More ResslerMania

[lethalweapon3]

David Aldridge led his weekly Morning Tip with the Hawks. Not much you haven't heard already, but here it go:

http://www.nba.com/article/2017/10/30/morning-tip-atlanta-hawks-shift-direction-tony-ressler-mike-budenholzer#/

Quote

Truly, there are three options in the NBA, I would argue: being a contender, being a competitive team, and being young and fun.

~lw3

[Lurker]

Here's a way to stop the delusions of "everyone that makes the playoffs has a chance at glory!"

Remove the 5th through 8th slots of the playoffs completely.

Because the cold, cold hard truth historically is, you're not really contending if you're a 5th through 8th seed unless you are a team that has an absolute superstar that was on the shelf due to injury, or a series of disastrous events happens to the top tier teams. You're just playing for pride, to be respectable. And few teams get celebrated for being a respectable team that plays extremely hard, the right way, and does not want to be bad, EVER. 

The truth is, there are 3 tiers in the NBA:

1. The legitimate contenders. The teams that are 53+ win teams, the teams with the superstars.
2. The competitive teams that don't ever want to be bad and love doing things the right way.
3. The tanking teams and teams that have major front office issues.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Lurker

[GameTime]

Finally Schlenk admits

Quote

“That’s the hard part, with the fans,” Schlenk said. “I would say that 90 percent of the people I see in Atlanta, meet in Atlanta, say ‘hey, love what you’re doing, needs to be done.’ There’s another 10 percent of ‘what are you doing?’ But I think just as far as with Bud and the ownership group, it’s just constantly reminding them, listen, it’s painful right now. But there’s light at the end of the tunnel. We have five Draft picks the next two years, first-round picks. It’s my job to, hopefully, get four of those right.”

Quote

“And Tony (also) wants to win,” Schlenk said. “He doesn’t want to go through this. But I would just constantly say, ‘listen. You guys won (43) games. You want to win (43) games again?’ I get this will be painful. Believe me, the first four games, I’m sitting up there miserable.”

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by GameTime

[DBac]

So good to see that they are all on the same page. Schlenk smacking em with the truth "You guys won 43 games last year"

[High5]

Now the people pretending that Schlenk was hiding his true intentions can find something else to be upset about. And he's spot on with the 43 wins thing. It's nice to hear the man himself say that and hear that he said it to Ressler (and that Ressler obviously agreed). 

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, DBac said:

So good to see that they are all on the same page. Schlenk smacking em with the truth "You guys won 43 games last year"

Yeah.  "Hey, you guys won 43 games last year.  Let's try to win just 10 this year and then see if we can make the jump to 15 wins the next year, then 17 wins, the 19 wins, then 23 wins....etc."

[JTB]

46 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Yeah.  "Hey, you guys won 43 games last year.  Let's try to win just 10 this year and then see if we can make the jump to 15 wins the next year, then 17 wins, the 19 wins, then 23 wins....etc."

I understand your frustration with this I really do and I agree with you and on some of your post though they are bit more negative this year lol but I’m willing to give schlenk a full 2 years.

he made valid points in that nba article  I will give him that but he acts as if teams that purposely tank get back in the playoffs so easily and that’s my concerning. I’m currently only worried about getting back to the playoffs in two to three years...some around here believe we will be set up for a championship in 5 years and that’s laughable to me but it could happen. The bigger concern on all of this is getting back to the playoffs right now that’s not going to be an easy task..

All in all I can make it through one year of tanking, I don’t love it but I understand it FOR ONE YEAR! We need a star and this is a different way in attempting to get one from what other gms the last 10 years been doing . However beyond 1 year Im not ok with two year tanking though we will probably still be a lotto team.

[NBASupes]

I love Schlenk and I love Ressler this season. Collins was a great pick and I like us finally rebuilding and getting stud pieces that would give us a chance to contend in the future. 

[hazer]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Yeah.  "Hey, you guys won 43 games last year.  Let's try to win just 10 this year and then see if we can make the jump to 15 wins the next year, then 17 wins, the 19 wins, then 23 wins....etc."

You’re just being obtuse...

 

2001 Nets: 26 wins, missed playoffs 

2002 Nets: 52 wins, NBA Finals

 

2004 Suns: 29 wins

2005 Suns: 62 wins

 

1989 Spurs: 21 wins

1990 Spurs: 55 wins

 

1997 Spurs: 20 wins

1998 Spurs: 56 wins

 

2007 Celtics: 24 wins, missed playoffs

2008 Celtics: 66 wins, NBA Championship

 

These are just the top 5 turnarounds, there are a dozen more that aren’t so dramatic but still make the point. Point being, it will NOT take the Hawks 5+ years to return to the playoffs. Now THERE’s some “truth” for ya, not opinion.

