REHawksFan

2 minutes ago, DBac said:

Can someone besides KB post the cliffnotes. They align a lot with his views and I wanna be sure that they are accurate before I get excited for Doncic.

Regarding Doncic and Bagley, he did say he heard from someone else (not Schlenk directly) that Schlenk really liked Luka after going over to see him and didn't think highly of Bagley.  Was careful to say that he hadn't spoken with Schlenk directly about Bagley but had been told from someone else that he wasn't high on him.  Said the question with Luka before Schlenk went to Europe to see him was whether he was fast enough for the NBA and that after his return, he must think he is because he likes him a lot.  

25 minutes ago, EazyRoc said:

Like another poster said, there’s not another coach out there that can develop players the way Bud can. I’ll take 2 years of player development with our current young players over a mid round first or a 2nd. We already have plenty of picks. I actually agree with KB21 that the way to win isn’t by flooding the roster with a bunch of super young non-contributors. You start adding a ton of young players and the veteran leadership will be pushed out. Combine that with a lack of a experienced coach who has proven he can develop players then you have us in lottery hell for the next 5-8 years for real.

And like I said before, I don't disagree with this sentiment at all.  I don't think they should trade Bud unless Bud makes it clear that he won't work here any longer.  Then they have no choice and should get as much as they can.  I'm just pointing out that even talking about the lottery pick from Phx is completely absurd for ANY coach, not just Bud.  IF they trade Bud, the likely return would be a late 1st (or future first with conditions) or a 2nd with cash.  I agree those returns are far less than what Bud is "worth" to the Hawks as a coach for 2 years.  Hopefully, Bud is willing to stay with the Hawks and will continue to be amicable for 2 more years.  

9 minutes ago, JTB said:

now if you take bud out of the whole thing ....now I can see your view of the 7-10 year tank process...but I never saw that with bud being here as the coach . With bud it was always 2-4 years tops in my eyes and leaning heavily towards 2-3 and we’d be back in the playoffs with a younger team.

 

 

It just depends on who they draft.  There's no guarantees obviously, but history shows us that there's been plenty of players drafted at 19 or later that were very good NBA players.  Nothing saying they can't draft such players here.  It's not easy but that's what they are getting paid for.  If they can hit on 75% of their picks this year they will be well on their way to being a playoff team again in the East.  Hell they were competitive this year with a bunch of young guys and guys that aren't NBA talent (thanks to Bud I realize).  

Here's some guys drafted 19th or later that had very good NBA careers:

• Zach Randolph
• Michael Finley
• Rondo
• Tayshun Prince
• Kyle Lowry
• Jimmy Butler
• Dennis Rodman
• George Hill
• Rudy Gobert
• Hasaan Whiteside

1 hour ago, EazyRoc said:

Man listen. If Schlenk trades Bud and does not get PHXs TOP pick, I probably will not support the Hawks until he’s fired. You don’t worry about what the OTHER team is willing to do. The only thing of value PHX has that’s even close to Bud is their top pick. If he flips Bud for anything less, Schlenk is more interested in “leaving his mark” than building a winning team. 

This is just laughable.  NO ONE is trading a top pick for a coach.  As i mentioned earlier, Doc won a title with Boston and the LAC only gave up the 28th pick.  Riley is a HOF coach and MIA only had to give up the 19th pick and cash.  Phx ain't giving up a Top 3 pick for ANY coach, let alone Bud.  

Now I agree with you that trading Bud for a 2nd isn't equal value, but IF Bud doesn't want to be here, then the only options are to get as much as you can or take a chance on forcing Bud to coach out the rest of his contract and having team chemistry issues.  

Also......Stan Van Gundy was traded from MIA to Orl for a 2nd and the right to swap 1sts.  Pat Riley was traded from NYK to MIA for a future 1st (turned into 19th pick overall in 96)

Boston traded Doc Rivers (who won a NBA title with them) to LAC for an unprotected 1st rounder that turned into the 28th pick overall but some actually think the Hawks will get the 16th pick AND swap lottery picks for Bud?  Not seeing it.  Why would anyone possibly do that?  

7 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

So I'm not a Hall of Fame talent?

You must have skipped over the "in their prime" part of the comment.  No. The Dwight that we got last year was neither a super star nor a hall of famer (but yes, he is a hall of fame talent and played like it in his prime).  

The only proven way of winning and or competing for a championship with any regularity in the NBA is to have elite, super-star talent.  Hall of fame talent.  The 04 Pistons (or whatever year that was) were an anomaly not the blueprint.  You need star power to win in this league. 

And there's exactly 3 ways to acquire such talent:  1. You trade for it; 2. You draft it; or 3. You sign in in FA.  Problem is, if a team has a truly elite player, the ransom they require to trade said talent is more than any franchise can bare generally.  So really, there's only 2 practical ways to acquire the necessary talent to win a title.  Draft em or sign em. 

And last I checked, superstars in their prime ain't walking through that door.  So while I don't necessarily like tanking, I'm willing to see how it goes as it's really the only way for a team like the Hawks to acquire elite talent, barring something unforeseen or out of the norm.  

