Most controversial thread ever...

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

which results in only a 15.1% chance of keeping a top 3 pick. The team with the most loses has a 25% chance of keeping the #1 overall pick or a 65% chance of keeping a top 3 pick. That's > a 4 times increase in keeping a top 3 pick. If Mendoza's batting average were quadrupled, he'd be TWO Ted Williams' in his best year. If Wilt Chamberlin's scoring record were quadrupled, he'd have scored 400(+) pts. A 400% increase in opportunity is HUGE!

Get real CBA, these "scenarios" are completely biased.

---

Yes, you're right. Perhaps these scenarios don't go far enough in demonstrating the benefit of "tanking" to acquire a top 3 pick and eventual franchise center over empty, franchise-d@mning moral victories.

W

---

That's 4 more wins than last year. Sorry to say it, but that's even below what I expected the team to do. And I don't predict this team to win very many.

[Diesel]

Winning. Period.

I've never seen a Good Franchise hoping for a lottery pick to make them better. You ever notice that it's the bad franchises that hope for the lottery picks. And generally, the lottery pick is not enough to make them a winning franchise.

Now Walter, you talk a lot of talk about how being successful in the lottery makes teams championship quality. However, there's only one team that that formulation has worked for: San Antonio.

Most of the time, teams get to be championship level by trades. Let me give you some examples:

Detroit Pistons. Joe Dumars built his championship team through significant trades. The lottery pick he received never played.

LA LAKERS. Vlade for Kobe/Shaq was probably one of the greatest engineered trades in the History of basketball. That move showed how a GM's planning can lead to championship play.

Heat. Caron Butler didn't do it. But it was the trade for Shaq that got Miami into the position to be a champion.

We've been in the lottery the last three years. What will turn our furtunes is winning. Tanking admits that our players are not good enough. So again, if you advocate tanking, do it the right way... Trade away our players for Picks and ending contracts... And start over. However, don't force these guys to suffer through a tanked season and make them continue their careers with that thougth that they are not good enough in their minds... Why would you want more Darius Miles in the league?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Exodus, I thought you were smarter than this...

You explain to me why your response is so wrong. I know you can.

---

Your initial post is making a wild assumption that if the Hawks have the worst record that they automatically get the top pick. Last year Portland had the worst record in the league and picked 4th.

The fact is that the team with the worst record is more likely to pick 4th than 1st, which you conveniently ignore in your poll options.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

What fools voted for 30 wins? Be a man and admit it. What kind of a moron would want a left over ham sammich of a team instead of the chance to draft a franchise changing big man??

---

I did.

[Sothron]

Insanity. To put it kindly. Having the #1 draft pick guaranteed in order to draft Oden would be the biggest franchise changing move since we got Dominique. You would willingly throw that away so one year's team made it to the exalted thirty win plateau.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

guaranteed

---

My problem with the poll is that there's no way to guarantee anything. In fact, the Hawks have a better chance of getting screwed (i.e., sending the fourth pick to Phoenix) if they tank than they do of winning the lottery.

It's a false dilemma, and I refuse to play along.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I've never seen a Good Franchise hoping for a lottery pick to make them better.

---

I think you mean, "good team..." because I've seen many good franchises hoping for a lottery pick, too many to name them all. Unfortunately, "good teams" can't do much to win the lottery so they can't very well "hope" for it. Regardless, if otherwise "good teams" have the potential to hope for a high lottery pick such as the Spurs with David Robinson following his injury, your d@mn sure they do "hope" for it. Unfortunately, for Boston (an exampe of a good franchise hoping for a lottery pick) they hoped during a one player draft. That is not the case with this draft. I should add that the "good franchise's" (whatever that really means) include LA Lakers and NY who can lure just about any FA or will overpay just about any FA respectively. Our ownership situation is worse than any of the "bad franchises" so you have to consider that. And again, we're not a good team yet.

Quote:

---

Now Walter, you talk a lot of talk about how being successful in the lottery makes teams championship quality. However, there's only one team that that formulation has worked for: San Antonio.