 

[JTB]

1 hour ago, DBac said:

So good to see that they are all on the same page. Schlenk smacking em with the truth "You guys won 43 games last year"

 

1 hour ago, High5 said:

Now the people pretending that Schlenk was hiding his true intentions can find something else to be upset about. And he's spot on with the 43 wins thing. It's nice to hear the man himself say that and hear that he said it to Ressler (and that Ressler obviously agreed). 

Agree with both of you but we can’t act like this has no bigger risk than reward. The risk is way higher even though schlenk does make a valid points.

im not saying we shouldn’t go through with the tank this year cause we should...hell we’ve already got the tank job rolling in high fashion.

but this can easily blow up in Schlenks face! I hope it doesn’t but this is a very high risk move for a team that’s been in the playoffs 10 straight years.

if all goes well we have some stud pieces for the future and a chance to be real contenders. But if it goes bad and those high draft picks don’t pan out, it’s going to go extremely bad! Like Timberwolves when kg left bad...massive playoff drought!

PROPS to Schlenk though he really is sticking his neck out in a high risk strategy in attempt to make this franchise a contender. I just hate the large risk that come with this tank plan.

[AHF]

I don't think anyone denies there is a downside risk of being bad for a while if you draft poorly, trade away your picks, sign bad players to overblown contracts, etc.  The range of results from designing a team that wins 20 some games is wide.  The point is that you can't ignore the upside either considering nearly every championship team over the past 30 years was one of those 20 something win teams before they got the pieces in the draft that they turned into MVP level talent and one or more rings.  (And that fact that exactly no one avoided the lottery and went from a first/second round playoff out to a ring).

[hazer]

15 minutes ago, JTB said:

...some around here believe we will be set up for a championship in 5 years and that’s laughable to me but it could happen.

Easy there, Chief. I predicted Hawks would be competing to MAKE the finals by year 5 of the rebuild. Not winning Championships in 5 years 

[Lurker]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

(And that fact that exactly no one avoided the lottery and went from a first/second round playoff out to a ring).

Another point that keeps rocketing through said guy's head.

[KB21]

24 minutes ago, JTB said:

I understand your frustration with this I really do and I agree with you and on some of your post though they are bit more negative this year lol but I’m willing to give schlenk a full 2 years.

he made valid points in that nba article  I will give him that but he acts as if teams that purposely tank get back in the playoffs so easily and that’s my concerning. I’m currently only worried about getting back to the playoffs in two to three years...some around here believe we will be set up for a championship in 5 years and that’s laughable to me but it could happen. The bigger concern on all of this is getting back to the playoffs right now that’s not going to be an easy task..

All in all I can make it through one year of tanking, I don’t love it but I understand it FOR ONE YEAR! We need a star and this is a different way in attempting to get one from what other gms the last 10 years been doing . However beyond 1 year Im not ok with two year tanking though we will probably still be a lotto team.

It's not going to be one year of tanking though.  Even if the Hawks happen to hit it big with their draft pick in 2018, that draft pick isn't going to come in and immediately be a star player that carries the team to the playoffs.  As a result, the team will still be tanking next year while cloaking it in the disguise of "We are going to be young and fun".  Yeah, we will be young and fun on our way to maybe a 20 win season.    Guess what, here comes another lottery pick that will likely be another underdeveloped 19 year old prospect who will take time to develop.......and you continue to lose because you are "young and fun".   Combine that with the fact that no big time free agent goes to teams who openly tank, and you are going to struggle to get out of this tanking hole.  

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Another point that keeps rocketing through said guy's head.

Really?

The lottery didn't start till 1985, and the first team to actually win a championship with a #1 pick drafted by them through the lottery was the San Antonio Spurs in 1999.  

Cleveland is the only team in the history of the NBA that has gone from being really bad to a great team, and that is only because LeBron went home.  Even the Warriors, who you love to cite, were eliminated in the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs before winning a championship.  You have to actually be good before you can be great.

But let's continue on with this myth that we are going to tank for one year, get a superstar, and be a championship contender because of that one star.

[JTB]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think anyone denies there is a downside risk of being bad for a while if you draft poorly, trade away your picks, sign bad players to overblown contracts, etc.  The range of results from designing a team that wins 20 some games is wide.  The point is that you can't ignore the upside either considering nearly every championship team over the past 30 years was one of those 20 something win teams before they got the pieces in the draft that they turned into MVP level talent and one or more rings.  (And that fact that exactly no one avoided the lottery and went from a first/second round playoff out to a ring).

Every team????

I mean im not going to argue with the tanking this first year, like I stated I’m not ok with it but I understand why we’re doing it. however other than the warriors I’m not seeing too many tanking teams in order to win a championship the last 30 years so I can’t agree with you on this one cause it’s not a fact that getting in the lottery actually helped championship teams win a few examples below :

-lakers had a top draft pick like brown be a bust however after the Kobe and Shaq era they grabbed Gasol in a trade to ultimately get back to winning championships.

