Myths...and the ultimate truth.

[Buzzard]

*sigh*

- The ASG are of the belief that just because you make the playoffs and win basketball games that the fans should just come out and support you. They believe this makes you a winner. They believe that the ultimate goal is to simply remain competitive. They brought in Danny Ferry, who shares their ideas, and they quietly took a back seat. Other than having a smarter person in the front office trying to maintain a competitive team, and new B and C list players to replace the old ones, I don't think anything has changed.

- We are not going to be contenders in two years by adding "hard working" spare parts. Dumars did it once in Detroit. Most teams draft something solid, build around it, or trade it for a cornerstone.

- If we keep this course and we keep adding these spare parts, we will be in this exact same situation in 2 years with an 8 year playoff streak...and we will be no closer to contention than we are right now. Only then, we'll be worried about losing Al Horford.

- If DF is in charge, he will reload it and try it again exactly the same way...and we will rinse and repeat unless you find a superstar in the late first round or we manage to lure a top free agent here. Personally, I don't understand how those odds are considered any better than fishing in the lottery...but whatever.

- If and when all this happens, you will quietly rethink what we just went through and someone else will take your place telling me the exact same thing your saying because I have heard this same line of thinking before. Exactly the same way. It just doesn't work dude.

If I'm wrong, again, feed me crow. I will change my avatar to a crow and my title to "Crow Eater" for 3 months.

PS - I ***LOVE*** Al Horford, but I would not build a team around him.

Like I said you could say this about 24 out of the last 30 teams and been right. And its ludicrous to think owners "don't want championships" and that is what you are implying.

They all want championships but getting one is not easy to do if even you are stacked like the Lakers, Spurs, OKC, Memphis, Indy, Knicks, etc...

If you don't think Al is a great building block, we seriously disagree. Horford is a 17 ppg and 10 rpg quality player on both ends of the floor. Only four players did that last season out of over 60 PF's and Centers that started in the NBA last season. 4 out of over 60! That is elite as hell IMO and a great start for any team. Everyone starts somewhere and for us that somewhere is Horford. Period end of story.

[Wretch]

There is a huge difference between building around a player and building WITH a player. But I am wasting my time talking to you... You can't even see that we agree with our opinion on the same player. So I'm done.

You guys better hope that Al Horford plus these spare parts can get us to the ECF's or make us appealing in 3 seasons...because he will be an unrestricted free agent after that.

Dueces homeslice.

[Vol4ever]

I've had over 30 years of this stuff, nothing ever changes with the Hawks. I understand that Ferry is trying to change the franchise but I'm not up to a tanking rebuild. If things don't change significantly by training camp I will just look at this site and watch very few games, not spending the money anymore to come watch in Atlanta, product just not worth it. I will let you youngsters be the diehards.

[Buzzard]

Talk about a distinction without a difference. If it makes anyone feel better, you can say 80% of the finals MVPs were acquired by their teams before they ever played a game with another team and that might get over the notion that there is somehow a meaningful difference between saying Marbury was drafted by Minnesota and saying Minnesota acquired the draft rights to him.I may have left off names but this list has been posted numerous times without contradiction because people can play semantics but they can't argue that these players were free agents or nba players with a minute of experience who were acquired by trade with the notable exceptions of Lebron and Shaq - neither of whom is walking into our locker room.

I think the notable difference is you don't have to tank to trade for a draft pick. So in essence, tanking may or may not be a part of the process to get a high pick that turns your franchise around.

That is really the only meaningful difference I see.