---

I beg to differ. I've said that championships teams other than LA (and now Detroit) got their best player through the draft or draft day trade (as in us with 'Nique). In some cases like Chicago, their two best players. You're not even arguing championship but simply championship caliber. That allows not only SA with Duncan, Philly with AI, but Ewing with NY to go back 20 years. It's simply too early to tell but Houston with Yao, Orlando with Dwight, and Cleveland with Lebron may all be "championship caliber" soon enough. And I ONLY touched upon #1 overall picks save Chicago's example. What about Wade for the Heat. He wasn't a top pick, but he was their best player and he was attained through the draft. Note: All these players remained with their team through their careers.

Interestingly, I think SA is an excellent example for us. We are not as bad a team as our record indicates (and SA was a good team prior to DR's injury). Injuries have led us to the draft lottery drinking hole much like they did with SA. They will continue to plague us. Should we make a minor move here or there to ensure we don't win too many more games and potentially draft a franchise player at center likely, we could propel ourselves potentially to the upper echelon rather quickly much like TD did for SA. We're and the prospects are not as veteran as they and TD, so it would take time.

Did I mention also...You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan. You have no other plan.

Quote:

---

Most of the time, teams get to be championship level by trades. Let me give you some examples:

Detroit Pistons. Joe Dumars built his championship team through significant trades. The lottery pick he received never played.

LA LAKERS. Vlade for Kobe/Shaq was probably one of the greatest engineered trades in the History of basketball. That move showed how a GM's planning can lead to championship play.

Heat. Caron Butler didn't do it. But it was the trade for Shaq that got Miami into the position to be a champion.

---

1st, I don't think it's 'most of the time' by a long-shot! You came up with a mere 3 arguable examples.

2nd, nobody doubts that a good trade or shrewed move is not necessary as a catalyst to make a contender but Shaq was simply not Miami's best player. See the 40 PPG Finals average from Wade for clarification.

3rd, LA is the exception to all the rules. What big name FA didn't want to go there?

4th, Are you suggesting that our ownership is prepared to make the necessary moves, much less that we would be lucky enough given how little trade value our talent has and how desperate we look?

Mind you, Detroit was a wonderful example. I appreciated their success. I simply can't see hardly any team, much less us with our ownership, duplicating it.

Quote:

---

Tanking admits that our players are not good enough.

---

Not good enough to do what? Win a title? Then yes. I would even tell them personally and I doubt they would argue with me. Frankly, the idea that we should shield the little helpless younglings from the truth is disgusting.

Quote:

---

However, don't force these guys to suffer through a tanked season and make them continue their careers with that thougth that they are not good enough in their minds.

---

My god. If they are that pathetic and weak-willed then we want to know this before we resign them and frankly don't want them. I would suspect, if worthy of keeping, would just as well get a fire in their belly about it and play harder/better next year. Regardless, a top 3 pick and a franchise center, the optimism that comes with that, would snap players out of any funk. "Hey look. We now have the biggest, baddest, best player on the court! He's got our back, too! Isn't that nice." Does wonders for your team self-esteem.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

guaranteed

---

My problem with the poll is that there's no way to guarantee anything. In fact, the Hawks have a better chance of getting screwed (i.e., sending the fourth pick to Phoenix) if they tank than they do of winning the lottery.

It's a false dilemma, and I refuse to play along.

---

I understand your point and agree with it not representing the choices facing the Hawks franchise. However, given the choices as listed I don't see how anyone could take the 30 wins over the #1 pick in this draft.

It is essentially asking you to pick between a sub-mediocre, non-playoff season where the Hawks lose their pick to Phoenix and a terrible season on the floor with a very high % shot at adding a franchise-calibre talent to the team.

It is designed in a way that is hopelessly to the #1 pick, IMO.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I beg to differ. I've said that championships teams other than LA (and now Detroit) got their best player through the draft or draft day trade (as in us with 'Nique). In some cases like Chicago, their two best players. You're not even arguing championship but simply championship caliber. That allows not only SA with Duncan, Philly with AI, but Ewing with NY to go back 20 years. It's simply too early to tell but Houston with Yao, Orlando with Dwight, and Cleveland with Lebron may all be "championship caliber" soon enough. And I ONLY touched upon #1 overall picks save Chicago's example. What about Wade for the Heat. He wasn't a top pick, but he was their best player and he was attained through the draft. Note: All these players remained with their team through their careers.

