David Aldridge article on Hawks / Ressler / GM

[ATLSmith]

20 hours ago, frosgrim said:

At the time, it was believed the Spurs deliberately tanked after Robinson went down. I don't think there is truly definitive evidence one way or the other. However, i was attending UCONN at the time and the Boston sports talk was livid about the Spurs "tanking" and winning the lottery. Boston, i think, had the worst record in the NBA that year, or at least worse than the Spurs.

 

For the overall argument, I suggest the Hawks look at what the C's have done twice now. Get bad, collect assets , and then make smart trades and FA signings to get better once the "core" is ready to compete. What Soth is arguing, i think, is that there are ways to get superstars, but the bottom line is you have to have assets to get them (e.g. Divac for Kobe), or have the gravitas to pull in superstar players in FA (e.g., Lakers and Shaq, or GS and Durant). Unfortunately, the Hawks have NONE of this right now.

This can be easier said than done.  Boston was smart to trade the aging "Big 3" before their contracts expired.  It allowed them to maintain or improve their asset base.  This is why it is crucial for the Hawks to sign Sap or pick up a FA of equivalent value this off-season.  Doing so will maintain the Hawks asset base give them options at the trade deadline should they decide to reboot with a younger core.

Thankfully, the Hawks "asset balance sheet" actually looks pretty good, or at least much better than it has in the past (I'm looking at you Billy King).  With two incoming first round picks, two incoming second round picks, only one outgoing pick that is actually a second round swap, and the emerging talents of Dennis, Prince, Bembry (?), and Hardaway (maybe?), the Hawks are in great position for a team that isn't actively trying to rebuild from the ground up.

[Peoriabird]

21 minutes ago, ATLSmith said:

This can be easier said than done.  Boston was smart to trade the aging "Big 3" before their contracts expired.  It allowed them to maintain or improve their asset base.  This why it is crucial for the Hawks to sign Sap or pick up a FA of equivalent value this off-season.  Doing so will maintain the Hawks asset base give them options at the trade deadline should they decide to reboot with a younger core.

Thankfully, the Hawks "asset balance sheet" actually looks pretty good, or at least much better than it has in the past (I'm looking at you Billy King).  With two incoming first round picks, two incoming second round picks, only one outgoing pick that is actually a second round swap, and the emerging talents of Dennis, Prince, Bembry (?), and Hardaway (maybe?), the Hawks are in great position for a team that isn't actively trying to rebuild from the ground up.

This is a simple concept that many on this message just don't understand...You simply cannot improve your team without retaining your assets while adding other assets.  Like I stated before if you acquire and lose assets, there is no net gain. The old "Trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it syndrome"

[frosgrim]

36 minutes ago, ATLSmith said:

This can be easier said than done.  Boston was smart to trade the aging "Big 3" before their contracts expired.  It allowed them to maintain or improve their asset base.  This is why it is crucial for the Hawks to sign Sap or pick up a FA of equivalent value this off-season.  Doing so will maintain the Hawks asset base give them options at the trade deadline should they decide to reboot with a younger core.

Thankfully, the Hawks "asset balance sheet" actually looks pretty good, or at least much better than it has in the past (I'm looking at you Billy King).  With two incoming first round picks, two incoming second round picks, only one outgoing pick that is actually a second round swap, and the emerging talents of Dennis, Prince, Bembry (?), and Hardaway (maybe?), the Hawks are in great position for a team that isn't actively trying to rebuild from the ground up.

But, Boston got to building the big 3 by being really bad first. they used assets from that first "tank" to get players and draft picks they could use to get Allen and Garnett. They drafted Pierce and Rondo and had a few other guys via draft and lower level FA.

Yes, the Boston method is hard and requires both long-term thinking and the ability to pounce when necessary. I do not see that capacity within the Hawks FO of Bud and Wilcox. Hopefully, the new GM will have that ability and can get Bud to sign on to it.

[Peoriabird]

Some will argue that drafting players outside the lottery aren't going to get you any closer to winning a championship therefore you need to tank to have an opportunity to get that game changer but recent history doesn't support such a claim.  Many of top players in the league today have changed teams.  But I'm sure someone will come here and argue those simple facts. Or argue that the game changer will never come to Atlanta. If that is the case then the counter argument is...how do you know that he would stay long enough to build a championship team even if we drafted him?

