How the Warriors were built Hawks Can Learn

[Guest]

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)

I'm not going to explain Cap Space to you.

[AHF]

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 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.

 

I'll be rooting for the Hawks to be healthier next year for sure.  Adding Thabo, DMC, Sap, Korver, etc. healthy and adding Love, Varajao and Kyrie healthy would completely change this series.

 

On the tanking issue, my argument has been that the historic numbers are with the teams build around a high lottery superstar.  In this case, the fact that Lebron played in Cleveland and failed to bring a ring home during his first tenure was a huge part of why he ended up back there after the tanking.  He left to join top talent and waited until Cleveland drafted top talent and then was ready to jump aboard the train.  Tanking worked for them to secure Lebron in the first place and then to bring him back.  

 

Green and Barnes are not the centerpieces that Lebron is but they are essential to GS's performance this season.  Their backcourt and best playoff performers were acquired through the lottery and the tank job they pulled and the drafting they did with that elevated draft position put the team another level.  

 

I just don't see these teams as a good argument against tanking.

[thescout5]

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.

 

OK I apologize Spud2Nique.Sorry I must have read more into the post than it was. Also I apologize to Dakin for my rude comment.I hope you guys accept my apology. I enjoy the forum and come here to learn from other Hawk fans.  

[AHF]

I'm not going to explain Cap Space to you.

 

You think they could have signed Irving (RFA), Love (under contract), Thompson (under contract) and Lebron (UFA) this offseason?

 

There is only one of those players who they could have acquired through cap space and he only went there because they had the lottery assets through tanking.  Cap space alone is not enough.  You need talent to recruit elite players aboard so it goes back to how you acquire that talent.  Most of your contenders do it through their own lottery picks and both Cleveland and GSW did it primarily or in part through overt tanking.

[Guest]

OK I apologize Spud2Nique.Sorry I must have read more into the post than it was. Also I apologize to Dakin for my rude comment.I hope you guys accept my apology. I enjoy the forum and come here to learn from other Hawk fans.

Same here. Apologies all around.

[MaceCase]

Is Kyrie the product of tanking if his pick was traded for?

[AHF]

Is Kyrie the product of tanking if his pick was traded for?

 

Really?  Ummm....yes.  They were the worst team in the entire Eastern Conference that season and were tanking for all the picks they could get.  They got their own lottery pick and then traded one of their players and were lucky enough to get a second lottery pick.

 

If we had decided to full on tank and traded Jeff Teague during the season for someone else's pick and ended up with the #1 and #4 picks would you really say that only one of those picks was the result of tanking?

 

Not me.  Trading players for picks and a worse record (as a result of losing the productive player) is part of the tanking process.

[Guest]

You think they could have signed Irving (RFA), Love (under contract), Thompson (under contract) and Lebron (UFA) this offseason?

 

There is only one of those players who they could have acquired through cap space and he only went there because they had the lottery assets through tanking.  Cap space alone is not enough.  You need talent to recruit elite players aboard so it goes back to how you acquire that talent.  Most of your contenders do it through their own lottery picks and both Cleveland and GSW did it primarily or in part through overt tanking.

I'm looking at their current team and it appears that only two of your named players are driving the team through the playoffs. Which was kind of my point.

There also should be a a statute of limitations on a tank. The Spurs haven't tanked since 1996. In that time, Tim Duncan has gone to free agency in 2000, 2007, 2012, and going to be 2015. It's like, geez man come on when can we finally say that the tank didn't drive their current success. Which this is what you appear to be doing with Liebron and the Cavs tanking in 2002. That's preposterous to associate the 2002 tank with signing Liebrown as an unrestricted free agent in 2014. There really ought to be a limit, because over 80% of players in the NBA were drafted and that's all you appear to be doing is making that distinction. /ramble

Edited May 26, 2015 by hawksfanatic

[Guest]

Really?  Ummm....yes.  They were the worst team in the entire Eastern Conference that season and were tanking for all the picks they could get.  They got their own lottery pick and then traded one of their players and were lucky enough to get a second lottery pick.

 

If we had decided to full on tank and traded Jeff Teague during the season for someone else's pick and ended up with the #1 and #4 picks would you really say that only one of those picks was the result of tanking?