---

Where do we start... Let's start first with the Knicks. The Knicks were a playoff team almost a NBA Championship team the year before they got Ewing. They tanked so badly because of the drug problems of Micheal Ray Richardson and the injuries of Bernard King. Come on man, if a team has talent to go to the championship without Ewing, what do you expect. NY then used their players and prestige to get other players. PLUS, we have begun to talk about the fix being in on that draft. Stern fixed that draft so that NY could win it.

Second, how many years did Chicago go to the draft lottery with no return. Let me remind you:

Eddy Curry. Marcus Fizer. Elton Brand. Tyson Chandler. And even now.. I don't really consider Chicago Championship Calibre.. and they have Ben Wallace.

[CBAreject]

This is a hypothetical question. I chose two different scenarios and defined them as completely as I could. I did not "make wild assumptions" with my choices. I'm not assuming either of these cases will happen or is likely to happen. I'm asking the board to chose between two different bad scenarios. I said nothing about the likelihood of either scenario...except that both are very unlikely (I'm saying that right now).

This is not a biased poll. It's a hypothetical question. It's not meant to prove any point. I have no agenda. It's strictly meant to find out if Hawks fans would wish for a player to suffer a minor injury if the rewards were great. That doesn't mean that they wish for the player to get injured (just that they would with said conditions).

Exodus, for you specifically, what's wrong with your reply is that 1) You know that I know the lottery odds, 2) I said nothing about the probability of either scenario occuring in my post, 3) The probability of a hypothetical scenario isn't important in a hypothetical question, 4) Nobody likes the guy who, when posed a hypothetical question answers "Well, that would never [or is unlikely to] happen".

When your buddy in college asked you whether you'd rather *go on a date* with Heidi Klum or Eva Longoria, did you say "Well, the probability of either is very low [pushes glasses up nose and snorts]"?

[exodus]

The reason the lottery was created in the first place was to remove the incentive for teams to tank , which renders your poll moot. If it was a certainty that the Hawks could get Oden then sure it would make sense to go for it but then again the other teams would have that same incentive.

Your poll is akin to asking whether we would rather have Zaza or Shaq as our starting center. Duh.

I have some other poll questions that I am thinking of starting threads for:

Would you rather have Lebron or Marvin as the starting small forward?

Would you rather have Speedy or prime Magic as the starting pg?

Would you rather have Woodson or Phil Jackson as the coach?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The reason the lottery was created in the first place was to remove ??? the incentive for teams to tank

---

...to this scenario.

1) Unlike ending up with the say 4th pick if we "lose" the lottery. We LOSE our pick entirely. That is a big loss and HUGE risk, not just a loss of 1 draft position. MORE INCENTIVE TO TANK!

2) Unlike wanting to "win" the top overall pick, we merely want to "win" a top 3 pick. That is a much greater likelihood than winning the top overall pick. MORE INCENTIVE TO TANK!

3) Unlike most high lottery teams, we have a little talent here. That makes the pick an even bigger boon to our franchise than others as it may be the final piece rather than the first. MORE INCENTIVE TO TANK!

4) Unlike with other teams, our ownership is not going to spend to significantly improve this franchise. Nor are other legitimate GMs, coaches, or players going to enter this chaos. The lottery is not only the best but remains the ONLY way to significantly improve our team! MORE INCENTIVE TO TANK!

In short, whatever the motivation behind it, the lottery only reduced the incentive to tank for the average team. However, in our circumstance the incentives FOR tanking are many greater.

All this which renders your argument, MOOT.

W

[Yeti]

IF we were to get one of the top picks, first thing we'd have to do is get rid of BK IMMEDIATELY. Or else we'd end up with Jeff Green or Julian Wright (both 6'8" SF) - not Thabeet, Oden, Noah, or Hawes. (Well maybe Noah since we could play him out of position at center.)

