How the Warriors were built Hawks Can Learn

[Dakin]

No great loss you reading my posts.

Anytime someone reads thescout5's posts someone gets dumber.

[thescout5]

Anytime someone reads thescout5's posts someone gets dumber.

I get it your a funny man duh! Add something worthwhile mental midget.

[AHF]

@thescout5

 

@Dakin

 

@Spud2Nique

 

I get it your a funny man duh! Add something worthwhile mental midget.

 

 

Anytime someone reads thescout5's posts someone gets dumber.

 

 

Awwwwww cumned bick i'n surry!!!

 

 

No great loss you reading my posts.

 

 

I stopped reading when you spelled Klay as Clay....it kinda made me laugh at ur post altogether and I went as far as not wanting to read any of your future posts.

 

This crap is ending.  Stop taking personal shots at other posters or you will taking a break from the Squawk.  We are all Hawks fans with different views on how the team should be built, coached, etc.  Let's have some respect for each other even when we disagree.

[Guard]

The Warriors show you can find talent without having to pick in the top five every year. You just have to have a GM that knows what he's doing. The player development has to be there also.

 

The scariest thing about the Warriors is that none of their core pieces outside of maybe Bogut has peaked. The rest of their core (Curry, Thompson, Barnes, and Green) are young and still growing. That's just crazy to me.

[Guest]

Pretty telling that only 1 in 4 teams in the conference finals tanked. (<- that's me not so subtly tooting my own horn about how there are many ways to build a team.)

[Guard]

Pretty telling that only 1 in 4 teams in the conference finals tanked. (<- that's me not so subtly tooting my own horn about how there are many ways to build a team.)

I think you mean two. The Warriors  tanked in 2012 and ended up with Barnes at #7( and Green and Ezeli in the second round). The Cavs tanking history is obvious.

 

The pretty telling thing to me is how far Atlanta got without the talent level of the other remaining teams. Bud got more out of this team than most coaches would. 

[Guest]

@thescout5

@Dakin

@Spud2Nique

This crap is ending. Stop taking personal shots at other posters or you will taking a break from the Squawk. We are all Hawks fans with different views on how the team should be built, coached, etc. Let's have some respect for each other even when we disagree.

How did what I say considered a personal attack? I think you might want to reevaluate and read my posts again. There was no personal attack. I just said I stopped reading his post when he spelled Klay as Clay. I don't see how that is personal.

[Guest]

I think you mean two. The Warriors  tanked in 2012 and ended up with Barnes at #7( and Green and Ezeli in the second round). The Cavs tanking history is obvious.

 

The pretty telling thing to me is how far Atlanta got without the talent level of the other remaining teams. Bud got more out of this team than most coaches would.

No, I meant 1. Being a bad team does not mean you are tanking and in the context of this board clamoring for tanking, the tanking strategy was one that you would undertake for an entire season and not at the trade deadline (trading Ellis for Bogut appears to be what you are referring to with the 2012 GSW). So for the "tankers" that I am poking fun at, there's only the Cavs that did that.

[AHF]

How did what I say considered a personal attack? I think you might want to reevaluate and read my posts again. There was no personal attack. I just said I stopped reading his post when he spelled Klay as Clay. I don't see how that is personal.

 

Really?

 

I stopped reading when you spelled Klay as Clay....it kinda made me laugh at ur post altogether and I went as far as not wanting to read any of your future posts.

 

Saying you didn't finish his post and didn't want to read any future posts from him is something I would take personally.  It is a shot.    

It then leads to the question of why would you not want to read his future posts?  The implication is that it is so stupid as to make you laugh at him and ignore him going forward.  It wasn't missed by the poster and started a chain of personal shots.  You are better than that.  If you think his argument is laughable then spell out why it is bad  -- don't just shoot off about it being a 'laughable' or 'stupid' etc. post.

 

If you didn't intend to communicate that then just take my quoting your post as a suggestion for improving the clarity of your message going forward.

 

No, I meant 1. Being a bad team does not mean you are tanking and in the context of this board clamoring for tanking, the tanking strategy was one that you would undertake for an entire season and not at the trade deadline (trading Ellis for Bogut appears to be what you are referring to with the 2012 GSW). So for the "tankers" that I am poking fun at, there's only the Cavs that did that.

