Trade Horford

[Guest]

Honestly, if we suck, get a top 6 pick in an extremely deep draft. We really don't need luck. We only need luck with the lotto balls. We got Al Horford in one extremely deep draft.

But the lotto is where the luck comes in first, then luck with the player you draft. If we had fallen to 4th, the pick would have gone to Phoenix for the Joe Johnson trade.

[NBASupes]

But the lotto is where the luck comes in first, then luck with the player you draft. If we had fallen to 4th, the pick would have gone to Phoenix for the Joe Johnson trade.

That was luck. The pick it self wasn't. We scouted, did our homework and took the best player left in the draft.

[MaceCase]

The Rockets are really crapping all over the tanking is the way mob! They haven't had a top 10 pick since 2002 and yet they have 1 superstar and are likely to get their 2nd this offseason. How? By drafting smartly in the teens, developing their young assets, keeping cap flexibility and then striking when the opportunity is there.That is the way!

I think Houston is a terrible example. Keep in mind that they were more than legitimately trying to win it all with Adelman, Martin, Scola, Lowry etc. they even acquired Pau in a trade before the NBA rescinded that deal. Their mid teens picks were all unintended consequences for just not being good enough in the west, additionally, their best pick was a 2nd rounder, none of their late lotto picks have panned out and funny enough, the best player they drafted in the first round was Gay at #8 before going off to being developed elsewhere. Most of their key players weren't drafted by them but were acquired in free agency or trade and the Toronto lottery pick was one of the largest factors in them being able to acquire Harden in the first place. He panned out nicely and may attract another top flight free agent but so far they are still in the exact same territory that they've occupied for close to 15 years of only being a 45-50 win team.

This is not a model that you can really duplicate, being utterly inept for years at both winning and losing and then coming across a team having a spare superstar that they see as a luxury. Heck, you could say that the Hawks already did that transitioning from Jet, Rat and Reef to Joe to now.

[Buzzard]

That was luck. The pick it self wasn't. We scouted, did our homework and took the best player left in the draft.

You are talking about BK here and scouting in the same breath. Call it what it really was, all luck.

[Admin]

I think Houston is a terrible example. Keep in mind that they were more than legitimately trying to win it all with Adelman, Martin, Scola, Lowry etc. they even acquired Pau in a trade before the NBA rescinded that deal. Their mid teens picks were all unintended consequences for just not being good enough in the west, additionally, their best pick was a 2nd rounder, none of their late lotto picks have panned out and funny enough, the best player they drafted in the first round was Gay at #8 before going off to being developed elsewhere. Most of their key players weren't drafted by them but were acquired in free agency or trade and the Toronto lottery pick was one of the largest factors in them being able to acquire Harden in the first place. He panned out nicely and may attract another top flight free agent but so far they are still in the exact same territory that they've occupied for close to 15 years of only being a 45-50 win team.

This is not a model that you can really duplicate, being utterly inept for years at both winning and losing and then coming across a team having a spare superstar that they see as a luxury. Heck, you could say that the Hawks already did that transitioning from Jet, Rat and Reef to Joe to now.

So they started with a poor plan and have turned it around and have made a better plan out of it. What's wrong with that? The model is in place now to acquire young talent to use as assets to make your team better, either via playing for the team or being used as trade assets.

But 'disirregardless' (my favorite non-word) of what their plan was at one point, they never failed to try and acquire as much talent in the draft as possible and they did it without a single top 10 pick. That is the only point that matters as far as that is concerned.

[NBASupes]

So they started with a poor plan and have turned it around and have made a better plan out of it. What's wrong with that? The model is in place now to acquire young talent to use as assets to make your team better, either via playing for the team or being used as trade assets.

But 'disirregardless' (my favorite non-word) of what their plan was at one point, they never failed to try and acquire as much talent in the draft as possible and they did it without a single top 10 pick. That is the only point that matters as far as that is concerned.

Isn't that the Atlanta model. We started off with a bad plan, 6'8 everyone from PG to C. We changed, brought in a 6 time All Star in Joe.

[MaceCase]

So they started with a poor plan and have turned it around and have made a better plan out of it. What's wrong with that? The model is in place now to acquire young talent to use as assets to make your team better, either via playing for the team or being used as trade assets.

But 'disirregardless' (my favorite non-word) of what their plan was at one point, they never failed to try and acquire as much talent in the draft as possible and they did it without a single top 10 pick. That is the only point that matters as far as that is concerned.

The thing that is wrong is that was only true for one year, last, where they were doing it mostly in an effort to entice Orlando on trading them Dwight. They were your typical vet dominant "win without losing" as Wretch would say team before it dawned on them finally that draft picks are great assets.