Seperate point, the problem with tanking is that the players might actually get used to it and have trouble learning to win. (I wonder if we haven't decided to tank already. Sure smells like it.)

[exodus]

The one season the Hawks tried to tank they wound up with the 6th pick. Why? Because professional athletes are going to try to win. That is what they get paid to do. Even though BK wanted to tank the rest of the team didn't cooperate.

And getting the worst record doesn't mean that the Hawks will keep the pick, only that they have a slightly higher probability of keeping the pick.

Assuming the Hawks actually do get a top 3 pick that doesn't mean that BK will know what to do with it. I can't believe you suddenly have so much confidence in BK's ability to draft the right player.

Funny how you still haven't answered the question i asked awhile ago. I will ask it again.

Assuming the Hawks do try to tank, how many more games do you think they would lose when compared to how many they would lose if they were trying to win? Would they lose 5 more? 10? 15?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The one season the Hawks tried to tank

---

We tried to tank the year MW was drafted. You don't remember trading Walker for Rasheed then for crap mid-season? That was tanking my friend.

Quote:

---

they wound up with the 6th pick. Why? Because professional athletes are going to try to win. That is what they get paid to do. Even though BK wanted to tank the rest of the team didn't cooperate.

---

Pu-leaze. By your definition they are "trying to win" now and still have the 3rd or 4th worst record. You mean teams don't just win if they are "trying" to do so? Guess all we have to do is help them out. But we won't have to help them out much given JS, who appears to be our 2nd most important if not best player, will be out for several more weeks. With very minor moves (trade Lue, play and rely upon Batista, SJ, and even Dijon more, and play JJ a respectable amount of MPG) we could position ourselves where they can still "try" but won't.

Quote:

---

And getting the worst record doesn't mean that the Hawks will keep the pick, only that they have a slightly higher probability of keeping the pick.

---

"Slightly"? What?!? It's not only the best chance we've got. It's the ONLY chance we've got. YOU HAVE NO OTHER PLAN!!!

Quote:

---

Assuming the Hawks actually do get a top 3 pick that doesn't mean that BK will know what to do with it. I can't believe you suddenly have so much confidence in BK's ability to draft the right player.

---

I'm not saying he will and I d@mn sure wouldn't want him making the pick, but I'll take Joakim Noah (HUGE mistake) over nobody. If we pick 1 or 2 I KNOW BK can't screw it up. If we pick 3 he could, but likely won't. Again, it's not only the best hope we have, it's the ONLY hope we have. and again YOU HAVE NO OTHER PLAN!!!

Quote:

---

Assuming the Hawks do try to tank, how many more games do you think they would lose when compared to how many they would lose if they were trying to win? Would they lose 5 more? 10? 15?

---

I answered your silly question days ago. I stated the loss of Lue if traded, the playing of the big youngins, and the reduction in JJs MPG would each result in 2 fewer wins per 10 wins and that JS being out we should continue on the course we've been on for the past month. I did all the "math" as this is a silly question to begin with for you. Do your homework and go back and read.

What's your plan again Ex? I KEEP MISSING IT! Why I wonder.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You don't remember trading Walker for Rasheed then for crap mid-season? That was tanking my friend.

---

They traded him so they could actually get something for him as opposed to letting him walk for nothing.

And even though they wound up with the 2nd pick they didn't exactly get value for it, did they?

Quote:

---

By your definition they are "trying to win" now and still have the 3rd or 4th worst record.

---

Do you think they have been faking all their injuries?

Quote:

---

"Slightly"? What?!? It's not only the best chance we've got. It's the ONLY chance we've got.

---

That is ridiculous. So you are saying the ONLY way the Hawks can become contenders is if they get a top 3 pick and if they don't they have no chance?

That would mean that, by your definition, they just don't have any talent here and would have to completely clean house in order to be contenders. And if that is true then drafting one player wouldn't be enough to save the team.

My plan is the same now as it was last summer. The Hawks need major upgrades at the point and at C, which they can get through the draft or trades. It isn't that complicated.

