Built to win, Built to tank, or Built to trade?

[Diesel]

This is the question that every GM must face in a good draft year. How are we Built? In this poll, I'm asking Hawks fans to separate the game from the truth. How are we built? And What do you want to see us do?

[benhillboy]

I used to be totally against tanking, but I'm starting to see the benefit in a supposedly stacked draft that rivals '03 according to the Basketball Word consensus. Since Al got here this team was built to play consistently good basketball. Addition by subtraction has improved the overall product once in the case of Joe, and I expect even moreso this season sans Josh. That's all I ask for as a fan: smart, sound, fun basketball. I think the sky's the limit for Shredder, so I'll enjoy his journey. I don't have delusions of grandeur with this franchise, expecting a historically great brand. I don't think we have anyone who a contender would covet to complete their team. Al would need to boost his stock to an All-Time high at 20-10 by the middle of the season for contending teams to want to part with great value in return. I'm starting to come to grips with the notion that you become a True Contender through the draft. You can't argue with the Players of The Decade candidates in Timmy, Kobe, LeBron, and KD all taking their draft-day teams to the Finals. I'm sure "tanking" isn't in Ferry's plans, but I am also confident he knows out best chance is through a young savior fully developed in 1 system and with a sense of loyalty to the Hawks and the Hawks only.

Edited October 30, 2013 by benhillboy

[macdaddy]

There are a lot more failure stories than success stories when it comes to tanking and drafting. No one seems to want to admit that.

7: Four teams are tied for the most top three picks with five: Chicago Bulls (1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008), Los Angeles Clippers (1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2009), Philadelphia 76ers (1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2010) and Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies (1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2009).

Now the Bulls obviously are a very successful franchise but of the other three with the most top 3 picks (not even talking the whole lottery) its pretty much misery. I mean if we're going to keep throwing out Duncan and KD might as well look at the other possibilities.

http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2012/05/29/eleven-factual-tidbits-regarding-the-nba-lottery/

2003 I think there were 4 all nba players and they were all selected in the top 5. So what are the chances there are 4 all nba players in this draft, then what are the chances that we land in the top 5, and then the chances that we make the right pick. Is it more likely that all those cards fall right and we end up with Kevin Durant than us ending up with player on the level of Horford, Teague, Josh, or Marvin?

[Wretch]

The team is built to win. Not win big, but just win period. The moves we made were obviously not meant to tank us. DF intended to build a competitive core around Horford and that's what he did. He's taking two huge gambles on Horford though... In the first place, he's gambling that Horford is capable of putting the team on it's back. In the second, he's gambling that he can build a contender around Horford in 3 years or less (because our boy is a RFA in 2016).

Personally, I don't see that happening without a miraculous trade. The playoffs will not bear any fruit for us - not any more than it has in the past 30 or so years. What "good" players are going to put us over the top? And what do we have to give up for them? I don't know why I keep throwing my opinion in on this, but the best option for this team right now is to REBUILD. Especially in a strong year like this one - with assets that we can move to REALLY get a jump start on the process.

[ATLSmith]

Hmm... Tough choices.

I voted they are built to trade because there are a lot of great assets on this team right now. Milsaps attractive contract being one of them. However, this team is really built for flexibility. They could either; make trades for draft picks which would give them a lot of young talent but put them in "tank" mode the next year, or they could also trade for good players now, make good picks outside the lottery, and remain in the playoffs with title ambitions in two to three years. So yea, lots of options.

For the second question I said they are shooting for the playoffs. It is entirely possible there will be trades at the deadline but if the team is in the playoff hunt then I think Danny will keep his assets for the summer and the draft. This is partially because lottery bound teams won't want to make a trade at the deadline since they won't know which pick they will ultimately get. After the balls drop into place, it's game on.

[Wretch]

There are a lot more failure stories than success stories when it comes to tanking and drafting. No one seems to want to admit that.

Now the Bulls obviously are a very successful franchise but of the other three with the most top 3 picks (not even talking the whole lottery) its pretty much misery. I mean if we're going to keep throwing out Duncan and KD might as well look at the other possibilities.

http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2012/05/29/eleven-factual-tidbits-regarding-the-nba-lottery/

2003 I think there were 4 all nba players and they were all selected in the top 5. So what are the chances there are 4 all nba players in this draft, then what are the chances that we land in the top 5, and then the chances that we make the right pick. Is it more likely that all those cards fall right and we end up with Kevin Durant than us ending up with player on the level of Horford, Teague, Josh, or Marvin?

There are even fewer examples of teams that build without the draft lottery. We keep talking about the failures of the players drafted, but then we ignore the cases like Boston and LA (Clippers) where an asset was dealt for a missing link. In the case of both of those teams, the culture was completely turned around. Not through the draft, but by indirectly through the acquisition of highly coveted assets (young players with potential/picks).

