Atlanta Hawks Mock Draft 1.0

[Buzzard]

20 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

 

 

 

 

I get your point, but as we found out this season, even players like Ilyasova and Bellinelli weren't valuable for salary dumps. I would've thought we could've traded those two to Philly for a pick swap at minimum (I don't know if they could've added protections) and we take on Bayless' contract but we ended up buying them out. I see your point, but I'm not concerned with stacking up rookie contracts. It's only going to be a problem if we have 4 or 5 guys who can't contribute in any significant way.

You are never guaranteed to find a trade partner. But if you are not ready ( prepared ) it will not matter when you do. That is being flexible. I fully expect Schlenk will do something similar to last season. Grab one, two, three vets in the 4 to 10 million dollar range on short contracts, so if something does come up, we will be able to move on it.

The 2019/20 season I hope we are in a good spot to chase a big name.

[AHF]

11 hours ago, thecampster said:

OMG ever one of those articles highlights different ways teams are being cheap and that is the source of the reputation. That they aren't willing to pay players. All done arguing with you. Each one of those articles addresses the cheap angle in part or full. There are no magic unicorn direct quotes where a player comes out and says "Team X is cheap so I won't sign with them"....Oh wait...there is.... Al Horford. Stop it!

 

I guess if you got no substance you just resort to ad hominem attacks.  Whatever floats your boat.  I gave you specific facts and quotes from articles.  Even quoted the direct statement from the article that increased spending would not improve the reputation.  Yet somehow you maintain an article pointing to talent and wins as the causal factors and literally saying that spending more money wouldn't help is evidence that reputation with players is all about how much money you spend.  

 

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

I guess if you got no substance you just resort to ad hominem attacks.  Whatever floats your boat.  I gave you specific facts and quotes from articles.  Even quoted the direct statement from the article that increased spending would not improve the reputation.  Yet somehow you maintain an article pointing to talent and wins as the causal factors and literally saying that spending more money wouldn't help is evidence that reputation with players is all about how much money you spend.  

 

and there you go moving the goal posts again.  The original statement was that staying below the minimum salary floor creates a myriad of problems. Reputation is only one of them.  The floor exists for a reason....the exact F'ing reason you are arguing against. You aren't arguing with me...how can you not see this...you are arguing with the players association during their contract negotiations on the new CBA.

The minimum salary floor exists as a protection for the players.  Why do they need protections?  From thinking like this. 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

and there you go moving the goal posts again.  The original statement was that staying below the minimum salary floor creates a myriad of problems. Reputation is only one of them.  The floor exists for a reason....the exact F'ing reason you are arguing against. You aren't arguing with me...how can you not see this...you are arguing with the players association during their contract negotiations on the new CBA.

The minimum salary floor exists as a protection for the players.  Why do they need protections?  From thinking like this. 

So what teams "stay below the minimum salary floor" and end up paying this tax such that they would meet the criteria you are talking about?

I fully embrace the floor as a protection for the players.  I just don't see a tie to whether a team meets the salary floor or not  as a meaningful difference for whether they have a good reputation.

For example, I may be mistaken but I think Orlando has always hit the minimum salary floor and has had a top 10 payroll in the last 3 years but their reputation is crap because their talent sucks and they have lost a ton of games.  So whether they actually hit the floor or missed it is meaningless - players respond to the lack of talent and lack of wins and their reputation sucks just as bad as it would if they missed the floor.

You've mentioned GS several times but haven't pointed to when they repeatedly fell below the minimum salary floor.  Did they "stay below the floor" for a couple seasons at some point?  If so, when?

[ATLien_]

On 6/14/2018 at 3:51 PM, thecampster said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/

 

 

 

 

and yes...the players know this too!

Great article that sums up my feeling about tanking. There's is no silver bullet,  you have to have strong fundamentals to create a championship product. Coaching, development, and cap and asset management will win the day.  Even though San Antonio may lose Kawhai, I trust them to become elite again because they have the fundamentals. Piling high potential players on the teams that are perennially bad just ensures that most of the talent will be completely wasted or sub optimized. 

I thought the Hawks were on the way to having strong fundamentals. We had coaching and development and asset management with Ferry. We actually had a buzz around the league. but now we seem to trending the wrong direction. I'll give Pierce development since he was hired for that,  but will have to see on his ability to coach. Our asset management over the last 3 years has been incredibly bad starting with the THJ trade. We got Taurean Prince and a top 10 protected Cleveland pick for a 60 win core, and a very good coach combined. That doesn't even count the Dwight Howard debacle. Hard to recover from that kind of asset management without tanking. Let's just hope it's not a 7-10 year rebuild. 

[thecampster]

On 6/13/2018 at 1:12 AM, thecampster said:

There is no way we draft all 4 slots. We will make at least 1 draft night trade.

AHEM....scoreboard.