 

The GSW absolutely tanked.  They were going to lose the pick if they finished too high so they went into full blown tank mode for much of the season.

Edited May 26, 2015 by AHF

[MaceCase]

It's what you call the backdoor tank but Fanatic is right in that it wasn't the Philly cheesetank that many on this board wanted the team to go in.

[AHF]

Here is the byline for a Golden State article:

 

After the not-so-subtle tank job by the Golden State Warriors in 2012, they selected Harrison Barnes with the seventh pick and he's been quite the question mark ever since.

 

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2013/7/10/4506010/season-review-golden-state-warriors-harrison-barnes

 

Title to a third party article:

 

The Golden State Warriors Shamelessly Tanked Last Season — And It Worked Perfectly

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5#ixzz3bHNDBslk

 

You can find a million references to this.  Your title is almost surely going to be won by a tanker this season and will probably be a matchup of two tankers.

[Guest]

Really?

Saying you didn't finish his post and didn't want to read any future posts from him is something I would take personally. It is a shot.

It then leads to the question of why would you not want to read his future posts? The implication is that it is so stupid as to make you laugh at him and ignore him going forward. It wasn't missed by the poster and started a chain of personal shots. You are better than that. If you think his argument is laughable then spell out why it is bad -- don't just shoot off about it being a 'laughable' or 'stupid' etc. post.

If you didn't intend to communicate that then just take my quoting your post as a suggestion for improving the clarity of your message going forward.

The GSW absolutely tanked. They were going to lose the pick if they finished too high so they went into full blown tank mode for much of the season.

Good points. I guess my emotions got the best of me. I should have either explained or approached it differently. My fault.

[AHF]

The Golden State Warriors launched one of the most egregious tanking campaigns in recent NBAhistory last year.

They were 18-21 — the third-worst record in the conference — with 26 games left when they completely and willfully collapsed.

They traded Monta Ellis for an injured Andrew Bogut, shut down Steph Curry for the season, and benched David Lee with an ambiguous-sounding injury.

They went 5-22 to end the year.

The incentive was simple: their first-round draft pick was "top-7 protected," meaning Utah would have gotten it if it was 8th or higher.

Golden State was too young and thin to make any noise in the playoffs last year, so they sacrificed those last 26 games in embarrassing fashion to make sure they'd have a first-round pick.

It worked better than they ever imagined.

They ended up with the 7th-worst record in the league, got the 7th pick, and took Harrison Barnes — a talented ex-high school phenom who underperformed in college. With their second-round pick, they took Draymond Green.

Now, 12 months later, the Warriors have a legitimate chance to make the Western Conference finals, and Barnes and Green — who are on the team as a direct result of tanking — are playing in crunch time.

Barnes has scored 15 points per game in the playoffs, and his presence as a small-ball power forward has utterly confused opposing defense since his minutes picked up early in the Denver series. Green, for his part, is shooting 50% from three.

It's a perfect example of the virtue of tanking, and it sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

It proves that if you are a certain type of team with certain types of players, there's no harm in throwing away entire seasons with an eye toward the future.

Golden State is the feel-good story of the playoffs. But they wouldn't be here without tanking.

This was the exact debate we had last season when there was a big tanking debate.  Tank for a lottery pick or grab the #8 seed.

[Guest]

The GSW absolutely tanked.  They were going to lose the pick if they finished too high so they went into full blown tank mode for much of the season.

Did you not catch my comment? I'm talking in the context of a full-blown tank which is comparable to what the arguments were two years ago that the Hawks should tank before the season even started.

GSW in 2012 didn't start off with the tank in mind, it became clear the team wasn't going to be good enough with Marky Mark running the show to make the playoffs so then they scaled back to retain the pick. When we were discussing Hawks being tankers, the tanking argument wasn't "give it a go, then if we aren't doing that great blow it up!" The tanker argument was to punt the entire season for a chance at drafting Wiggins / Parker / Randle / whoever.

So I'm still tooting my horn here. That, and I'll also point out that Cleveland didn't need to tank to acquire their main assets. They had cap space at one point in time this last offseason. So they could have gathered up all their players without the use of the lottery. All this to point out what I've harped on a long time, the way to acquire players has been changing drastically and with the new CBA the different ways to acquire players and build a team is more open now than any point in time for the NBA (sans the non-RFA years in the 90s).

