery pick Kyrie Irving, lottery pick trade bait Kevin Love, and lottery pick Tristan Thompson was much more enticing.  It didn't take LeBron being a nostrodamus to see that Irving would be an impact playoff scorer and Love would make Al Horford his #*$&.

[Diesel]

On 5/31/2017 at 1:34 PM, Lurker said:

Patty Mills isn't really a PG. Although I suppose an OG that "moves the ball" is better than an actual "PG" in Diesel's head.

Those that think he's a PG need to go watch him with Australia. That brotha has it all as an OG and it's suppressed in SA. Dellavedova was running 90% of the offense with starters.

In Diesel's head, a shooter will make our offense work better. 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, kg01 said:

Yes they were.  You are lying.

See how that works?

Oh ya...what are you gonna do about it?...

(sorry got caught up in the 4th grade fight...im taking your tater tots kg)...

[Watchman]

8 hours ago, NBASupes said:

No he wasn't, he was seen as the safe player. Marvin was the super potential guy. No one was can't miss in those drafts. We was bad during bad lotteries is what Atlanta issue with the first tank as well as bad management, development and coaching 

"Safe?"  Safer than Durant?  Safer than Horford?

[AHF]

6 hours ago, kg01 said:

The first difference I think you and I have is on the definition of 'can't miss'.  When I think 'can't miss', I'm thinking moreso of a guy that's expected to have a solid NBA career.  To me, if you get that from the top pick, then the pick was 'acceptable' although not exceptional.  Obviously you prefer the exceptional but that's dependent heavily on what year you happen to be drafting.

I think by your definition, neither Bogut nor Williams missed.  Both have had solid NBA careers (they rank #5 and #7 in their class in career win shares for example).

Quote

The problem I have is when people suggest we tear everything down to chase this uncertainty and act as if it's a sure thing that you end up with a HOF-level player in the end.  The reality is you're more likely to end up perpetually in the lottery.

It's like folks look back on 2005 and think, "Well, if we would've had the top pick then we would've had Chris Paul and he's a HOFer therefore tanking works".  No, it doesn't work that way.  The top pick was Bogut or Williams that year and anyone suggesting otherwise is practicing revisionist history.

I look at it from the other direction.  I don't look back at drafts as you suggest with 20/20 hindsight and ask if a team could have hypothetically drafted a championship roster.  Instead, I look at what actual champions have in common.  For basically all of them it is a superstar.  How did they acquire someone good enough to be MVP or Finals MVP?  For nearly all of them, they won 20-29 games and drafted a cornerstone player and/or used the draft assets they acquired while sucking to trade for one.  Not a Horace Grant type but a true difference maker after sucking.  They built after that over a variety of time frames having that cornerstone player and quickly or eventually built the team up to championship caliber.  

So I see that and say that has been a viable path for teams to get a ring in the past.  Then I ask myself what are the other viable paths that have led to a championship and evaluate how realistic each of these are for Atlanta to execute.  The path that seems most viable to execute and most likely to lead to a ring is where I lean.

[BigDog90]

On 5/30/2017 at 3:30 AM, Spud2Nique said:

After a lot of thought, I'm going over to the dark side and joining those in favor of a complete rebuild and please hear me out before you let me have it.

 

The following reasons are why I've changed my mind and here they are:

 

1. We have no superstars. If we had a superstar or a star in his prime (sap no longer prime), I would say let's build. We have none and if history is any indication, we shouldn't bank on any coming here via free agency anytime soon.

2. We have a roster in which only 6 players are guaranteed to come back (Dwight, Dennis, Baze, Delaney, Prince and Bembry). From those, 2 were rookies last year and are very solid players (already a head start in the youth movement). Dwight and Baze are players that can't be relied on moving forward, so technically we could definitely try and use them as pawns for getting more picks or younger players or hold onto them until the deadline. But imo, its better to face your mistakes and correct the course rather than keep going down a wrong path.

3. We have a new GM in colonel Schlenk, who is known most for his ability to scout talent. Having been around greats like Don Nelson and Jerry West, you have to figure something rubbed off on the guy. Why not take advantage his ability to spot talent by giving him more weapons in terms of the draft. We already have 10 or 11 picks over the next 3 years so if he is indeed as good as indicated, he should be given the chance to show his stuff and find the right guys for Bud.

 

4. Our coach. Coach Bud can teach and coach players. We see what he did with DMC, Sap, Dennis, Prince. The guy excels at getting the best out of his players. I would love to see what he could do in grooming some young players from the very start, fresh out of college. 

 

5. Our past. I'll admit the biggest reason I never want to tank is because of what happened to us from 2000-2007. We absolutely stunk and I always think I never want to go back there again. But now that I think about it, I understand why it took us so long to rebuild, it's because we had an inept front office with Billy Knight and that ownership mess. There was a war within between 2 knuckleheads in Bruce Levenson and Knight. You cannot have internal team issues and a GM in Knight and expect it not to take that long. What I'm saying is our rebuild/retool would take no more than 3 years max, but we would build it the right way with Schlenk/Bud/Wilcox/Sund/Grant Hill.

 

6. Lastly, there are a couple of teams you may have heard about..the Cavs and the Warriors. They will be facing each other for the 3rd straight finals...and it may not end there. These teams have a couple more years left in them...2-4 more years...sadly, we can't beat them. It's the stupid NBA's own fault for allowing powerhouses and screwing over 28 other franchises but that's what they did and now we have to ride it out, prolly until the end of this decade. :-(

 

For those reasons, I have decided to go to the dark side. I forgot who is in the rebuild camp. I know @NBASupes is in there for sure...im in Supes! Gimme the dark side tour. :-)

 

@JayBirdHawk @kg01 @Thomas @turnermx @hazer I just wanna let you know that this was not an overnight decision. It's been building for a few weeks now. I just decided to come out publicly with it and I hope your criticism of me isn't too harsh. I just want the Hawks to get there...after 10 straight seasons of being eliminated from the playoffs, I'd like to roll the dice again. 

 

Just remember one thing, even though my stance of rebuilding has changed, I'm still the same ole Spud!

 

ps @hazer, I think you already had you toes dipped in the rebuild pool with that Jonathan Isaac proposal.

 

 

 

 

I'm for a rebuild. They just have to fully embrace it and have a long term plan unlike Ferry/Bud.