Avery Bradley? ....Why not?

[Guard]

1 minute ago, kg01 said:

How much time?  PHI, as fantabulous as their assets supposedly are, will be in like year 7-8 before they're a finished product.  See you in 2024-25?

The Sixers are just now trying to build a team. Most teams don't wait as long as Philly did before they tried to find players to build around. 

Philly really shouldn't be used as the standard. They are the exception. 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Guard said:

The Sixers are just now trying to build a team. Most teams don't wait as long as Philly did before they tried to find players to build around. 

Philly really shouldn't be used as the standard. They are the exception. 

 

How about LAL?  They'll be 6-7 years in before they're "done".  ORL the same.  PHX same.  Give me one tanker who won't be 6-7 years into the process before they look to win.

Take BOS even.  They're in the ECF now but by their owner's own admission, they're not a contender right now.  They're about 5 years in and, if I'm right about them and they end up trading Thomas, they're basically starting back over.

[Flight]

I'd love to see us go after AB 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Guard said:

The Sixers are just now trying to build a team. Most teams don't wait as long as Philly did before they tried to find players to build around. 

Philly really shouldn't be used as the standard. They are the exception. 

 

 

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

How about LAL?  They'll be 6-7 years in before they're "done".  ORL the same.  PHX same.  Give me one tanker who won't be 6-7 years into the process before they look to win.

Take BOS even.  They're in the ECF now but by their owner's own admission, they're not a contender right now.  They're about 5 years in and, if I'm right about them and they end up trading Thomas, they're basically starting back over.

How about Sacramento, Minnesota, New Orleans, Orlando, Phoenix  ???

[Guest]

I'll just leave this here for consumption (I haven't checked if true but...)

Since 1980, percentage of getting an ALL-STAR in the draft:

#1 - 77%
#2 - 34%
#3 - 49%
#4 - 29%
#5 - 31%
#6 - 20%
#7 - 20%
#8 - 11%

[BigDog90]

11 hours ago, JTB said:

Just randomly thinking & you may not agree with the idea but I wanted to share an idea about acquiring Avery Bradley and making him a co franchise player along with Dennis....crazy right?!!!! I know but just hear me out.

So here's a player in the NBA (Bradley) that's a two way player and no one in their right mind will argue that at this point.

Bradley Strengths:

- elite at defense to say the LEAST guarding 1s & 2s

-greatly improved offensive player the last two seasons that has really found a way to be effective on the court despite coming into the league with no offense whatsoever.

-ONLY 26

-No major injuries to worry about so far.

WHAT I SEE:

An all star level player in the making not getting the treatment he deserves among the nba media or general nba fans as his extremely good talents are being hidden behind Isaiah Thomas who's a scoring star (suddenly because he's in a Celtics uniform) & al Horford (who's truly just a great role player to have).

MY POINT:

I guess I'm not understanding why we aren't taking those same Paul George like risk on such a player of Avery Bradleys caliber who has a extremely high ceiling? The guy is an 26 year old elite defending / 20 points per avg potential guy walking around getting paid 8m per season!http://www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/avery-bradley-6901/ 

so am I suggesting the Hawks offer a massive deal to the Celtics for a player that's considered just a role player among media and the general nba fan base ???? HELL YEAH!.....get him and give him an massive extension immediately.

 

New Fantasy:

Dennis, Bradley, Prince, Sap

 

A trade that works for both teams:

Hawks trade (S&T) THJ & D8 plus two additional first round picks for Avery Bradley & Tyler Zeller.

hawks-

get explosive young franchise cornerstone back court in Dennis & Bradley to pair with, up and coming Prince & vet anchor man Sap, then can draft best fitting big man available in this years draft to start by Sap. Overall Hawks get younger and quicker instantly with 3 possibly 4 young players in the starting lineup with high potential.

Celtics-

get the opportunity to start Smart or J Brown along side Isaiah in the backcourt and bring THJ off the bench. Also getting much needed help on the boards in Howard all while being able to keep their playmaking BIG Horford and retaining multiple draft picks to stay flexible.

Celtics are going to want too much for him like Prince and multiple 1sts. 

[BigDog90]

4 hours ago, h4wkfan said:

I have no interest. If memory serves he is a free agent after next season and he will be paid. Don't want to invest that much money in this guy. He isn't a game changer imo.

Right! Bembry could be that guy at SG if Bud gives him a chance.

[KB21]

32 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I'll just leave this here for consumption (I haven't checked if true but...)

Since 1980, percentage of getting an ALL-STAR in the draft:

#1 - 77%
#2 - 34%
#3 - 49%
#4 - 29%
#5 - 31%
#6 - 20%
#7 - 20%
#8 - 11%

Basically, you have to be lucky enough to get the #1 pick and lucky enough that there is actually an All Star caliber player available the year you get the #1 pick.