 

Not me.  Trading players for picks and a worse record (as a result of losing the productive player) is part of the tanking process.

So then if the Nets didn't make the playoffs...the Hawks would have "tanked" this season? I'll be damned.

When you decide to have a reasonable outlook on how players were acquired, what constitutes an actual tank, or how we can measure success of a team that isn't limited to ringz, then I think we could have a nice conversation here. I don't think arguing over definitions is going to help proceed with this dialogue at all. And oh, what do you know, I've tried this multiple times with no success. So we just throw forth an argument with blanket statements and then define every f***ing transaction in the NBA back to where someone was drafted which coincidentally is correlated with "tanking" and talent.

Next up, how the 2007 Atlanta Hawk tank is the sole reason for success right now. Maybe even the 2003 tank job as well? Someone get Bobby Sura on the line, he's got some 'splainin'.

Edited May 26, 2015 by hawksfanatic

[MaceCase]

Really?  Ummm....yes.  They were the worst team in the entire Eastern Conference that season and were tanking for all the picks they could get.  They got their own lottery pick and then traded one of their players and were lucky enough to get a second lottery pick.

 

If we had decided to full on tank and traded Jeff Teague during the season for someone else's pick and ended up with the #1 and #4 picks would you really say that only one of those picks was the result of tanking?

 

Not me.  Trading players for picks and a worse record (as a result of losing the productive player) is part of the tanking process.

Yea I kind of would because contextually, if the other team isn't tanking yet ends up with a greater pick than the team which is actually tanking.....then how do we end up with the asset from the team that wasn't tanking equaling an asset that was tanked for by the tanking team?  And also, tanking, tanking, tanking.

[Alex]

You still need to make the right decisions when you take.  Does anyone here honestly think the front office combo would hit on a draft pick?

[Guest]

Yea I kind of would because contextually, if the other team isn't tanking yet ends up with a greater pick than the team which is actually tanking.....then how do we end up with the asset from the team that wasn't tanking equaling an asset that was tanked for by the tanking team?  And also, tanking, tanking, tanking.

[AHF]

I'm looking at their current team and it appears that only two of your named players are driving the team through the playoffs. Which was kind of my point.There also should be a a statute of limitations on a tank. The Spurs haven't tanked since 1996. In that time, Tim Duncan has gone to free agency in 2000, 2007, 2012, and going to be 2015. It's like, geez man come on when can we finally say that the tank didn't drive their current success. Which this is what you appear to be doing with Liebron and the Cavs tanking in 2002. That's preposterous to associate the 2002 tank with signing Liebrown as an unrestricted free agent in 2014. There really ought to be a limit, because over 80% of players in the NBA were drafted and that's all you appear to be doing is making that distinction. /ramble

This is a really important point. Once a player is drafted by a team the odds of him signing as a FA with the team that drafted him is really high. You act like the fact that Duncan was drafted by SA and put down roots there before he was a FA is unrelated to him resigning with the team down the line and even resigning at way below market rate. It isn't a coincidence. Once a player has been drafted and somewhere the odds of him wanting to play there again goes way up. It isn't just about economics (although that is an important point). Both LBJ and Duncan took less money on their current contracts because the wanted to sign with the teams that drafted them and wanted to see those teams succeed. I don't view that as at all surprising. One of them jumping ship to ATL for even a max deal would have been surprising. Getting those guys in the draft gives you a very important connection that frequently pays off in FA.

[AHF]

Yea I kind of would because contextually, if the other team isn't tanking yet ends up with a greater pick than the team which is actually tanking.....then how do we end up with the asset from the team that wasn't tanking equaling an asset that was tanked for by the tanking team?  And also, tanking, tanking, tanking.

When you are tanking and vets for picks that is exactly what HF's Philly example is doing. Sometimes you get lucky sometimes not. That is part of a tanking strategy, though, to maximize ping pong balls.

Do you really think that isn't exactly what Boston did when Duncan was coming out? They ended up with Billups and Mercer at 3 and 6. Both of those picks were part of a tanking strategy to maximize shots in the lottery. Philly was likewise unlucky this year ending up with one lotto when they could have had 3. If they get the a star from the LAL pick next year I absolutely attribute that to their tanking strategy of grabbing maximum picks and chances for stars.