[ATLBob]

Just spent WAY too much time reading this crazy thread:1) If a player gets drafted then immediately traded, the team to which he gets traded should count as the drafting team for the purposes of this discussion. If you can't grasp that, you're an idiot.2) If the Hawks are building around Horford, then we'd better damn sure hope that Ferry pulls a starting-caliber C in. Keeping Horford at C isn't building around him IMO, it's running in place.3) Championship teams require an elite talent, as well as additional great talents. Players from both categories can be drafted, traded for, or signed in FA. anyone who disagrees is an idiot.4) At the moment, the Hawks have exactly one great talent (Horford) under contract. Others are role players (albeit some very good at their roles). Currently, Hawks have no elite player, or the assets to get one via trade.5) So remaining options are draft or FA, which is where we reach the divide that could sum up this entire thread: some believe Hawks can get that player through FA *eventually* by keeping ledger flexibility and trying every other year while others think that player will only come via the draft or a trade featuring assets acquired through the draft.Pretty much nailed it (FYI: that last bit's a joke)

[Guest]

1) If a player gets drafted then immediately traded, the team to which he gets traded should count as the drafting team for the purposes of this discussion. If you can't grasp that, you're an idiot.

You have just changed the defintion of drafting. Great job.

Edited July 7, 2013 by hawksfanatic

[drzachary]

Just spent WAY too much time reading this crazy thread:1) If a player gets drafted then immediately traded, the team to which he gets traded should count as the drafting team for the purposes of this discussion. If you can't grasp that, you're an idiot.

Um. No.

The team with the original pick got it based on their (possibly tanking) record. The team that got the player's rights did not necessarily tank to get it. (Maybe they were in the playoffs.) If you can't grasp that, well, I won't call you an idiot, because that would be mean.

[ATLBob]

Might as well add the rest here:Individually, I think that I like Ferry's moves so far (at least I like them right now).And I like the hard-nosed, high-character approach to roster building.Collectively though, I'm just not sure yet. Let's see who will play PG & C. If the answers are Lou & Al, then no, I'm not happy. A team strong enough to give us (fine, me!) hope again would have Al @ PF & Lou as 6th man.Honestly, that's all I'm asking for this season: hope. Hope that this team is finally going to acquire the right assets, use those assets to bring in the right players, and align itself to maybe, just maybe, break through to something really exciting.There are many ways to get to hope. Right now, I'm still crossing my fingers that we'll see one of them.

[ATLBob]

Nice, some fire in here!Never said that team should get credit for tanking. My comment had absolutely zero element of tanking.But you're right, I guess we should totally credit the Celtics for drafting Bebe this year. He's gonna be awesome for them.And I can't wait to see Nerlens in N'awlins (damn that was fun to swype).Divorce your thought process from the tanking crap & use your brain.P.S. Vick was awesome in San Diego until he ruined the franchise with his selfishness. Really glad they drafted him!

[drzachary]

Nice, some fire in here!Never said that team should get credit for tanking. My comment had absolutely zero element of tanking.But you're right, I guess we should totally credit the Celtics for drafting Bebe this year. He's gonna be awesome for them.And I can't wait to see Nerlens in N'awlins (damn that was fun to swype).Divorce your thought process from the tanking crap & use your brain.P.S. Vick was awesome in San Diego until he ruined the franchise with his selfishness. Really glad they drafted him!

You are missing the point.

The earlier argument was that you need lottery picks.

In the NBA, your position in the draft depends on your prior season's record -- with some variance, hence 'lottery.'

Wretch's implication is that gaining lottery picks by missing the playoffs is preferable to winning meaningless playoff series.

Hawksfanatic's distinction shows us that you *CAN TRADE FOR LOTTERY PICKS.*

Ergo, you can gain lottery picks without missing the playoffs ("tanking," if you want.)

This is actually really, really simple to understand.

[ATLBob]

It's a stupid argument anyway. Both sides are just selectively looking at things to support their side only. Would everyone be happy if we started calling them " drafted then immediately traded" players instead?

[Guest]

It's a stupid argument anyway. Both sides are just selectively looking at things to support their side only.Would everyone be happy if we started calling them " drafted then immediately traded" players instead?

Once you trade away a draft pick, that is not a part of your team. Players can be acquired through 3 ways: draft, trade, or free agency.

Edited July 7, 2013 by hawksfanatic

[ATLBob]

Was editing my last post when I got called away:

No, I get your point just fine Doc Z.