[Bankingitbig]

I think there is a huge difference from actively tanking and just rebuilding/retooling. First of all, I don't envision Bud ever actively tanking. I don't classify letting Millsap go and possibly trading Howard for assets as tanking. I just see it as not crippling the future for a team that you know has no shot of being a contender.

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Basically, you have to be lucky enough to get the #1 pick and lucky enough that there is actually an All Star caliber player available the year you get the #1 pick.

Look at history.  There is a player who will be an All-Star available at the #1 overall pick every single year in NBA history.  Among the players who actually get picked, the odds are nearly 4 out of 5 so that is really good even allowing for bad decisions like drafting Olowokandi over Dirk, Vince, PP, Bibby, etc.

As you move off of the #1 pick, then it becomes an increasingly lower % crap shoot because while there are always allstars available in the first few picks it becomes increasingly hard to pick the right people as you move down those slots.

[Wretch]

47 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I'll just leave this here for consumption (I haven't checked if true but...)

Since 1980, percentage of getting an ALL-STAR in the draft:

#1 - 77%
#2 - 34%
#3 - 49%
#4 - 29%
#5 - 31%
#6 - 20%
#7 - 20%
#8 - 11%

Those numbers get even more anemic the further removed you get from 1-10.  It's been a while, but I had done a 20 year break down All-Star quality talent taken 1-14 vs the entirety of the remainder of the draft.  The comparison was laughable to say the least.  I came away with a <3% chance of finding franchise quality talent outside of the lottery.  So if the idea is that building through the lottery is not viable, then the alternative is considerably less so.  The only real difference is whether you choose to field a playoff team or not - which is purely preference.

I know. I know.  I said that The Wolves would be better off than we are in (I forget how many seasons, but I'm sure you can remind me ).  However, the idea wasn't so much that they'd have a better team...but they'd be in a better position to improve their team.  Record-wise, there is no comparison, but I'd much prefer their assets to ours in bargaining for a trade.

I'm not sure where I stand with the whole tank/retool argument though...

We built a team, without tanking, that cut through the league.  People that call it a fluke really don't remember how dominant that team was for a good stretch.  That absolutely blew my mind and the way that team was put together, in hindsight, makes me far less certain than I was that we "absolutely have to rebuild and either draft or trade high value assets for a star."  

At the same time, I don't agree with the notion that somehow trying to build through the lottery equates to perpetual and inescapable ineptitude.  Sure there are bad teams that have been bad for a while.  However, you have to ignore a ton of circumstance and make some sweeping generalizations to place ALL rebuilding teams into that bucket.  It's no different than saying "once a treadmill team always a treadmill team."  I also won't entertain the idea that lottery picks aren't extremely valuable.  To say otherwise is to flat out ignore some pretty high profile (and impactful) trades.

Ultimately, if it's all the same...I'd still prefer a restart.  Those who would rather tinker/retool, I totally understand why and am less inclined to argue against it.  What I don't want, under any circumstance, is the extreme version of either - endless rebuilding or endless 1st/2nd round exits.

/smokebomb
/backintotheshadows
/backtosleep

[KB21]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

Look at history.  There is a player who will be an All-Star available at the #1 overall pick every single year in NBA history.  Among the players who actually get picked, the odds are nearly 4 out of 5 so that is really good even allowing for bad decisions like drafting Olowokandi over Dirk, Vince, PP, Bibby, etc.

As you move off of the #1 pick, then it becomes an increasingly lower % crap shoot because while there are always allstars available in the first few picks it becomes increasingly hard to pick the right people as you move down those slots.

Maybe, but they aren't always taken with the #1 pick.   Think about three of the last 4 #1 overall picks.  Only Karl Anthony Towns has developed into an All Star level player. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I know. I know.  I said that The Wolves would be better off than we are in (I forget how many seasons, but I'm sure you can remind me ).  However, the idea wasn't so much that they'd have a better team...but they'd be in a better position to improve their team. 

E-hem.....let me remind you, you said  and I quote "The Wolves will be better than the Hawks in 3 years"...no caveats, nothing. We are approaching year #5. You know I won't forget, lol. I'll put this in a time capsule for future Hawks fans to debate.

I understand having shiny assests but if it doesn't amount to wins or even making the playoffs, what are they really?

@Wretch  Are you up for another bet? After the draft and free agency - who will have the better team in 2017-18?

[Lurker]

There is saying little things is important to a player in the NBA, and then there is taking it into overdrive.