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, frosgrim said:

But, Boston got to building the big 3 by being really bad first. they used assets from that first "tank" to get players and draft picks they could use to get Allen and Garnett. They drafted Pierce and Rondo and had a few other guys via draft and lower level FA.

Yes, the Boston method is hard and requires both long-term thinking and the ability to pounce when necessary. I do not see that capacity within the Hawks FO of Bud and Wilcox. Hopefully, the new GM will have that ability and can get Bud to sign on to it.

Here we go again...Rondo was the 21st pick in his draft class

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Some will argue that drafting players outside the lottery aren't going to get you any closer to winning a championship therefore you need to tank to have an opportunity to get that game changer but recent history doesn't support such a claim.  Many of top players in the league today have changed teams.  But I'm sure someone will come here and argue those simple facts. Or argue that the game changer will never come to Atlanta. If that is the case then the counter argument is...how do you know that he would stay long enough to build a championship team even if we drafted him?

You're totally missing the point, Peo.  Here's the process:

1. Tank.  You tank hard, baybee.

2. Get the #1 pick ... 'cause all you gotta do is be bad and you'll jus' get it.

3. That #1 pick becomes a HOF-caliber guy.  Again, it's automatic.  It jus' happens.

4. Even tho that guy's a HOFer, you'll still be bad so you'll get another #1 pick and since he'll also be a HOFer guys'll be paying you to join the Hawks then you have a contender 'cause all them rookies will just blaze through the playoffs 'cause thas how it happens in Franchise Mode in 2K and even if it doesn't work, I'll just start another Franchise and save that over the first one and if that don't work I'll just start a Career Mode and I'll get a 99 rating and then I'll go 82-0, baybee!!

[Peoriabird]

5 minutes ago, kg01 said:

You're totally missing the point, Peo.  Here's the process:

1. Tank.  You tank hard, baybee.

2. Get the #1 pick ... 'cause all you gotta do is be bad and you'll jus' get it.

3. That #1 pick becomes a HOF-caliber guy.  Again, it's automatic.  It jus' happens.

4. Even tho that guy's a HOFer, you'll still be bad so you'll get another #1 pick and since he'll also be a HOFer guys'll be paying you to join the Hawks then you have a contender 'cause all them rookies will just blaze through the playoffs 'cause thas how it happens in Franchise Mode in 2K and even if it doesn't work, I'll just start another Franchise and save that over the first one and if that don't work I'll just start a Career Mode and I'll get a 99 rating and then I'll go 82-0, baybee!!

Lol!!!!

[frosgrim]

41 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Here we go again...Rondo was the 21st pick in his draft class

And Pierce was a  top 10 pick, plus the other assets moved to get Allen and Garnett. My point was that Rondo was drafted, i never said he where he was drafted. Simple facts are that  Boston collected  assets so that  they could be moved to get what they needed to build a championship level team.

Second point is that the new Hawks FO should  consider this path going forward. the Boston model has worked once, and may work again (or may not), but the current Hawks model has worked once and under extraordinary circumstances (Dumar's Pistons against a dysfunctional Lakers team that, on paper, had no business losing that championship).

[ATLSmith]

9 minutes ago, kg01 said:

You're totally missing the point, Peo.  Here's the process:

1. Tank.  You tank hard, baybee.

2. Get the #1 pick ... 'cause all you gotta do is be bad and you'll jus' get it.

3. That #1 pick becomes a HOF-caliber guy.  Again, it's automatic.  It jus' happens.

4. Even tho that guy's a HOFer, you'll still be bad so you'll get another #1 pick and since he'll also be a HOFer guys'll be paying you to join the Hawks then you have a contender 'cause all them rookies will just blaze through the playoffs 'cause thas how it happens in Franchise Mode in 2K and even if it doesn't work, I'll just start another Franchise and save that over the first one and if that don't work I'll just start a Career Mode and I'll get a 99 rating and then I'll go 82-0, baybee!!

When you think about it, this pretty much what Cleveland did.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, frosgrim said:

And Pierce was a  top 10 pick, plus the other assets moved to get Allen and Garnett. My point was that Rondo was drafted, i never said he where he was drafted. Simple facts are that  Boston collected  assets so that  they could be moved to get what they needed to build a championship level team.

Second point is that the new Hawks FO should  consider this path going forward. the Boston model has worked once, and may work again (or may not), but the current Hawks model has worked once and under extraordinary circumstances (Dumar's Pistons against a dysfunctional Lakers team that, on paper, had no business losing that championship).