Why do we just ignore that part of it...? It's not just about ping pong balls and drafting a savior. It's about rebuilding. You want to talk about how difficult it is to draft a franchise type of player...but the real difficulty is identifying teams that have rebuilt without securing assets through the draft lottery.

[macdaddy]

There are even fewer examples of teams that build without the draft lottery. We keep talking about the failures of the players drafted, but then we ignore the cases like Boston and LA (Clippers) where an asset was dealt for a missing link. In the case of both of those teams, the culture was completely turned around. Not through the draft, but by indirectly through the acquisition of highly coveted assets (young players with potential/picks).

Why do we just ignore that part of it...? It's not just about ping pong balls and drafting a savior. It's about rebuilding. You want to talk about how difficult it is to draft a franchise type of player...but the real difficulty is identifying teams that have rebuilt without securing assets through the draft lottery.

Maybe i'm not following you but in the case of the Hawks we have secured assets through the draft lottery. Lots of them in fact. So like everyone else we are searching to put together those missing pieces. I don't think anyone is suggesting we forgo drafting at all.

I know we've beat this thing to death but my point is that going into the draft lottery it is much more likely that we don't end up with a franchise player (meaning a real star) than it is that we do. I don't see how that can be debated.

Certainly we need to get talent through the draft as well as through FA and trades. Absolutely.

The real issue is there aren't 30+ franchise talent level players. Most teams will be SOL.

[Guest]

This is a team built to WIN games with TRADEable assets so we can TANK if necessary!

[Buzzard]

Why do we just ignore that part of it...? It's not just about ping pong balls and drafting a savior. It's about rebuilding. You want to talk about how difficult it is to draft a franchise type of player...but the real difficulty is identifying teams that have rebuilt without securing assets through the draft lottery.

Its obvious that most players are drafted. So you can say every contender was built via the draft if you are going to include trades of picks and players. There might be five undrafted players in the NBA who are starting out of 150 starters ( 30 teams times 5 starters ); so this is really a stupid debate in that sense.

I do think our team is built to make the playoffs and we have the flexibility to make trades. Given the number of trades involving playoff teams every season, I don't think its even close to being a black and white definition.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Buzzard

[Wretch]

Maybe i'm not following you but in the case of the Hawks we have secured assets through the draft lottery. Lots of them in fact. So like everyone else we are searching to put together those missing pieces. I don't think anyone is suggesting we forgo drafting at all.

I know we've beat this thing to death but my point is that going into the draft lottery it is much more likely that we don't end up with a franchise player (meaning a real star) than it is that we do. I don't see how that can be debated.

Certainly we need to get talent through the draft as well as through FA and trades. Absolutely.

The real issue is there aren't 30+ franchise talent level players. Most teams will be SOL.

So here's my thing...

In the case of the Hawks, YES we secured assets through the draft - a lot of them. But you're only telling half of the story. The other half you're not telling is this guy:

Our fortunes may have been very different.

Secondly, what you guys keep pointing to is the failure rate of lottery picks - specifically, the failure rate of the top 3. It's also popular to throw in the failure rate of "tanking" to acquire said top picks. What you guys are ignoring is what teams are doing with these picks (besides grooming superstars). That's where the disconnect is coming in. There is a benefit to just HAVING young talent with potential and having HIGH draft picks - a very noticeable benefit.

No, there aren't a dozen franchise players to be had in the draft every year. I don't think any of us believes that. But if you don't have a franchise player (we don't), and you don't have the assets to trade for a franchise player (we don't), and you're not a popular free agent destination (we aren't)...

Then what do you do?

...and again, what teams have done it this way? What contenders have done it without the lottery? The issue isn't about ignoring the draft or ignoring trades or ignoring FAcy. The issue is, if you make the playoffs...you do not have a lottery pick and you do not have a lottery pick asset. So if you're trying to build or even rebuild, how do you do that without using the lottery? You can't make the playoffs AND get great picks. The two are mutually exclusive...unless you trade.

But what do we trade for the most coveted draft picks? Lou? Teague? Millsap? Korver?

We keep coming back to the same place. For me, it's not so much about the preference to rebuild through the draft. I've just seen enough of the NBA to know that trying to avoid the "down cycle" is a recipe for mediocrity.

(I really want to apologize for opening up the tank/anti-tank discussion again...lol, but Diesel already kind of did it with this poll! I'm just going to bow out here. We will see in a few years who was right! ;))

[Wretch]

Its obvious that most players are drafted. So you can say every contender was built via the draft if you are going to include trades of picks and players. There might be five undrafted players in the NBA who are starting out of 150 starters ( 30 teams times 5 starters ); so this is really a stupid debate in that sense.

I do think our team is built to make the playoffs and we have the flexibility to make trades. Given the number of trades involving playoff teams every season, I don't think its even close to being a black and white definition.

KEY players drafted in the LOTTERY is what you're missing, Buzz. I have been making a specific argument for a long time, don't change it. This team is missing a KEY player. An ENGINE. A FRANCHISE talent...not just more PLAYERS.