In just that one year they turned

1) a valuable vet on an expiring contract

2) Jeremy Lamb, the 12th pick in a deep draft. A pick that they acquired predraft in the first place in exchange for another valuable vet on an expiring contract

3) and a lotto guaranteed pick that they traded another valuable veteran for

into Harden.

These would seem to be a concrete argument FOR trading Horf, no?

We can't include Houston as a comparison for a "plan" against tanking much in the same way you can't include the Spurs in a plan for tanking. The Spurs were a 50 win team with a superstar who just happened to get injured and they lucked into Duncan. We can't say that they had a plan in place for years to get that done just like you can't say that Houston had a plan of cultivating late teen picks and then trading them for value. That simply isn't true. They had a firesale last summer, moved their vets for lotto picks and then turned those lotto picks into Harden, how is this any different than what is being suggested by the OP? The only difference is the Hawks themselves losing but the end result is the same, acquire lotto picks.

[Admin]

The thing that is wrong is that was only true for one year, last, where they were doing it mostly in an effort to entice Orlando on trading them Dwight. They were your typical vet dominant "win without losing" as Wretch would say team before it dawned on them finally that draft picks are great assets.

In just that one year they turned

1) a valuable vet on an expiring contract

2) Jeremy Lamb, the 12th pick in a deep draft. A pick that they acquired predraft in the first place in exchange for another valuable vet on an expiring contract

3) and a lotto guaranteed pick that they traded another valuable veteran for

into Harden.

These would seem to be a concrete argument FOR trading Horf, no?

We can't include Houston as a comparison for a "plan" against tanking much in the same way you can't include the Spurs in a plan for tanking. The Spurs were a 50 win team with a superstar who just happened to get injured and they lucked into Duncan. We can't say that they had a plan in place for years to get that done just like you can't say that Houston had a plan of cultivating late teen picks and then trading them for value. That simply isn't true. They had a firesale last summer, moved their vets for lotto picks and then turned those lotto picks into Harden, how is this any different than what is being suggested by the OP? The only difference is the Hawks themselves losing but the end result is the same, acquire lotto picks.

Not for trading Horford, but for trading Jenkins, Lou and a couple of 1sts to try and acquire a Harden (situation) type of player.

I still don't see why Houston can't be used as an example of not tanking, since they've never tanked and are firmly in the championship contender status once they sign Dwight. Just because it wasn't their 1st plan doesn't mean that the final plan that is working cannot be duplicated. We just know that we don't need to go through all that mid-level veteran squad years and can skip right to building with draft assets and trades.

[MaceCase]

Not for trading Horford, but for trading Jenkins, Lou and a couple of 1sts to try and acquire a Harden (situation) type of player.

I still don't see why Houston can't be used as an example of not tanking, since they've never tanked and are firmly in the championship contender status once they sign Dwight. Just because it wasn't their 1st plan doesn't mean that the final plan that is working cannot be duplicated. We just know that we don't need to go through all that mid-level veteran squad years and can skip right to building with draft assets and trades.

I will say this again, Harden is not a result of them not tanking. These are two mutually exclusive events but people want to tie them together. This is why I brought up the Spurs, if Pro-Tankers can't use them then Anti-Tankers can't use Houston otherwise people can just as easily say "we just need to suck for one year to get Horf's dynamic duo and return right back to being a playoff team and better".

Yes, Horford would have to be traded. Lowry was Houston's best trade asset and they dumped him for the lotto pick that was the lynchpin in the Harden trade. Lamb was a lotto pick that they traded for also not some random "mid-first". You can't just pick and choose and say a 6th man who has never been the level of scorer that Martin has been and isn't offering cap relief, the 23rd pick of the draft who was ranked as a 2nd rounder, and then some random 1st rounders, which if you intend on never tanking would end up beeing late selections equals what Houston did. There is a very good reason why they moved Lowry to one of the worst teams in the league and did the unheard of and protected the pick for the lotto, there was absolutely no way that pick could have been anything but a lotto pick.

[Buzzard]

These would seem to be a concrete argument FOR trading Horf, no?

Who did they move on their team that was comparable to Horford? It really is a bird in the hand thought process for me. You don't move Horford to have a shot at drafting another Horford; or worse someone who turns out to be worse than Horford.

Pat Riley drafted Beasley at #2. Jerry West valued OJ Mayo at #3. Yet everyone thinks good GM's don't screw up; and the ping pong balls will always bounce their way.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Buzzard

[Admin]

I will say this again, Harden is not a result of them not tanking. These are two mutually exclusive events but people want to tie them together. This is why I brought up the Spurs, if Pro-Tankers can't use them then Anti-Tankers can't use Houston otherwise people can just as easily say "we just need to suck for one year to get Horf's dynamic duo and return right back to being a playoff team and better".