I totally agree with abandoning this stupid strategy of chasing DET's model.  Don't chase aberrations!

However, the BOS model only worked because Kevin McHale was strAinge's teammate and was about to get fired so he did him a solid.  I don't think that's a "model" at all.

6 minutes ago, ATLSmith said:

When you think about it, this pretty much what Cleveland did.

[macdaddy]

Boston as a model only works if you already have Paul Pierce.   As much as i hate to say it, he was better than anyone the hawks have had in the last 20 years

[Guest]

Stop trying to follow other models. We will be following the Spurs model of next man up....and just keep winning ball games...simple model.

[Guard]

2 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Some will argue that drafting players outside the lottery aren't going to get you any closer to winning a championship therefore you need to tank to have an opportunity to get that game changer but recent history doesn't support such a claim.  Many of top players in the league today have changed teams.  But I'm sure someone will come here and argue those simple facts. Or argue that the game changer will never come to Atlanta. If that is the case then the counter argument is...how do you know that he would stay long enough to build a championship team even if we drafted him?

You do what most teams do and resign them.

Just because Atlanta doesn't bring in high quality free agents doesn't mean that your homegrown guys are going to dip as soon as possible. You think Milwaukee is scared that Giannis and Parker are going to leave As soon as possible?  Nah. When your ball club is showing improvement and everyone is growing and developing while having fun, the drafted guys  want to be a part that. 

You hope that,assuming the GM does his job, you can win a title before a second contract comes up. Considering how long teams usually have before it gets to that point, rebuilding squads don't have to worry about that for YEARS.

If a guy ends up leaving after having him for almost a decade, oh well. That organization was still in a better position than the go nowhere treadmill teams that wished they had that player in their organization. 

 

[Peoriabird]

24 minutes ago, Guard said:

You do what most teams do and resign them.

Just because Atlanta doesn't bring in high quality free agents doesn't mean that your homegrown guys are going to dip as soon as possible. You think Milwaukee is scared that Giannis and Parker are going to leave As soon as possible?  Nah. When your ball club is showing improvement and everyone is growing and developing while having fun, the drafted guys  want to be a part that. 

You hope that,assuming the GM does his job, you can win a title before a second contract comes up. Considering how long teams usually have before it gets to that point, rebuilding squads don't have to worry about that for YEARS.

If a guy ends up leaving after having him for almost a decade, oh well. That organization was still in a better position than the go nowhere treadmill teams that wished they had that player in their organization. 

 

Do you seriously think Milwaukee will contend for a title with those 2 anytime soon? 

[Guard]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Do you seriously think Milwaukee will contend for a title with those 2 anytime soon? 

Milwaukee  has a better shot at contending in the future than Atlanta.

They draft well and already have a potential number 1 and 2 option in Giannis and Parker. They are one of the few teams in the east that have positioned themselves well for the post  James eastern conference. 

[Peoriabird]

5 minutes ago, Guard said:

Milwaukee  has a better shot at contending in the future than Atlanta.

They draft well and already have a potential number 1 and 2 option in Giannis and Parker. They are one of the few teams in the east that have positioned themselves well for the post  James eastern conference. 

How do you know this even before the draft and free agency?

[Peoriabird]

Ok we'll see over the next few years what happens to Milwaukee. Lol!

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Ok we'll see over the next few years what happens to Milwaukee. Lol!

Parker will likely be traded.  (a) He can't stay healthy and (2) he allegedly doesn't mesh well with the others on the roster and (3) they played better when he was gone anyways.  I'd say Giannis and Middleton are their 1/2.

Shiii, I bet they wish they would've traded Parker to us for Teague+.

[Thomas]

Remains to be seen how many games Parker can stay on the floor. Has missed over ninety games in three years. Two ACL injuries involved. Giannis will certainly keep the Bucks in the mix moving forward. Enjoy watching them but a championship doesn't seem feasible in the next few with the Warriors big three still in their late twenties. We have no idea what our roster will be even next year much less two or three years battling in the East.

[macdaddy]

I like the Bucks.  they shoot the 3 well although they shoot it a lot less than other teams.  I guess because Giannis doesn't shoot 3s that well.   They need a bench and shed some of that dead weight.   But I'm sure they are pretty happy with their future prospects.  Brogdon is looking good too.