Would the franchise be better served if Schlenk just goes ahead and hires his own guy to coach?

[Watchman]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:41 PM, Admin said:

Why not? It seems inevitable that we are going to end up with Mike Brown as coach someday and if we have to endure that then let's just get it over with. 

In the immortal words of Darth Vader, "It is your destiny!!"

[hazer]

Still isn’t a given, but it sure is starting to look that way. Started getting weird with the end-of-season winning, playing Fresh Printz 39 minutes, etc. Schlenkholzer not seeing eye-to-eye on draft picks/direction maybe? Possibly over Dennis and “taking on salary for picks” breaking developments? Anybody’s guess, but there’s where the smoke is.

4 minutes ago, Watchman said:

In the immortal words of Darth Vader, "It is your destiny!!"

And in the immortal words of Luke:

”NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”

[hazer]

Just no Mark Jackson, PLEASE. Dude tried to heal Steph’s ankle with holy oil from his congregation. Yup, nope.

[hazer]

Fitz is intriguing, former Hawks and Warriors assistant. Any special Mormon prayers available to get Snyder back here? What about Jay Wright? Winner who’s good with young players. Would hate to see Bud go, but need to be prepared for the possibility.

Edited April 14, 2018 by hazer

[KB21]

The Hawks would be a lot better off if Bud stayed and Schlenk left.  Promote Malik Rose to GM.  

[TheNorthCydeRises]

27 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The Hawks would be a lot better off if Bud stayed and Schlenk left.  Promote Malik Rose to GM.  

One thing about it, if Bud does leave, Schlenk is on the clock.  And he'll have 3 years to get this team back into the playoffs.  If it doesn't happen, he's gone.

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

One thing about it, if Bud does leave, Schlenk is on the clock.  And he'll have 3 years to get this team back into the playoffs.  If it doesn't happen, he's gone.

That’s something else I’ve said would happen.  Schlenk will not survive his tank job.  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

The Hawks would be a lot better off if Bud stayed and Schlenk left.  Promote Malik Rose to GM.  

As much of a Bud fan as I am, the truth is you just can't know that. Premature. Very. C'mon be reasonable. I have my problems with the Colonel's public face versus his private one. But the results of this era is a story BEING written. In fact, just starting to be written.

And to speak as-if GM-ing a D-league franchise in much of any way informs how well a person can GM an NBA franchise?

I just think you're one of the more intelligent posters historically on this board, and the content of that post just isn't representative, though.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

As much of a Bud fan as I am, the truth is you just can't know that. Premature. Very. C'mon be reasonable. I have my problems with the Colonel's public face versus his private one. But the results of this era is a story BEING written. In fact, just starting to be written.

And to speak as-if GM-ing a D-league franchise in much of any way informs how well a person can GM an NBA franchise?

I just think you're one of the more intelligent posters historically on this board, and the content of that post just isn't representative, though.

The approach Schlenk has taken has been played out in history over and over again, and it is proven to be a failed strategy.  We are acting like Schlenk is going to change history with this strategy this time.

[sturt]

Entitled to your opinion based on the historical factors you choose to select in support of that opinion.

For me--also entitled to my opinion--there are far too many variables in any of these situations, historical or current, to reach any hardened conclusions... particularly when we're talking about an experiment that runs 82+ tests annually, in which only 1 of 30 options ends up being the winner... and all the more so, particularly when this particular GM is only a year into his tenure, and we can only know the first year's decisions made.

[KB21]

16 minutes ago, sturt said:

Entitled to your opinion based on the historical factors you choose to select in support of that opinion.

For me--also entitled to my opinion--there are far too many variables in any of these situations, historical or current, to reach any hardened conclusions... particularly when we're talking about an experiment that runs 82+ tests annually, in which only 1 of 30 options ends up being the winner... and all the more so, particularly when this particular GM is only a year into his tenure, and we can only know the first year's decisions made.

Here's the thing.  Those decisions made in his first year have a direct effect on what happens in subsequent years.  He is the one that decided to bottom out the talent on the roster and attempt to build from scratch.  As a result, this strategy is going to cost the Hawks their best asset, Mike Budenholzer.  

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Here's the thing.  Those decisions made in his first year have a direct effect on what happens in subsequent years.  He is the one that decided to bottom out the talent on the roster and attempt to build from scratch.  As a result, this strategy is going to cost the Hawks their best asset, Mike Budenholzer.  