Would everyone be happy if we started calling them "drafted then immediately traded" players instead?

It's just a stupid argument anyway. Both sides are just selectively looking at things to support their side only.

Take N.O. as an example this year. Pelicans (feels weird!) got the #6 by not being very good. I wouldn't call it tanking, but that's neither here nor there. Then Noel unexpectedly fell to them. So they flipped him to Philly for Jrue Holiday, a player they feel better fits their roster. Jrue is a very good player, and without their lottery pick, they could not have gotten him. So Wretch is correct in thinking that being not very good benefited the Pelicans, and when combined with their other high draft picks and acquired assets, may have them poised to become much better.

Philly meanwhile wanted a big to move on from the Bynum debacle, so they traded Jrue, who they drafted at #17. That's not a lottery pick, but it was an asset that Philly put time & coaching into developing. So HF is correct in saying that Philly got a lottery pick by trading an asset.

In short, both options are viable ways of getting what you want.

Now time will tell who got the better end of that trade.

But saying earning lottery picks the hard way can't help build a team is just wrong (I know HF didn't say this. Just generalizing here).

Likewise, saying that sucking enough to earn lotto picks is the only way to get a great player is also overly simple.

As the strange idiom goes, there are lots of ways to skin a cat.

[ATLBob]

Once you trade away a draft pick, that is not a part of your team. Players can be acquired through 3 ways: draft, trade, or free agency. Only a moron thinks players can only be acquired through draft. I guess that makes you a...

What are you talking about HF?

How am I a moron for agreeing that players can be acquired via FA, trade, & the draft?

Did you even read anything else, or are you so hung up on the stupid tanking thing that you just assumed?

[Guest]

What are you talking about HF? How am I a moron for agreeing that players can be acquired via FA, trade, & the draft? Did you even read anything else, or are you so hung up on the stupid tanking thing that you just assumed?

You are calling a player acquired through trade as a player acquired through draft. It is obvious that you are doing that and you called people idiots for not agreeing that someone acquired through trade was *actually* acquired through draft. They were not. It all goes back to your first point a few posts ago. Kobe and Dirk (as just a few examples) were not acquired through the draft. Yes, they were both literally drafted but neither of their teams they first played for acquired them through that.You cannot change the definition of being drafted, but alas that is what a lot of "tankers" want to do. This is one reason why there cannot be a legitimate discussion of tanking on this board because posters fail to recognize what the actual ways of acquiring players are. I already tried to start a discussion of this on the board but no one engaged in it. This is telling me posters are not willing or capable of engaging in a legitimate discussion on tanking since they cannot even understand the ways a team can acquire assets. Or they understood what I said and chose to ignore it because it harms their agenda. Whatever, you cannot engage in a discussion with a brick wall and I won't waste my time with that.

Edited July 7, 2013 by hawksfanatic

[drzachary]

*backing away slowly*

[effjee14]

I guess my biggest issue with all of this is it seems like we gave up. I would have rather maintained our core, and build quality players around it. Whether or not that would be possible with paying josh 14 million a year, I don't know. Just feeling empty right now. I have no real emotions positive or negative for the hawks franchise. We won't be winning big anytime soon, this offseason guarantees it. #go hawks

[Seano]

That's really what I've been saying...and I've been saying it for years. Hovering around the middle of the pack, filling our teams with Milsaps, Korvers, and building around Horfords means competing every year and missing the difference makers in the draft. I'm not saying stink...actually, I'm not saying anything about winning or losing.

I'm talking about acquiring HIGH POTENTIAL talent and DEVELOPING it or trading it. Leaving room to sign someone significant should we find ourselves appealing to free agents (IOW - should we land our own stud).

Hmmm, it seems to me like you're just playing word games here, dancing around the gist whilst steadfastly refusing to say what you really mean, so why not just cut the crud and actually say that you're advocating tanking, else what the hell else is it you're talking about here?