[Guest]

Both LBJ and Duncan took less money on their current contracts because the wanted to sign with the teams that drafted them and wanted to see those teams succeed. I don't view that as at all surprising. One of them jumping ship to ATL for even a max deal would have been surprising. Getting those guys in the draft gives you a very important connection that frequently pays off in FA.

Duncan did take less than his previous contract, but it could be argued that Duncan might have taken an above market value contract. Have we ever seen Duncan's value outside of the Spurs system? Hard to judge if he would give the same value in an isolation based offense. I personally won't argue that position, but it's there.

Liebrauwn? Nope. He took his max and that was a substantial raise for him. His max was the same in Cleveland or in Miami. If you're referencing the future values? OK so Leahbrown loses money in his second year but then nu-uh. He will have EB Rights and be able to get his maxiest of maxes in the 2016-17 offseason. So to claim Larrybron took less money is being very lenient with the situation in favor of your position. Which is still strange as f***. Cleveland tanked all the way back in 2002! Even if Loobrown wasn't drafted by Cleveland .... he still might have had the inclination to sign back with his "hometown" team which would make the tank moot.

As I've mentioned in this thread, and multiple threads before, we can't move this GD conversation forward because you won't sit down and put out the definition of all the various things we are arguing over. I've lost count of times that I have brought this up.

• What constitutes a tank? Your definition seems to apply to every f***ing transaction, even if there was no clear tank involved (hi Kyrie). That's not fair to my side of the argument or from what was being petitioned on this board in June 2013. The board wanted to punt the entire season, so the GSW comparison doesn't hold.
• How are players acquired? You know damn well that the CBA has changed across years and it isn't fair to talk about how Magic could never go through free agency because it never existed in the form it does today. Same goes for Michael Jordan, where the Bulls had a SUBSTANTIAL amount of leverage in that Bird Rights did not have an individual maximum. You know the exceptions have changed. I've documented them on here before. We're in a new era of rules for player movement, and hell that might even change again.
• What constitutes success in the NBA? Counting ringz doesn't work and you know it. There's randomness in sport, so you've got to pin it down in some fashion like SRS rating or a Hollinger rating or ESPN's new BPI or whatever. As a Kentucky fan, you should be very aware that having the best team doesn't mean you are going to win a championship.

Once those things are nailed down, we can have a discussion. We can even look at actual data to figure out which side gives a higher probability of winning a championship / success in the NBA. But we can't get there because you keep punting on the issues.

[AHF]

Duncan did take less than his previous contract, but it could be argued that Duncan might have taken an above market value contract. Have we ever seen Duncan's value outside of the Spurs system? Hard to judge if he would give the same value in an isolation based offense. I personally won't argue that position, but it's there.Liebrauwn? Nope. He took his max and that was a substantial raise for him. His max was the same in Cleveland or in Miami. If you're referencing the future values? OK so Leahbrown loses money in his second year but then nu-uh. He will have EB Rights and be able to get his maxiest of maxes in the 2016-17 offseason. So to claim Larrybron took less money is being very lenient with the situation in favor of your position. Which is still strange as f***. Cleveland tanked all the way back in 2002! Even if Loobrown wasn't drafted by Cleveland .... he still might have had the inclination to sign back with his "hometown" team which would make the tank moot.As I've mentioned in this thread, and multiple threads before, we can't move this GD conversation forward because you won't sit down and put out the definition of all the various things we are arguing over. I've lost count of times that I have brought this up.

• What constitutes a tank? Your definition seems to apply to every f***ing transaction, even if there was no clear tank involved (hi Kyrie). That's not fair to my side of the argument or from what was being petitioned on this board in June 2013. The board wanted to punt the entire season, so the GSW comparison doesn't hold.
• How are players acquired? You know damn well that the CBA has changed across years and it isn't fair to talk about how Magic could never go through free agency because it never existed in the form it does today. Same goes for Michael Jordan, where the Bulls had a SUBSTANTIAL amount of leverage in that Bird Rights did not have an individual maximum. You know the exceptions have changed. I've documented them on here before. We're in a new era of rules for player movement, and hell that might even change again.
• What constitutes success in the NBA? Counting ringz doesn't work and you know it. There's randomness in sport, so you've got to pin it down in some fashion like SRS rating or a Hollinger rating or ESPN's new BPI or whatever. As a Kentucky fan, you should be very aware that having the best team doesn't mean you are going to win a championship.

