Am I the only person who finds it to be better to watch my team tank than to be good but not great.

[NBASupes]

I read this quote from an Orlando fan and it had me thinking...

I know Orlando were never going to have a good record this year, but I actually enjoyed seeing the young playeres play instead of the vets.

As much as a hating the losing and how limited some of our young guys were at the moment, I found it fun to watch a tanking team than an average or good team with vets getting most of the PT. I watched this Hawks season and really couldn't wait till it ended like I used to do with the Hawks of the early to mid 2000's. I knew we had NO shot of winning in the playoffs watching them play was horrible.

With those young Hawks, watching them play sucked too but you seen young players, you tried to rate their potential. You put all your hope into the draft because no one was going to sign during free agency for you and had hope maybe it can get much better and we can get young players who give us a chance at a ring.

Just my take. My only year as a Hawk fan I enjoyed watching the team of the last 10 years was during the 2008-09 season where we added Jamal and the year before took Boston to 7 who were the eventual champs. Every other year was a struggle. Every other year. I found some good. I found a lot of bad. Now I am either in the belief that we land two superstars and build a dynasty or we tank and at least go back to hoping. Creating another one and done team just does not appeal to me anymore nor has it ever with this personnel. Outside of signing Dwight and CP3, it seems like a combo of anyone signed in free agency will lead us to the same result we have seen already. The boring treadmill continues...

[capstone21]

If there was a guarantee that we could get Wiggins or Parker (and Howard and Paul will not sign here) then I would consider holding on to our free agent money until next season but other then that I don't like the idea of going through that losing seasons that we experienced back in the 2000s. That was a very hard time to be a hawks fan.

[Admin]

No I never want to go back to being the unquestionable laughing stock of the league like the early 2000's as Cap said.

[KB21]

Plus, the numbers show that tanking is the worst strategy you can take.

[DrReality]

Laughing was due to leadership No one is laughing at ferry or Bud. And hopefully ownership keeps low profile

[Admin]

Laughing was due to leadership No one is laughing at ferry or Bud. And hopefully ownership keeps low profile

Leadership wasn't even a member back then so umm nope that's not it.

[Eddielives]

Unless you have great ownership and/or are a franchise in a big market that can draw free agents, I think tanking is about the only way to get out of the cellar or predictable mediocrity. Luck certainly comes into play as well as sometimes players drafted in the 20's or even sometimes in the second round turn out to be great players. But if you can't draw free agents, you have to keep hoping to draft a phenom like Lebron, Durant, Howard, etc. in order to make your team relevant. The Hawks now are being managed at least by a guy who seems to be savvy enough to put together a team that might be a contender but that remains to be seen with this summer's ongoings. But I wholeheartedly feel better about hitting the jackpot in the lottery and getting a phenom instead of floating in mediocrity indefinitely if your team is a small market team with little hope of attracting or retaining free agents. Oklahoma is a prime example of being extremely lucky in addition to just getting their top lottery picks in a great draft year. Yet unlucky is Portland who drafts Oden and it turns sour. I suppose landing a great coach can sometimes make a difference too. There are many variable that make it difficult to make any statement of certainty but we all know which teams are only going to become title contenders if they draft the next superstar players(toronto, milwaukee, utah, etc)

[MaceCase]

I think the biggest issue with tanking is that the worst teams do it specifically for that megastar and when they fail they often don't have a backup strategy and just take the biggest name left. This is how you end up like the Kings and Bobcats who just select whoever was the biggest college name or international intrigue and then shovel them into a roster without care for fit or duplication of skill set and position.BK fell into a similar problem in that even though he was in the perfect position to transform the franchise he just couldn't stick to one plan or the proper course to achieve it. He had a whole mess of being unable to figure out BPA or need in the correct drafts and ended up being reactionary and thus filled with a roster with the same exact guy at only 2 positions x5. Sure the team went off to be successful but in comparison to the assets spent it is still a tremendous underachievement as you can easily dig up an entire library of "what could have been!" novels. The smart teams seem to understand that you first target lead guard, wing, and center in particular and in either order dependent on who is just flat out better at the time. Establish which or if all are good enough to become a playoff team by playing them and only then go out and trade or spend to fill out positions and a bench around them to create a true contender.

[Peoriabird]

Yes you are

[Diesel]

I covered this years ago..

[Admin]

I covered this years ago..

With 37,642 posts on Hawksquawk.net alone I'm sure you've pretty covered everything D!

[BrazilianHawk]

Losing is for LOSERS.

[Admin]

Losing is for LOSERS.

Who cares? The only thing that matters is participation and kind thoughts about your opponent.