I do agree that the front office has to know what they are doing for this strategy to work.  They better be really good at talent eval and be able to make good moves to parlay assets into legit NBA vets at some point.  IMO, you build the base through the draft and then try your luck at either signing quality vets to support the base or attracting an elite FA to play with the exciting young base.  

48 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Why do people continue to insist that last year's team would be competitive this year?  Lets take a look at the salaries we would have had to pay

Millsap $30 Mil

Howard $23 Mil

Hardaway $18 mil

Bazemore $17 Mil

Dennis $ 15 Mil

Total $103 Mil for 5 players

With the above 5 players, we would have been over the salary cap.  So if you are the GM, what's your next move?

I haven't seen any of the persistent complainers actually give any legitimate plan for alternative moves that would have led to a championship quality team. I doubt anyone is going to enjoy taking a step back but its necessary imo to move forward in a healthy manner. 

9 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

Either way neither is worth those large contracts

Completely agree.

6 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

Except d for which KCP is much better but neither is really worthy of the contracts that both NY teams are good no to offer

Interestingly, THJ is ranked higher by DRPM than KCP. I agree just from watching that KCP seems better, but according to that metric anyway, THJ is the better defender. I was surprised to see that earlier today. 

2 hours ago, AHF said:

They offered KCP 5 years for 80M or an average of $16M per.

I am sure he views himself as better than THJr who just signed for just under $18M per.

Then he'd be wrong. At least statistically THJ ranks better for SGs than KCP across the board.

9 minutes ago, JTB said:

hahaha THJ to stay???!!!!

That's not at all what that tweet says. It clearly says the Hawks had planned to match any offer but now they're tested because of the extreme magnitude of this one.

Regarding KCP - Like him as a player, wouldn't mind him on the team.  Wouldn't go near $25M per year though.  Statistically, he shoots for a lower % than THJ and has worse Off and DEF Plus Minus in addition to lower PER.  Basically, he doesn't suck but he's a slightly better defending THJ.  Now if we all think $17.75M is too much for Timmy, how in the hell would we think $25M is OK for KCP? 

33 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Repeat: this should be moved to the official rebuilding topic since this whole thing is just a straw man to continue the rebuild debate in yet another topic. This article doesn't even address rebuilding.

i was wondering if I was the only one that thought that article has nothing to do with rebuilding and certainly doesn't "breakdown everything wrong with a rebuild." Frankly, the article doesn't get into any breakdown of a rebuild - either positive or negative. 

3 minutes ago, PSSSHHHRRR87 said:

I'm not mad at TH Jr one bit.  Good for him.  But f@$# the Knicks.

Agreed.  And honestly, it just points to the fact that the NYK front office don't have a clue what they are doing. 

2 minutes ago, PSSSHHHRRR87 said:

Good for TH Jr, but I do feel a little used... It's like the Knicks shipped off TH Jr to Bud's summer camp and now they're picking him up.

Don't begrudge THJ one bit for this deal.  Dude's gotta go get his.  BUT, I also won't feel sorry for him if the Hawks decline to match and he has to deal with the mess that is the NYK front office.  He HAD to know when he signed that offer sheet that the Hawks wouldn't likely match so in my mind, he was signing to leave Atlanta.  That's fine.  I wish him well, but I have a feeling he's going to regret going to the Knicks. 

I really like THJ and wanted the Hawks to match whatever offer he was given, BUT I must admit the magnitude of this offer was something I wasn't expecting.  I sort of thought $15 Mil a year would be the "aggressive" deal someone like the Nets or Knicks would make.  $17.75M/Yr is really tough when you consider you are paying Baze ~$17M, Jamal ~$14.25M, and Plumlee ~$12.5M. 

If they match THJ they'd have ~63% of the CAP tied up in those 4 players and 3 of them aren't even starter quality for a playoff team (THJ is even questionable as a playoff team starter, imo).  Not only that, but Jamal's is the only contract that they could be easily rid of after this year.  Baze and Plumlee both have 3 yrs left on their deals.

IF they have a plan to move Baze or Plumlee, then I'd be OK with matching THJ (but it would still be a bad contract and would go against what Schlenk has said he would do).  I'd prefer not to lose THJ but damn, what the hell were the Knicks thinking.  

My apologies to the board.  I'll bow out now.  I just have a habit of arguing with people that are completely illogical.  Done now. 

16 minutes ago, KB21 said:

You want the 5-6 years of misery that accompanies this decision making.  You want to lose the best aspect of this organization in Mike Budenholzer because of the losing that will pile up in an effort to get young players time on the court.

Just stop with this nonsense.  For every Philly that took several years (they were actually tanking unlike the Hawks), I'll give you Ind or Portland that took 2 or 3 years (not tanking).  Or Utah, or Toronto, or Memphis. 

Please just stop with the 5-6 years crap. 

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Like I have said in the past, I guess you guys have forgotten about the last time we decided to tear down a very good, playoff team.  You are going to have to go through the misery again of being a perennial lottery team.