Yes, Horford would have to be traded. Lowry was Houston's best trade asset and they dumped him for the lotto pick that was the lynchpin in the Harden trade. Lamb was a lotto pick that they traded for also not some random "mid-first". You can't just pick and choose and say a 6th man who has never been the level of scorer that Martin has been and isn't offering cap relief, the 23rd pick of the draft who was ranked as a 2nd rounder, and then some random 1st rounders, which if you intend on never tanking would end up beeing late selections equals what Houston did. There is a very good reason why they moved Lowry to one of the worst teams in the league and did the unheard of and protected the pick for the lotto, there was absolutely no way that pick could have been anything but a lotto pick.

I will say this [again - since that's so popular to say as to apparently emphasize a point] that everything is a result of not tanking for Houston since they never tanked. It's as simple as that.

Following Houston's model of not tanking, not having bad contracts, and acquiring as much drafted talent as possible does not mean we have to trade anyone on the roster. Following their model doesn't mean doing exactly the same thing as them since we aren't in exactly the same position that they were in.

[Admin]

Who did they move on their team that was comparable to Horford? It really is a bird in the hand thought process for me. You don't move Horford to have a shot at drafting another Horford; or worse someone who turns out to be worse than Horford.

Pat Riley drafted Beasley at #2. Jerry West valued OJ Mayo at #3. Yet everyone thinks good GM's don't screw up; and the ping pong balls will always bounce their way.

Yep that's a key factor as nobody on their roster was as valuable around the league as Horford is right now.

[MaceCase]

Who did they move on their team that was comparable to Horford? It really is a bird in the hand thought process for me. You don't move Horford to have a shot at drafting another Horford; or worse someone who turns out to be worse than Horford.

Pat Riley drafted Beasley at #2. Jerry West valued OJ Mayo at #3. Yet everyone thinks good GM's don't screw up; and the ping pong balls will always bounce their way.

They moved their best trade asset for a lotto pick. Who do the Hawks have on their roster that can acquire a lotto pick? Louis? Jenkins? Exactly, you need to establish context of the situations. No one is just going to give the Hawks anything for nothing so what do the Hawks do to duplicate the "Houston model"?

Houston amnestied and traded away nearly all of their good players for picks and cap space......this looks like something that tanking teams do right? They had only one starter return from the previous year and sported the youngest team in the league in addition to having 4 former Dleaguers in the regular rotation. This is the exact same roster makeup of such teams as *gasp* the Kings and Bobcats, right?

Just like the perfect storm that occurred to create the exact conditions that allowed Ferry to dump Joe on the Nets the same occurred for Morey and the Rockets. This is called "luck" so my question is why is it people are all in on a "plan" that required a tremendous amount of luck but are all against a different plan that requires a tremendous amount of luck?

I will say this [again - since that's so popular to say as to apparently emphasize a point] that everything is a result of not tanking for Houston since they never tanked. It's as simple as that.

Following Houston's model of not tanking, not having bad contracts, and acquiring as much drafted talent as possible does not mean we have to trade anyone on the roster. Following their model doesn't mean doing exactly the same thing as them since we aren't in exactly the same position that they were in.

Okay, San Antonio's success is a result of tanking since they tanked. We should follow that model for tanking.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MaceCase

[Buzzard]

They moved their best trade asset for a lotto pick. Who do the Hawks have on their roster that can acquire a lotto pick? Louis? Jenkins? Exactly, you need to establish context of the situations. No one is just going to give the Hawks anything for nothing so what do the Hawks do to duplicate the "Houston model"?

Houston amnestied and traded away nearly all of their good players for picks and cap space......this looks like something that tanking teams do right? They had only one starter return from the previous year and sported the youngest team in the league in addition to having 4 former Dleaguers in the regular rotation. This is the exact same roster makeup of such teams as *gasp* the Kings and Bobcats, right?

Just like the perfect storm that occurred to create the exact conditions that allowed Ferry to dump Joe on the Nets the same occurred for Morey and the Rockets. This is called "luck" so my question is why is it people are all in on a "plan" that required a tremendous amount of luck but are all against a different plan that requires a tremendous amount of luck?

Okay, San Antonio's success is a result of tanking since they tanked. We should follow that model for tanking.

I am not all in on Houston's plan. I like ours as it stands right now. I already stated we are one ( Lakers and Houston the other two ) of three teams that have a legit shot at Dwight; and the only one barring a miracle with a legit shot at Dwight and CP3. What's not to like about that?

[MaceCase]

I am not all in on Houston's plan. I like ours as it stands right now. I already stated we are one ( Lakers and Houston the other two ) of three teams that have a legit shot at Dwight; and the only one barring a miracle with a legit shot at Dwight and CP3. What's not to like about that?

There's a lot to like about that but I would hope that people don't start talking about the "Atlanta model" in a year after/if we acquire Dwight and/or Paul.

