Going to the dark side

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, High5 said:

There are several decades of data that support that opinion. Look at every champion and see how many got there without drafting a Hall of Famer in the top 10. I'm not saying a full tank is the answer, but stubbornly clinging to this current squad doesn't do anything for us now or in the future.

That may have been the case 20 years ago, but it isn't any longer.  The draft is different.  The level of ability you get in the lottery is different.  You aren't getting a Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, or a Patrick Ewing at the top of the draft with what the college game is producing.  In fact, I think of all the #1 picks in the history of the draft, only 3 have won a championship with the team that drafted them.  I saw that somewhere, and I'll see if I can find it.

[macdaddy]

The really important question is does @Spud2Nique get credit for 'Colonel Schlenk' or did i miss the first use of that somewhere else?   Because that's genius and needs to stick.   

 

 

[AHF]

18 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That may have been the case 20 years ago, but it isn't any longer.  The draft is different.  The level of ability you get in the lottery is different.  You aren't getting a Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, or a Patrick Ewing at the top of the draft with what the college game is producing.  In fact, I think of all the #1 picks in the history of the draft, only 3 have won a championship with the team that drafted them.  I saw that somewhere, and I'll see if I can find it.

Off of a quick glance:

Kareem

Duncan

Robinson

Magic

Worthy

Hakeem

Lebron

Kyrie

 

 

[High5]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That may have been the case 20 years ago, but it isn't any longer.  The draft is different.  The level of ability you get in the lottery is different.  You aren't getting a Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, or a Patrick Ewing at the top of the draft with what the college game is producing.  In fact, I think of all the #1 picks in the history of the draft, only 3 have won a championship with the team that drafted them.  I saw that somewhere, and I'll see if I can find it.

How is it not?

Cleveland drafted Irving #1, traded a #1 to get Love, and then got LeBron back for sentimental reasons who they drafted #1.

Golden State drafted Curry #7 and Thompson #11. 

San Antonio drafted Duncan #1.

Miami drafted Wade #5. 

Dallas drafted Dirk #9. 

Boston drafted Pierce #10 and traded multiple top 10 picks to get Allen and KG.

The stars aligned for Detroit to win a championship. We can try to follow the exception to the rule, but that seems like a horrible idea that hasn't come close to working.

[Lurker]

Just because you tear it down, doesn't really mean you have to bottom out, unless you consider all teams that are more than two games under .500 *to be bad*. There is a difference. None of us seriously mean go completely nuclear on the team. I don't think it's necessary.

Like I've gone over before, this isn't an up and coming young team that will make a leap from 43-46 wins if you just let them naturally grow, I don't think. I've said if Dennis uses his tools better defensively, he might be a Bledsoe/healthy Jrue type, but that's not a tier 1 type PG. It's solidly tier 2. Taurean Prince is not going to be a star caliber scoring SF, but he might ACTUALLY be the Draymond type that you cry that Swanigan is. I don't think Tim Hardaway Jr is a realistic starter unless you put him beside a good defensive PG.

Good young talent. But overrated. Not the foundation for a good team.

I do not mean tear it down. I mean if you're going to try something different, maybe try an Oakland A's like strategy in which you go for bargain talent that can play well together and/or do what Portland did.

And yes. There is a difference between bad and unwatchable and bad and watchable.

[KB21]

17 minutes ago, High5 said:

How is it not?

Cleveland drafted Irving #1, traded a #1 to get Love, and then got LeBron back for sentimental reasons who they drafted #1.

Golden State drafted Curry #7 and Thompson #11. 

San Antonio drafted Duncan #1.

Miami drafted Wade #5. 

Dallas drafted Dirk #9. 

Boston drafted Pierce #10 and traded multiple top 10 picks to get Allen and KG.

The stars aligned for Detroit to win a championship. We can try to follow the exception to the rule, but that seems like a horrible idea that hasn't come close to working.

And how many years in a row did Golden State draft in the lottery before they lucked into Curry and Thompson?  Don't forget that they picked Ekpe Udoh between those two in the lottery.  How many years has Minnesota been drafting in the lottery?  Sacramento?  Phoenix?  LA Lakers?  New Orleans?

That's the reality most people don't want to see when they think about bottoming out to get a higher draft pick. 

Cleveland drafted Kyrie Irving #1, but if LeBron James didn't go back to Cleveland for sentimental reasons, they are still a lottery team with Kyrie Irving and likely Andrew Wiggins. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, High5 said:

How is it not?

Cleveland drafted Irving #1, traded a #1 to get Love, and then got LeBron back for sentimental reasons who they drafted #1.

Golden State drafted Curry #7 and Thompson #11. 

San Antonio drafted Duncan #1.

Miami drafted Wade #5. 

Dallas drafted Dirk #9. 

Boston drafted Pierce #10 and traded multiple top 10 picks to get Allen and KG.

The stars aligned for Detroit to win a championship. We can try to follow the exception to the rule, but that seems like a horrible idea that hasn't come close to working.

Shame on you @High5. Detroit drafted Darko Milicic #2. So even Detroit had a high lotto pick when they won the ring.

[thecampster]

3 hours ago, Spud2Nique said:

You are crazy if you think the Warriors can't and won't sign Durant and Curry. It's almost a forgone conclusion.