[Seano]

Win without losing? Is that better or worse than 'lose by losing?'

Yeah. That makes my head spin like some Orwellian concept of double-think straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and as the clocks struck 13: "War is Peace", Freedom is Slavery", Ignorance is Strength".....;. and huh, say whaaaaat???

Wretch is a good guy and an obvious fan, but I just fail to understand why he can't just come out with it and say what it really is he's trying to say.

[MaceCase]

You are calling a player acquired through trade as a player acquired through draft. It is obvious that you are doing that and you called people idiots for not agreeing that someone acquired through trade was *actually* acquired through draft. They were not. Pretty dumb if you ask anyone with a brain. It all goes back to your first point a few posts ago. Kobe and Dirk (as just a few examples) were not acquired through the draft. Yes, they were both literally drafted but neither of their teams they first played for acquired them through that. And no, the idiot is actually you for claiming they were drafted by their teams they first played an NBA game with.You cannot change the definition of being drafted, but alas that is what a lot of "tankers" want to do. This is one reason why there cannot be a legitimate discussion of tanking on this board because posters fail to recognize what the actual ways of acquiring players are. I already tried to start a discussion of this on the board but no one engaged in it. This is telling me posters are not willing or capable of engaging in a legitimate discussion on tanking since they cannot even understand the ways a team can acquire assets. Or they understood what I said and chose to ignore it because it harms their agenda. Whatever, you cannot engage in a discussion with a brick wall and I won't waste my time with that.

So you are saying that when team A decides to trade asset X to team B for pick Y on or right before draft night and they tell team B who exactly they want taken with pick Y as a condition of them trading asset X that team A had no part in the actual "drafting" of player Z with pick Y? Can we extend your definition out to Josh then? Does he count as a traded player rather than a drafted one seeing as the pick used to select him was not a result of the Hawks own record but rather Milwaukee or Denver or Detroit's? I can see your point when it comes to cases where a team says "Oh shit, I just realized I really like that player all of a sudden, let's get his draft rights" but I'm having just a bit of a hard time applying that to most cases where team B selects their 5th PG in a row and that guy just so coincidentally happens to have a trade officially announced moments later.

I don't know, just seems as if you are intentionally being as rigid as possible in your definitions of player acquisitions with "Draft!" "Trade!" "Free-Agency!". What about gray areas such as sign and trades or the Josh example?

You are missing the point.

The earlier argument was that you need lottery picks.

In the NBA, your position in the draft depends on your prior season's record -- with some variance, hence 'lottery.'

Wretch's implication is that gaining lottery picks by missing the playoffs is preferable to winning meaningless playoff series.

Hawksfanatic's distinction shows us that you *CAN TRADE FOR LOTTERY PICKS.*

Ergo, you can gain lottery picks without missing the playoffs ("tanking," if you want.)

This is actually really, really simple to understand.

And you are missing a bigger point, what exactly are the Hawks trading for lottery picks? The Hawks have Horford and then.......who and what exactly? Millsap? Nope. Korver? Definitely not. Establish context, look at your current team instead of trying to argue on theory and then use common sense to figure out that when this team marches out to its 7-10th one and out series that clearly they don't have the firepower to win it all nor be flipped for youngsters who may have the highest potential to do so. You can't look at the returns for Josh and Joe and sit back and smugly declare "no need to be bad, we can trade these wonderful assets to teams that were bad for us". Free agency so far is a bust, attempted trades have been a bust outside of creating cap space so where does that leave the team as far as options to get that "engine"?

Who knows, perhaps we could get the same package for Al that Philly did for Jrue or perhaps there are GMs still dumb and shortsighted enough out there to pull a Randy Foye+Mike Miller for the 5th pick type of deal for Kyle and Sap but again, if one is arguing that the lottery is a crap shoot then what are the probabilities of that happening? It gets even harder when GMs are actually learning from examples like Neil Olshey trading Baron Davis with an unprotected pick.