If I were just saying "Durp! Every team has drafted players that leadz them to wins! DURP" then yes, we would be having a stupid debate.

The only valid question in this whole debate...

What kind of player does this team need and how do we get THAT player? To me, I think you rebuild and you don't screw around when you're looking at a PRIME year to do it.

[macdaddy]

We will see in a few years who was right!

I was going to bow out to except for that last line. lol. So if we stay in the playoffs and in a few years we haven't won a championship then i guess many will feel 'right'? But since we previously tanked and had about 6 or 7 lottery picks and still failed to build a contender that isn't a failure of the process but simple a failure of BK?

You're right though. We aren't going to settle this so let's play ball!!!!!!!

[Diesel]

For years, I have been on the antitank team...

However, this year.. it's different.

Milsapp, Lou, Teague, Horf and Korver are all tradable players. None of them are good enough to be an engine for even a playoff team. They are all add on guys with strong deficiencies somewhere. I think what you may see is us wheel and deal ourselves into the lottery with picks and young players. The names are too big coming out. This is 2004 all over again.

If it's about winning and creating a culture, we will see some player movement and we will see us do something we have not tried to do before.

If a mod can make these pics smaller, I would be most appreciative.

[coachx]

I voted that the Hawks are built to trade b/c they are too good to tank and not good enough to "win." Now by "win".........I interpret that as being a legitimate contender and NOT fighting for the #7 or #8 seed in the playoffs.

What I would like to see us do ? Trade for a star player, and / or legit starting center, and or draft picks. Of course these are probably the 3 most difficult pieces to get in a trade.

I do look foward to seeing us play smart team basketball, with plenty of ball movement between 5 shooters on the floor together.

Edited October 30, 2013 by coachx

[Buzzard]

KEY players drafted in the LOTTERY is what you're missing, Buzz. I have been making a specific argument for a long time, don't change it. This team is missing a KEY player. An ENGINE. A FRANCHISE talent...not just more PLAYERS.

What kind of player does this team need and how do we get THAT player? To me, I think you rebuild and you don't screw around when you're looking at a PRIME year to do it.

In that sense we are close to where Boston was when they moved Jefferson for Garnet. Their big three before that trade was Pierce, Rondo, Jefferson. We have Horford, Teague, and Millsap. Add in two mid 1st round draft picks some teams could be high on in Schröder and Nogueira. If the value is there, we could throw in 2014 and 2016 picks. Or we could move one of our players for a pick/picks.

The key is can we find a team that values one or more of our players/assets as much as the TWolves valued Jefferson. Value is definitely in the eyes of the beholder. I think this is what Ferry is building. A team that can win; a team that has trade-able assets and contracts should a deal present itself.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Buzzard

[coachx]

For years, I have been on the antitank team...

However, this year.. it's different.

Milsapp, Lou, Teague, Horf and Korver are all tradable players. None of them are good enough to be an engine for even a playoff team. They are all add on guys with strong deficiencies somewhere. I think what you may see is us wheel and deal ourselves into the lottery with picks and young players. The names are too big coming out. This is 2004 all over again.

If it's about winning and creating a culture, we will see some player movement and we will see us do something we have not tried to do before.

If a mod can make these pics smaller, I would be most appreciative.

I am very close to that point.

However, I'm going to wait until 25 games into the season before I jump on the tank.

[MrMeltdown]

Another wishy-washy thread by so-called Hawks fans. Last year everything was about the possibility of getting Dwight and Chris now everything is about the possibility of tanking to get one of maybe four players out of 60. Very narrow minded approaches.

Edited October 30, 2013 by MrMeltdown

[hazer]

This is a team built to WIN games with TRADEable assets so we can TANK if necessary!

Tah dah!

[TheFuzz]

This upcoming draft is getting a little overrated IMO. Granted, I'm not a scout or anything, but the scouts are wrong a lot. This most recent draft was called "weak" and I think it's pretty sick. Lots of good players in it.

Point is there's good players in every draft, especially recently with the globalization of the sport. This upcoming draft has plenty of talent in it itself, of course. Wiggins will be sick, and I'm partial to Parker. But there's a lot of similar talent in the 5-20 range much like this past year. I'm honestly pretty cool with wherever we land with the trust that Ferry will make something nice happen on draft night. He's been a good drafter so far (didn't get Giannis, who I heard from somewhere we wanted, but otherwise well done).

To answer the poll question, yes.

We've got two players by my count that are stars and/or have star potential: Schröder and Horford. Between trades, FA and the draft let's add a couple more. A well-coached team with good defense and 4ish all-star level players has a shot at the title in today's league, particularly with the new CBA. We could use a wing who can create and a defensive anchor in the middle.

[Buzzard]

This is a team built to WIN games with TRADEable assets so we can TANK if necessary!

That is called being flexible! I think its win first mode/try and work a trade to land a star /tank if we are not good enough to win or suffer a big injury.

I don't think Ferry wants to tank; but if things go south, he will not be oblivious to it.