Never said that...I said they have 8 people to make decisions with.  They need a supporting cast and the money won't be there to get the quality they've gotten in the past.

[Alex]

Team rebuild for the win!

[Lurker]

As for what I actually want to do, I'm still torn and need to see what happens, but...

I'm going to be brutally honest, and it's takes from what I've gotten with the Braves (even if their rebuild was really painful until this year and they are still a bad team). Unless Schlenk can perform the miracle of getting rid of at least one, if not two of the big contracts on the team, the Hawks might have no choice but to try to pull off another Miami/Portland or to just rebuild.

I was thinking that the 2014 Braves were a better team than their record and needed to take one more crack at it before a teardown, but with what all I saw the next year (more than just what happened “on the Braves”) and the contract situation for them, I admitted that I was wrong.

I'm not fooled with the 16/17 Hawks, like I was with the Braves and this is absolutely a 2014 Braves part 2 with the contract issue. If you were to just do nothing but bring back most of the team, it's a team that would struggle to make the playoffs. Teams that need multiple acts of God to pull out games, are not going to consistently pull it. And that's what I mean in usually, you can relate the “new school analytics” to what happened in a player or team's season.

And that doesn't mean that games like Hawks at Rockets and Cavaliers at Hawks (the last time) weren't absolutely hilarious and fun to watch, it just means that if you think that can be consistently replicated, think again.

I don't mean to do what the Braves have done. I think Coppy is doing a pretty good job of accumulating high upside young talent, but some of the things he's done with the major league team have been questionable.

I mean if you want to try to stay “competitive”, you're going to either have to try to pull a Miami/Portland and try to acquire under the radar talent (instead of paying Paul Millsap), or try to get rid of the big contracts.

And if rebuild, don't let kids/aging vets run around on the team. Get a veteran or two that can play.

I think Schlenk tries to pull the “Miami/Portland”.

[High5]

46 minutes ago, KB21 said:

And how many years in a row did Golden State draft in the lottery before they lucked into Curry and Thompson?  Don't forget that they picked Ekpe Udoh between those two in the lottery.  How many years has Minnesota been drafting in the lottery?  Sacramento?  Phoenix?  LA Lakers?  New Orleans?

That's the reality most people don't want to see when they think about bottoming out to get a higher draft pick. 

Cleveland drafted Kyrie Irving #1, but if LeBron James didn't go back to Cleveland for sentimental reasons, they are still a lottery team with Kyrie Irving and likely Andrew Wiggins. 

I don't understand your logic. What does it matter how many teams have failed in the lottery if getting into the lottery is the only way to win? That argument doesn't make sense. Unless you're just happy to get our annual postseason participation ribbon for as long as possible. 

[High5]

32 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Shame on you @High5. Detroit drafted Darko Milicic #2. So even Detroit had a high lotto pick when they won the ring.

I was only naming the Hall of Fame caliber players. Unfortunately Darko retired early and may miss out.

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, High5 said:

I don't understand your logic. What does it matter how many teams have failed in the lottery if getting into the lottery is the only way to win? That argument doesn't make sense. Unless you're just happy to get our annual postseason participation ribbon for as long as possible. 

It's not the only way to win, and it is the surest way to ensure losing.  If I want to diminish my chances of winning down the road, then I tank and build through the lottery.  That will pretty much ensure that I'm losing for the next 5-6 years at the low end and likely 8-10 years at the high end. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Good thread @Spud2Nique.

What's going on with you - this is your second good thread in like 'ever'.

Like @kg01 pointed out getting rid of Baze and Dwight will require giving away the picks you want Schlenk to use as part of the rebuild.  We aren't getting quality assets for them.

And there is a difference between rebuilding and a straight up tank job.

Honestly when I was doing the free agent thread you advised me to ride the good thread streak because it could one day disappear. Just trying to keep riding the wave...

 

oh and also...i think a change would be a breath of fresh air for our organization and fans.

 

Thanks Bird

[Guest]

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

Disagree @JayBirdHawk, only thing I learned from this thread is @ATLSmith is my sister from another mother.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

The really important question is does @Spud2Nique get credit for 'Colonel Schlenk' or did i miss the first use of that somewhere else?   Because that's genius and needs to stick.   

 

 

@sturt is the one responsible for the name. I just used it. Lol.

[High5]

14 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's not the only way to win, and it is the surest way to ensure losing.  If I want to diminish my chances of winning down the road, then I tank and build through the lottery.  That will pretty much ensure that I'm losing for the next 5-6 years at the low end and likely 8-10 years at the high end. 

Again, you're completely ignoring basically the entire history of the league, but oh well. No need to keep going in circles. 

[macdaddy]

Just now, Spud2Nique said:

@sturt is the one responsible for the name. I just used it. Lol.

That makes more sense.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Never said that...I said they have 8 people to make decisions with.  They need a supporting cast and the money won't be there to get the quality they've gotten in the past.

Ya but why mention Curry and Durant then when you know it's automatic? 

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

That makes more sense.

Lol what a d*ck...

 

love u too...;-)

 

i think hes more the top gun guy..

[macdaddy]

8 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

Ya but why mention Curry and Durant then when you know it's automatic? 

Lol what a d*ck...

 

love u too...;-)

 

i think hes more the top gun guy..

I kid, I kid.