The problem is that BK is unwilling to draft a pg even in the second round and has been unwilling to do anything other than patch the hole at center with BandAids.

Quote:

---

2 fewer wins per 10 wins and tha

---

wtf is that? Could you translate that into a single number for those of us who aren't fluent in Walternonsensespeak?

In order for tanking to have the effect you desire the Hawks would probably have to lose 10 or more games than they would if they played the season out normally. Otherwise there won't be much difference in the standings.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

2 fewer wins per 10 wins

---

Let's take a closer look at that.

Assuming the Hawks would win 30 games total if they played out the season trying to win, that would mean by tanking they would lose 4 more games, by your definition. Looking at past standings that would mean only a move up of about 2 places (if they are lucky), or roughly a 20-25% better chance of getting a top 3 pick.

Now lets look at the reality of tanking. Do you really think the players won't know what is going on? Do you think they will be happy about management trying to lose intentionally to keep their pick, especially after losing so much the past two years? How do you think JJ, who came into this season on a mission, will feel about his future with this team that is trying to lose intentionally?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You don't remember trading Walker for Rasheed then for crap mid-season? That was tanking my friend.

---

They traded him so they could actually get something for him as opposed to letting him walk for nothing.

---

We traded an ending contract (Walker) whom we had just traded for, for another ending contract (Wallace), for more ending contracts (Pryz, Sura, ???) and a 17th pick. While we are fortunate the 17th pick ended up getting us JS, THAT is called tanking.

Quote:

---

And even though they wound up with the 2nd pick they didn't exactly get value for it, did they?

---

It would be very hard to screw up the top 3 in this draft with even a "screw up" being significantly better than MW. Again, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN Mr. Critic?

Quote:

---

By your definition they are "trying to win" now and still have the 3rd or 4th worst record.

---

Do you think they have been faking all their injuries?

---

[Iman]

I'm with CBA, this poll was clearcut and I think the decision was also, most on this board think we suck and the only way to turn it around is to get Oden. The only way reasonable way for that to occur is for JJ to go down for an extended period.

As I stated, I take it if assured Oden would be available, since the poll didnt state that, I'd still take the wins. I'm just not that assured that the other potential #1 picks will be that much better than what we get with the Indy pick or even a better pick if we trade an asset or two. Oden is clear, somewhat like the Pat Ewing or Tim Duncan drafts. But thinking back to most other drafts, the number 1 pick hasnt been that critical. Whereas if our team and players improve they'll be more valuable as trade assets plus have more confidence.

The poll was informative to me, maybe the answers would have been more even if it had been 35 wins versus a top3 pick?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We traded an ending contract (Walker) whom we had just traded for, for another ending contract (Wallace), for more ending contracts (Pryz, Sura, ???) and a 17th pick

---

WTF?! Talk about rewriting history.

Walker and Delk came to the Hawks for Terry and Henderson. Walker has no relevance to the Wallace deal at all.

And when they made the Wallace deal they were tanking because they were basically getting rid of everyone. At the end of the season the only players they had under contract were Diaw, Terry and Henderson.

Quote:

---

they significantly have FAR LESS of a chance to contend without a top 3 pick. That is easy to comprehend is it not? Play the probabilities,

---

That isn't what you said. This is what you said.

Quote:

---

Again, it's not only the best hope we have, it's the ONLY hope we have.

---

Without a top 3 pick this team has no hope to contend regardless of what else they do, by your definition.

The Hawks have an excess of forwards, cap space, and a mid first rounder. In the hands of a competent GM that is enough to make big improvements.

Your plan consists of losing on purpose in order to get a whopping 20-25% better chance of a top 3 pick while ignoring the consequences of intentionally losing.

You ignore the fact that Lue is a veteran leader on a young team. Trading him would hurt more than just losing his ppg. Lue is the one guy JJ trusts in late game situations. JJ has a big enough burden to carry without losing Lue.

When are these young guys supposed to learn how to win? They certainly didn't learn the last two years. Part of winning is learning to fight through adversity. Are the players going to fight to win for an organization that is willing to lose intentionally in order to get only a 20-25% better chance at a top 3 pick?