[AHF]

Did you not catch my comment? I'm talking in the context of a full-blown tank which is comparable to what the arguments were two years ago that the Hawks should tank before the season even started.

GSW in 2012 didn't start off with the tank in mind, it became clear the team wasn't going to be good enough with Marky Mark running the show to make the playoffs so then they scaled back to retain the pick. When we were discussing Hawks being tankers, the tanking argument wasn't "give it a go, then if we aren't doing that great blow it up!" The tanker argument was to punt the entire season for a chance at drafting Wiggins / Parker / Randle / whoever.

So I'm still tooting my horn here. That, and I'll also point out that Cleveland didn't need to tank to acquire their main assets. They had cap space at one point in time this last offseason. So they could have gathered up all their players without the use of the lottery. All this to point out what I've harped on a long time, the way to acquire players has been changing drastically and with the new CBA the different ways to acquire players and build a team is more open now than any point in time for the NBA (sans the non-RFA years in the 90s).

 

Cleveland did the exact type of tank job you are talking about.  Let's look at how they acquired their best players:

 

Kyrie Irving - #1 pick (tank)

Kevin Love - acquired by trading #1 pick (tank)

Tristam Thompson - #5 pick (tank)

Lebron James - #1 pick (tank) who then rejoined the team only after it acquired Irving and multiple other lottery talents (after he originally left them to join multiple lottery talents in Miami)

 

Who is it you think they would have acquired without all those high lottery picks from tanking?  You think Lebron would have jumped back to Cleveland with a bunch of nondescript role players?

[Guest]

This was the exact debate we had last season when there was a big tanking debate.  Tank for a lottery pick or grab the #8 seed.

I'm not referring to last season, I'm referring to when the tanking discussion was simmering with the board in JUNE of 2013: http://hawksquawk.net/community/topic/381632-merged-discussion-on-tanking/page-3

This was the board clamoring to punt the season before it even began. Only the Cavs did that.

[AHF]

I'm not referring to last season, I'm referring to when the tanking discussion was simmering with the board in JUNE of 2013: http://hawksquawk.net/community/topic/381632-merged-discussion-on-tanking/page-3

This was the board clamoring to punt the season before it even began. Only the Cavs did that.

 

The Cavs who are on the brink of sweeping into the finals, right?

[Guest]

Cleveland did the exact type of tank job you are talking about.  Let's look at how they acquired their best players:

 

Kyrie Irving - #1 pick (tank)

Kevin Love - acquired by trading #1 pick (tank)

Tristam Thompson - #5 pick (tank)

Lebron James - #1 pick (tank) who then rejoined the team only after it acquired Irving and multiple other lottery talents (after he originally left them to join multiple lottery talents in Miami)

 

Who is it you think they would have acquired without all those high lottery picks from tanking?  You think Lebron would have jumped back to Cleveland with a bunch of nondescript role players?

Who are you arguing with here? I've already mentioned that Cleveland tanked.

[AHF]

Who are you arguing with here? I've already mentioned that Cleveland tanked.

 

 

I'll also point out that Cleveland didn't need to tank to acquire their main assets. They had cap space at one point in time this last offseason. So they could have gathered up all their players without the use of the lottery. All this to point out what I've harped on a long time, the way to acquire players has been changing drastically and with the new CBA the different ways to acquire players and build a team is more open now than any point in time for the NBA (sans the non-RFA years in the 90s).

 

Kyrie Irving - #1 pick (tank)

Kevin Love - acquired by trading #1 pick (tank)

Tristam Thompson - #5 pick (tank)

Lebron James - #1 pick (tank) who then rejoined the team only after it acquired Irving and multiple other lottery talents (after he originally left them to join multiple lottery talents in Miami)

[Guest]

The Cavs who are on the brink of sweeping into the finals, right?

Some fan you are. {/sarcasm}

And what's your fascination with picking only one winner? You don't think that if the Hawks and Cavs reset the serious series with healthy rosters that the Hawks could win? Or hell, are you telling me that effectively the Hawks never had a chance to win this series? There's randomness in sport, embrace it.

Edited May 26, 2015 by hawksfanatic