Yea folks, just lose for years, draft lotto picks, sign an up and coming free agent, lose some more, trade a few of your draft assets for a past his prime guard, win some, resign your players, trade more draft assets for a 6th man, win some more, dismantle your core, dump them for cap and picks, and you too will find yourself amongst the best teams in the league attracting major free agents and playing for a championship.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MaceCase

[Buzzard]

There's a lot to like about that but I would hope that people don't start talking about the "Atlanta model" in a year after/if we acquire Dwight and/or Paul.

Yea folks, just lose for years, draft lotto picks, sign an up and coming free agent, lose some more, trade a few of your draft assets for a past his prime guard, win some, resign your players, trade more draft assets for a 6th man, win some more, dismantle your core, dump them for cap and picks, and you too will find yourself amongst the best teams in the league attracting major free agents and playing for a championship.

I would call it the Ferry model and try my best to forget the BK years.

[Admin]

They moved their best trade asset for a lotto pick. Who do the Hawks have on their roster that can acquire a lotto pick? Louis? Jenkins? Exactly, you need to establish context of the situations. No one is just going to give the Hawks anything for nothing so what do the Hawks do to duplicate the "Houston model"? Houston amnestied and traded away nearly all of their good players for picks and cap space......this looks like something that tanking teams do right? They had only one starter return from the previous year and sported the youngest team in the league in addition to having 4 former Dleaguers in the regular rotation. This is the exact same roster makeup of such teams as *gasp* the Kings and Bobcats, right? Just like the perfect storm that occurred to create the exact conditions that allowed Ferry to dump Joe on the Nets the same occurred for Morey and the Rockets. This is called "luck" so my question is why is it people are all in on a "plan" that required a tremendous amount of luck but are all against a different plan that requires a tremendous amount of luck?Okay, San Antonio's success is a result of tanking since they tanked. We should follow that model for tanking.

I know you're being intentionally obtuse but San Antonio didn't tank.

[AHF]

I know you're being intentionally obtuse but San Antonio didn't tank.

Is the difference here intent or results? I don't think I am entirely following. Does it matter if you try to lose or you just suck if you win 20 games either way?

MJ and the Bulls definitely enjoyed the fruits of landing 3 excellent lotto picks that turned into Jordan, Pippen and Ho Grant. The current Bulls team went through years of tanking before landing the lynchpins of their current team in the lottery like Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng. Does it really matter the intent they were hoping to achieve when they won 20-29 games or the fact that they combined good scouting with good luck of opportunity?

I just am not seeing the championship data that people keep referring to where all these supposedly won NBA championships and acquired their Finals MVP player outside of the lottery. You have a couple Finals MVPs who weren't lottery picks (like Tony Parker) and you have a couple who were top lottery picks who took the teams that drafted them into the Finals before winning multiple championships elsewhere (Shaq & Lebron) and then the vast majority of teams that drafted their Finals MVP in the lottery.

[Admin]

Is the difference here intent or results? I don't think I am entirely following. Does it matter if you try to lose or you just suck if you win 20 games either way?

MJ and the Bulls definitely enjoyed the fruits of landing 3 excellent lotto picks that turned into Jordan, Pippen and Ho Grant. The current Bulls team went through years of tanking before landing the lynchpins of their current team in the lottery like Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng. Does it really matter the intent they were hoping to achieve when they won 20-29 games or the fact that they combined good scouting with good luck of opportunity?

I just am not seeing the championship data that people keep referring to where all these supposedly won NBA championships and acquired their Finals MVP player outside of the lottery. You have a couple Finals MVPs who weren't lottery picks (like Tony Parker) and you have a couple who were top lottery picks who took the teams that drafted them into the Finals before winning multiple championships elsewhere (Shaq & Lebron) and then the vast majority of teams that drafted their Finals MVP in the lottery.

Yes there is a difference. 'Tanking' is an intentional thing with thought put into it in order to get the best draft choice as possible. The lottery was created to prevent teams from intentionally losing and automatically getting the best pick, not from sucking.

[AHF]

Call it whatever you want but if you aren't losing 52-62 games in a season to get a cornerstone from the lottery, you probably aren't winning a championship. Like we saw, roughly 70% of Finals MVPs over the last 25 years have been drafted by teams in the lottery and roughly 90% of them have been either drafted in the lottery by the finals team or been top #1 overall choices that took the teams that drafted them to the finals and had names that rhyme with Shmaq or Lebrahn.

Some of them landed in bad situations and lost big after their best laid plans to win left the rail (Spurs with Duncan); some tanked for a top choice (Houston with Hakeem); some tanked for a high pick (Miami with Wade; Chicago with Jordan; Detroit with Isiah); some grabbed a lottery stud (Celtics with PP) and then tanked for assets to acquire more studs (KG/Allen); etc. but none of them would have won without their high lottery pick(s) used to draft their Finals MVP.

Edited June 25, 2013 by AHF