Once those things are nailed down, we can have a discussion. We can even look at actual data to figure out which side gives a higher probability of winning a championship / success in the NBA. But we can't get there because you keep punting on the issues.

We don't agree on a lot of the premises. It isn't a dodge when I say that trading a vet that would help you win games for more picks is part of a tank since it loses you more games to increase your own pick and gives you more chances at hitting in the draft. You can't accept that the exact strategy employed by many tanking teams is tanking so we end up in a disconnect.

Re CBA, the changes are important but just look at a big trend among players today:

Miami - drafted and resigned nba finals MVP Dwyane Wade

Boston - drafted and resigned nba finals MVP pp

Dallas - drafted and resigned nba finals MVP Dirk

LA - drafted and resigned nba finals MVP Kobe

SA - drafted and resigned nba finals MVP Duncan (and Parker for that matter)

Those guys attract talent. They elevate franchises. They do a ton for you.

I don't care if we tank. I just want to see us get one of these superstars and we've discussed why I think the draft offers the best odds of doing so ad nauseum. If there is another path to doing that, then I am on board.

[AHF]

As an aside, tanking is intentionally sabotaging your chances to win in order to improve your draft position. The Hawks trading Payne wasn't tanking because the Hawks believed he was irrelevant to their chance to win. GS absolutely tanked - openly and honestly - in order to improve their draft status and grabbed Barnes and Green with that improved draft position. Philly tanked by unloading MCW, signing D-league talents, etc. to stock up on picks and lose as many games as possible. There are different favors to tanking but it involves losing more games by design (including sacrificing assets that could have helped win more games in the near term) to improve your draft status.

[Guest]

I don't care if we tank. I just want to see us get one of these superstars and we've discussed why I think the draft offers the best odds of doing so ad nauseum. If there is another path to doing that, then I am on board.

As I have said before, if all you are doing is drawing back that E V E R Y G O O D P L A Y E R W A S D R A F T E D then this is 100% pointless. You've essentially drawn a tautology. For players to enter the NBA, they need to submit to the draft. Teams aren't stupid. So good players are drafted. And typically, good players are drafted earlier than bad players. It doesn't follow that the only way to acquire good players is through a draft, and yet you do that. Well, except for the obvious references that Kobe and Dirk were not drafted but traded. Oh my, we're down this rabbit hole again of you skirting the issue of how you determine how players are acquired. It's obvious how this conversation is going again and then you'll lean back ssssooooooooooooo far to make a connection to all of those players as a tank, even though they weren't, but it makes it convenient for the argument you're putting forth.

And this is why this is a pointless conversation. The umpteenth time I have brought up the issues and AHF goes all Chris Gardocki on the issues.

[thescout5]

I would gladly over pay for Gasol. I think Lopez (Robin or Brooke) would really help even though they aren't stars. Hawks got badly outrebounded in the series. Also add a few sharpshooters if you can't get a superstar and I could live with that team.

[nonono]

I would gladly over pay for Gasol. I think Lopez (Robin or Brooke) would really help even though they aren't stars. Hawks got badly outrebounded in the series. Also add a few sharpshooters if you can't get a superstar and I could live with that team.

B.Lopez doesn't bring a lot on defense and he doesn't rebound well but when he is on offensively -he is awesome.  I would like Robin Lopez though, cheap, gritty, plays-hard, etc..and he would leave enough for some decent wing players, matthews, danny green, resign jyd etc..  but yea if we got gasol I think I might have a mild heart attack- he would fit so great into our scheme- great handling and passing, plays great d, decent rebounder, 7 FEET TALL, great post-up game, horford could go to the 4

 

Odd though, if we signed gasol, millsap might be a better fit at 4 than horford