Those are all statements we both agree on (... or at least it is seeming very likely it's going to cost their best asset... that, too, isn't yet 100% determined).

The previous statements essentially pretending that we can *know* how this is going to turn out already?

That's where we disagree.

[KB21]

22 minutes ago, sturt said:

Those are all statements we both agree on (... or at least it is seeming very likely it's going to cost their best asset... that, too, isn't yet 100% determined).

The previous statements essentially pretending that we can *know* how this is going to turn out already?

That's where we disagree.

The probability that this works out is so low that there is no use pretending that it will actually work out.

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The probability that this works out is so low that there is no use pretending that it will actually work out.

Nonsense. You can't calculate that probability. Don't pretend this is a matter of some scientific inquiry. I'll grant you that you can make the argument for the conclusion you've reached. But don't pretend that the people reading your argument/conclusion aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to understand the difference.

[KB21]

29 minutes ago, sturt said:

Nonsense. You can't calculate that probability. Don't pretend this is a matter of some scientific inquiry. I'll grant you that you can make the argument for the conclusion you've reached. But don't pretend that the people reading your argument/conclusion aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to understand the difference.

You absolutely can calculate that probability by looking at history.  Even the great white hope for the pro tankers are an example of what I’m talking about.  The only example that can be pointed to where this strategy worked but did not produce a championship are the OKC Thunder, and there is a reason it has not bee reproducible.  

Look at what we are already hearing. Travis Schlenk very clearly tanked the Hawks to the bottom of the NBA this season, and he is gearing up for another tank season for 2018-2019.  

[Vol4ever]

18 hours ago, KB21 said:

The approach Schlenk has taken has been played out in history over and over again, and it is proven to be a failed strategy.  We are acting like Schlenk is going to change history with this strategy this time.

Hawks are just like the Braves, they are NOT going to spend money.  They didnt want a top 3 to have to pay the $$$.   One day all of this will come out.  This is a completely failed franchise since Ted Turner left,  once again just like the Braves.  Ownership could care less about winning.  Ressler will sale the team.  

[sturt]

11 hours ago, KB21 said:

You absolutely can calculate that probability by looking at history.  

Okay, let's play this game... 

1. Which teams will you include in your calculation, and based on what criteria?
2. How will you account for injured players in the calculation?
3. How will you account for bad coaches--ie, coaches who weren't good at developing the talent given to them?
4. How will you account in your calculation for changes in the salary cap that may have made it more or less difficult for some teams at the specific point in time when your criteria classifies them as tanking?
5. How will you account for how other teams' fortunes were advanced or made to regress within that point of time?
6. How many years constitutes a "tank"... is that a static number or does it vary based on some set of conditions?
7. (I could go on...)

Probability being a statistical something, I'm intrigued to see this scientific calculation you've invented.

Facetiousness aside, surely you can see what I'm getting at.... you can make your case, but this is a subjective judgment one makes based on the evidence one chooses to consider more salient or less salient. 

[KB21]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

Okay, let's play this game... 

1. Which teams will you include in your calculation, and based on what criteria?
2. How will you account for injured players in the calculation?
3. How will you account for bad coaches--ie, coaches who weren't good at developing the talent given to them?
4. How will you account in your calculation for changes in the salary cap that may have made it more or less difficult for some teams at the specific point in time when your criteria classifies them as tanking?
5. How will you account for how other teams' fortunes were advanced or made to regress within that point of time?
6. How many years constitutes a "tank"... is that a static number or does it vary based on some set of conditions?
7. (I could go on...)

Probability being a statistical something, I'm intrigued to see this scientific calculation you've invented.

Facetiousness aside, surely you can see what I'm getting at.... you can make your case, but this is a subjective judgment one makes based on the evidence one chooses to consider more salient or less salient. 

So, you are saying that we should ignore history and just hope for the best.

[davis171]

On 4/14/2018 at 2:26 PM, KB21 said:

The Hawks would be a lot better off if Bud stayed and Schlenk left.  Promote Malik Rose to GM.  

And we would still tank because that’s what Ressler wants

[KB21]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

And we would still tank because that’s what Ressler wants

No.  That's what his weak mind has been convinced to do.  This is the same owner who said that there was NFW that they were trading Paul Millsap, and then doubled up on it at the end of the season stating that resigning him was a priority.