So you can't refute the facts I've laid out so you resort to claiming the past will repeat itself?  Weak.  Also, I didn't know Billy Knight and the ASG were running the Hawks now.  Good to know. 

The GSW were a joke of a franchise until they weren't (thanks to being in the lottery).  The Clippers couldn't get out of their own way for decades until they did (by being in the lottery and getting the Paul / Griffin / Jordan picks right).  The Cavs were horrible for large parts of their history.  And then they weren't (after drafting LBJ, Kyrie, Thompson in the lottery). 

Stop living in the past.  The Hawks have a different GM, different ownership, and a different script they are following.  If you want to be miserable just assuming you know what is going to happen (even though you continually get the premise wrong), knock yourself out. I'll wait to see how this plays out before I deem it an utter failure.  

And there's certainly the risk of it failing.  I recognize that unlike you that cannot even admit the simple fact that missing the playoffs does not equate to tanking.  I guess I'm just willing to wait and see what happens rather than trying to claim I can predict the future.  I'll leave that to you.     

24 minutes ago, KB21 said:

....and how many years did those teams spend in the lottery before making the playoffs?  Those of you who are OK with this strategy now will be the ones howling when this team hasn't made the playoffs in 5 years after this process starts.

Portland:  3 Playoff seasons => 2 lottery years (28 / 33 wins) => 4 Playoffs

Memphis:  3 PO => 4 lotto (22 / 22 / 24 / 40) => 7 straight Playoffs

Pacers:  9 straight Playoffs => 4 lotto (35 / 36 / 36 / 32 wins) => 6 of last 7 in playoffs

Denver:  10 straight playoffs => 4 lotto (36 / 30 / 33 / 40 wins) => ready to make playoffs next year

Boston:  4 playoffs => 2 lotto (24 / 33 wins) => 9 of 10 years in playoffs including 1 title\

Utah:  20 straight playoffs => 3 lotto (42 / 26 / 41 wins) => 4 playoffs => 5 of 6 lotto leading up to last year in the playoffs

Sea/OKC:  11 of 12 years in playoffs => lotto 4 of 7 years (25 / 44 / 40 / 37 wins) => playoffs => 4 lotto (35 / 31 / 20 / 23) => 7 of 8 playoffs

All of these examples had teams in the playoffs, slipped into the lottery to RETOOL (not tank or rebuild) and then went right back into the playoffs.  The time in the lotto ranged from 1 year to 4 years.  Going into the lottery IS NOT a horrible thing and it does not signify tanking or long periods of losing.  Just stop with that nonsense.  

Bottom line:  the last 3 NBA Championships were won by the GS Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Neither of those teams win those titles if they didn't go into the lottery to get their best players - LBJ, Kyrie, Triston, Steph, Klay, Dramond, and KD.  Your logic that going into the lottery is a bad thing is foolish.   

16 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Then tell me exactly why half the teams that drafted in the lottery this year were also drafting in the lottery 5 years ago?  This idea that you have to tank your roster out to get assets is foolish, because when you do that, you are committing yourself to losing over a long period of time in hopes that one of the players you take with those precious lottery picks turns into this unicorn, generational talent that is going to change the fortunes of your franchise.

Again, you are talking from a premise that isn't accurate.  You keep talking as if having a lottery pick = tanking.  Do you realize that every team not in the playoffs gets a lottery pick? Missing the playoffs next year and getting a Top 10 pick does not equate to tanking.  Truth be told, there's only been one team in recent history that has actually tanked as you are describing and that is Philly and the GM expressly stated that's not what he is doing here.  I'm not sure why you are so hell bent on claiming this is a tank.  

To answer your question, the reason why half the teams in the lottery this year were in the lottery 5 years ago is because damn near half the league is in the lottery every year and the other half have LOTTERY players that take them to the playoffs.  This isn't the NFL where teams go last to first in a year.  It takes time and a good front office and most likely a little luck along the way. 

EDIT:  And also, 5 years ago the Wizards, Cavs, Raptors, Pistons, and Jazz were all in the lottery.  Four of those five have made the playoffs multiple times since then.  It wasn't a death sentence for any of these teams.

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

I agree, and you aren't going to get veterans to be interested in coming to your organization if you tank and support losing efforts.  As a result, you will be stuck with youth that will not win.

Please show me multiple teams that have sustained success in the NBA without players that were drafted in the lottery.  Your whole argument is completely nonsensical.  The only one I can think of is San Antonio and they are clearly the outlier rather than the rule. 

Cleveland is great because they drafted LeBron in the lottery once upon a time AND because they drafted Kyrie in the lottery AND because they drafted Thompson in the lottery. 

The Warriors drafted Steph in the lottery, then Draymond, in the lottery then Thompson in the lottery.  Durant was also a lottery pick.

You are assuming the worst and then arguing from a position that your worst assumption is guaranteed.  Your premise is all wrong.  There's only 3 ways that I know of for the Hawks to get these type of lottery players - Draft them, Trade for them, or Sign them as FAs.  We all know that none of them are coming via FA.  So that leaves drafting them or trading for them.  You really can't do either without assets such as draft picks and good contracts.  That's what the GM is TRYING to accumulate now.