- not going to mention the spurs that’s just unfair....yes Leonard was drafted but they moved up to get him not the same thing 

-Miami won in 06 but that’s mostly because shaq and Kobe feud. Wade was the bigger star but Miami doesn’t win a championship that year with out that shaq and Odom trade....then of course the big 3 teamed up in 2010

-2011 mavs didn’t tank they just had a roster full of good vets and a great coach

-2004 Detroit Pistons didn’t tank  they just acquired 5 all stars luckily

 

i don’t know where your point is that championship teams tanked or got into the lottery for the good other than the warriors  . Now in my examples I’m only looking at the past 10 -17 years but that’s all the evidence i need. I mean perhaps some of these teams did get lottery picks at some point but  none of those lottery picks helped those teams I mentioned win championships during those years. So I would say the risk far outweighs the reward but again I understand why schlenk is taking the risk...doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the right choice it’s just a different choice that hasn’t been done here the last 10 years.

 

[JTB]

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Really?

The lottery didn't start till 1985, and the first team to actually win a championship with a #1 pick drafted by them through the lottery was the San Antonio Spurs in 1999.  

Cleveland is the only team in the history of the NBA that has gone from being really bad to a great team, and that is only because LeBron went home.  Even the Warriors, who you love to cite, were eliminated in the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs before winning a championship.  You have to actually be good before you can be great.

But let's continue on with this myth that we are going to tank for one year, get a superstar, and be a championship contender because of that one star.

That’s the issue...we can’t be a contender in this new era with one star. We need a minimum of 3 stars. It would be amazing and yet nearly impossible to get that lucky and draft 3 stars but I know schlenk knows this so that’s why it’s important to stay flexible within the cap so we can make necessary trades or free agent pickups if we get lucky enough that a star wants to come to Atlanta...maybe one will if we draft a star.

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, JTB said:

That’s the issue...we can’t be a contender in this new era with one star. We need a minimum of 3 stars. It would be amazing and yet nearly impossible to get that lucky and draft 3 stars but I know schlenk knows this so that’s why it’s important to stay flexible within the cap so we can make necessary trades or free agent pickups if we get lucky enough that a star wants to come to Atlanta...maybe one will if we draft a star.

What do you think is more likely?  Drafting a star player like Tim Duncan or drafting a player who you have to say "Well, he has star potential" 4 years after you draft him like Andrew Wiggins?

[JTB]

25 minutes ago, KB21 said:

What do you think is more likely?  Drafting a star player like Tim Duncan or drafting a player who you have to say "Well, he has star potential" 4 years after you draft him like Andrew Wiggins?

Well if you ask me players that are drafted  into the nba these days aren’t nearly as good as they were back then in the 80s and 90s therefore there’s a LOT less guarantee that we will get a star but there’s still a chance. 

To answer your question we are likely to get a player with star potential like Wiggins before landing the next Duncan but see Duncan in my opinion is the best power forward to ever play in the nba so it’s kinda unfair to use Duncan vs Wiggins being that Duncan is so superior and a once every era type of star player.

getting 3 stars isn’t going to be complety by draft likely but I do think as of right now it is of course more of a future goal once Atlanta figures out what they truly have cause right now we still don’t really know. Right now I’m pretty sure that schlenks hope is that .....Dennis turns into a top 10 point guard over the next 2 years steering his way into the ASG this year or next, Collins or Prince really develps quick and shows real flashes of being an all star over the next 2-3 years and whoever we draft in the lottery next year be the icing on the cake and can quickly develop his game.

now can this all happen ???....stay tuned 

Edited October 31, 2017 by JTB

[Lurker]

36 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Really?

The lottery didn't start till 1985, and the first team to actually win a championship with a #1 pick drafted by them through the lottery was the San Antonio Spurs in 1999.  

Cleveland is the only team in the history of the NBA that has gone from being really bad to a great team, and that is only because LeBron went home.  Even the Warriors, who you love to cite, were eliminated in the 1st and 2nd rounds of the playoffs before winning a championship.  You have to actually be good before you can be great.

But let's continue on with this myth that we are going to tank for one year, get a superstar, and be a championship contender because of that one star.

Give me your definition of good. For me, that's not 38-45 wins. That's 53+ wins. Anything below that is mediocre. And no, mediocre can sometimes be worse than bad.

I was miserable watching 2015 Georgia in college football. That was a 9-3 team but there was just nothing fun about that team. You can't measure in wins and losses all the time....2014 Georgia beats the *explicit* out of that sorry, miserable team and that team was 9-3 also.

How that relates to this, I'm sorry man but you have to add one more category. There's legitimately good. There's mediocre, and then there's bad.