@KB21 is crazier than @NBASupes

It's not to say that the little things aren't important. It's important to have a major glue guy factor on the team. But all your players can't be glue guys, oh no. That's how you get an Oakland Athletics like team in the NBA. It might be fun if you play it correctly, but it's a team with a grand total of 0% chance at anything more than competitive. The A's have never been in serious contention for it in baseball, and that's a sport I've said in which you can simply "be hot" to make it to where you have a shot at winning it all (re: 2006 Cardinals, Royals recently).

[Bankingitbig]

11 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Maybe, but they aren't always taken with the #1 pick.   Think about three of the last 4 #1 overall picks.  Only Karl Anthony Towns has developed into an All Star level player. 

C'mon that's the most misleading sample size.... If you look before the 2013 NBA draft, then you have to go all the way until the 2007 draft for the #1 pick to not be an allstar (Anthony Davis, Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Blake Griffin, Derrick Rose). Guess who that was: Greg Oden with Durant and Horford picked immediately after. Also, I don't think you are really giving enough time for the "development" phase to take place.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bankingitbig

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

C'mon that's the most misleading sample size.... If you look before the 2013 NBA draft, then you have to go all the way until the 2007 draft for the #1 pick to not be an allstar (Anthony Davis, Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Blake Griffin, Derrick Rose). Guess who that was: Greg Oden with Durant and Horford picked immediately after. Also, I don't think you are really giving enough time for the "development" phase to take place.

...and look at the success level of those teams.  Anthony Davis is great, but his team isn't and haven't been his entire time there. 

[Lurker]

Just now, KB21 said:

...and look at the success level of those teams.  Anthony Davis is great, but his team isn't and haven't been his entire time there. 

This is where you take it into complete overdrive, unlike Supes. Little things, being a "glue guy", and ***winner*** matter but they are not the only things you should measure in a player at all.

[Wretch]

8 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

E-hem.....let me remind you, you said  and I quote "The Wolves will be better than the Hawks in 3 years"...no caveats, nothing. We are approaching year #5. You know I won't forget, lol. I'll put this in a time capsule for future Hawks fans to debate.

I understand having shiny assests but if it doesn't amount to wins or even making the playoffs, what are they really?

@Wretch  Are you up for another bet? After the draft and free agency - who will have the better team in 2017-18?

do remember thinking that the Wolves would at least be a playoff team, and felt confident in our treadmill mediocrity.  So, I don't doubt I worded it that way and I was wrong.  Knowing my proclivity towards the draft lottery though, the undercurrent of that discussion (for me anyway) had more to do with their future outlook.

No more bets for me! With all due respect, I concede that contest to you First Lady (/bow).  I'm just not the same machine that I was a few years ago and even then, I was out of character.  I am very much the watch and observe, on the fence guy that leans super supportive of players and less so, but still fairly forgiving, for GM's/coaches.  

I don't know what it was about Danny Ferry that just sent me into a disgusted rage.  I guess I just wanted a rebuild and saw Pete Babcock/Lenny Wilkens "win without losing" campaign all over again.

(...and yes you were right, again if you'd like to hear it :) LOL )

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Wretch said:

do remember thinking that the Wolves would at least be a playoff team, and felt confident in our treadmill mediocrity.  So, I don't doubt I worded it that way and I was wrong.  Knowing my proclivity towards the draft lottery though, the undercurrent of that discussion (for me anyway) had more to do with their future outlook.

No more bets for me! With all due respect, I concede that contest to you First Lady (/bow).  I'm just not the same machine that I was a few years ago and even then, I was out of character.  I am very much the watch and observe, on the fence guy that leans super supportive of players and less so, but still fairly forgiving, for GM's/coaches.  

I don't know what it was about Danny Ferry that just sent me into a disgusted rage.  I guess I just wanted a rebuild and saw Pete Babcock/Lenny Wilkens "win without losing" campaign all over again.

(...and yes you were right, again if you'd like to hear it :) LOL )

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, Lurker said:

This is where you take it into complete overdrive, unlike Supes. Little things, being a "glue guy", and ***winner*** matter but they are not the only things you should measure in a player at all.

I'm not measuring his success with his team's success.  That's not the point.  The point is to demonstrate just how difficult it is to go from being a very bad team to being a good team.  You can't build a team through the draft unless you just have some incredible run of luck.  The draft is too much of a crap shoot, especially with all the one and done players who we don't really know whether they can actually play or not.  It's even more of a crap shoot now than it was 15-20 years ago before the one and done rule that provided for this influx of underdeveloped talent into the league that has no real developmental program.  As good as Anthony Davis is, he isn't a generational type of player that can change the direction of a franchise.