Doomed if we do - - Doomed if we don't.

[Gray Mule]

Two of our top posters here on Hawksquawk have spoken about Jeff Teague.

nbasuperstar40retired: If the Hawks sign JT, we are doomed!

Diesel: If the Hawks don't resign JT, we are doomed!

Well, who is correct? They can't both be right, can they? We did keep Jeff Teague.

we resigned him for $8M per year. Some say this is a reasonable amount for a PG

of his talents. Some say that it's too much. Which is correct?

Are we going to tank this upcoming season? - - No!

Are we going to win it all this upcoming season? - - No!

Some posters here, I don't recall who, but some you will find here, say that we would

have won 30 games if we hadn't signed JT and will now win 40 with him on board.

So, even though we don't even know who will be on our final roster, we know the

final outcome - - 40 wins.

We, all the Hawk fans posting here, are very fickle. We were not satisfied with our

roster when Danny Ferry came on board. We wanted most of our roster gone. Now,

it's gone, for the most part. We can't possible be happy.

Why didn't Superman and CP3 come here and change everything. Surely that would

have happened if our GM had been doing his job. They were both just waiting, in a

breathless condition, to come here, take over the NBA and bring us a championship.

Sure, we dreamed. It didn't happen.

Us fickle fans didn't like our old roster. We don't like our new roster. No matter who

we sign or what we do, we can't possibly be happy with.

Doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.

A great cartoon character once said it best;

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

GO DOOMED HAWKS!!

[turnermx]

Good post Gray Mule!

It does seem like a small minority here that are neutral on this. Jeff Teague signing was very polarizing. It certainly exposed the pro and anti tankers. I felt that both sides made good points, but does keeping Jeff on board at 8m per year for 4 years really tie us up that much? I think we're still in good shape for the future with flexibility. It was a no brainer to match that contract without a clear upgrade at a cheaper deal to replace Jeff. I don't think Jennings or Ellis were clear upgrades, and Mo would have been another Devin Harris situation with an injury prone vet only playing max 50 games.

[benhillboy]

I'm too big a basketball fan to be okay with my team stinking it up night in, night out, and thats certainly what we'd do with Shredder as our best PG. Most of the pro-tankers just want to be associated with a popular team. I'm fine with being where Indy, San An, and Memphis ended up this past year. In another year with a couple smart moves to finagle an impact wing and Big, we can be there.

[DJlaysitup]

Doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.

A great cartoon character once said it best;

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

GO DOOMED HAWKS!!

My "girlish" guess is that we go 20-20 early...get pushed around midseason by the better teams...and pick up some wins against tankers late.

We'll be in the race for the 7th-8th spot in the playoffs and will then lose. Chances are AL and Milsap and whoever will get us a win at home.

Then we will watch the draft lottery and hope that one of the top six drops down to us. They won't and we will draft Krgyzekia Maytolinska from Prague - who we will leave in place.

[Diesel]

Actually... Depending on what we do with the C and Sg spots, we could be very competitive. I know the nature of a lot of fans is to be pessimestic. I know that a lot of fans are willing to go with whatever is new. However continuity is where it's at.

I like what BenHill Boy said above.

When you consider what the offerings were, it only made sense to be competitive. We do and will have flexibility. Moreover, at the rate we're going, we will be able to draw some better free agents if we do well in the season.

Look at GS and Indy. Winning is great for drawing players. The players who will get you to the top are players who want to play for a team that's going somewhere. If we get a C and if we clear up our SG picture, we will be one of those teams.

[Buzzard]

The tank argument is a dumb as a box of rocks type argument for a team in our position with cap space. It appears on paper to be smart because of all the lottery picks that have won championships; while totally ignoring how many teams with lottery picks have not won any championships.

They cite the poster child OKC; while totally ignoring the fact of one: how hard it is ( and sad IMO ) to be a pitiful lottery team for a second straight year after drafting a player as good as Durant the year before. And two: they totally ignore the fact that OKC lost the lottery in the first place and that is how they got Westbrook.

They totally ignore the fact that most of those championship teams only had one great lottery pick of their own; which we already have as well in Horford.

And now the most relevant thing they ignore which is happening all around them in plain sight; and honestly makes them look like a bunch of raving lunatics, among other things, is this:

Every team in the NBA that had relevant cap space, also has at least one lottery pick on their team, and has also attempted to improve their team with free agent signings. EVERY TEAM!!!!!!. Now go find me some stats on that!!!

Edited July 14, 2013 by Buzzard

[NBASupes]

Once again, great posting from one of the best on the board. Five stars.

[IllestPamfilis]

We suck. Everything Sucks. said most posters on here. Good post though braj

Edited July 14, 2013 by IllestPamfilis