Draft chatter with Travis Schlenk

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

AAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!! I don't know if I completely agree with you but I got an edge right this second...I'm gonna slap my boss..

Do it, Spud!!!!!  If it's a chick, slap 'er on tha ..... {comment redacted}

5 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I'm confused...What is the definition of rebuild?  Is it acquiring young talent from the draft and free agency? Don't we have 10 1st round draft pick over the next 3 years?  So how are we not rebuilding?

Ah, you're seeing thru the tankers bs, Peo.  They want us to Philly tank but that sounds ridiculous, so they keep using code words like 'rebuild'.  As you astutely point out, we actually kinda are rebuilding so ... what do these dudes really want?

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You didn't propose selling him at no cost...Your proposal was to sell him at any cost including accepting a bad contract in return

I have never proposed selling him at any cost.  You are just making that up.  

I've said repeatedly that I think no one will give up any value for him so if we can get anything of value then you pull the trigger immediately and call that trade a clear win for us.  Beyond that, you have to weigh the particulars of the deal.  I've said this repeatedly and even said it on the prior page.  I have no idea where you are coming up with this "we must sell him at any cost" straw man argument.

5 hours ago, AHF said:

Baze is a toxic asset.  If we can get value back, I think Baze is gone but if we have to attach first round picks to move him then you won't see it happen.  Whether Baze gets moved will depend on how much value we have to give to get someone to take him in a trade.

 

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I have never proposed selling him at any cost.  You are just making that up.  

I've said repeatedly that I think no one will give up any value for him so if we can get anything of value then you pull the trigger immediately and call that trade a clear win for us.  Beyond that, you have to weigh the particulars of the deal.  I've said this repeatedly and even said on the prior page.  I have no idea where you are coming up with this "we must sell him at any cost" straw man argument.

 

Maybe I did misunderstand you but I don't think that he is a toxic asset.  A little over payed but not Toxic.  Baze is not the terrible player people make him out to be and certainly isn't a locker room poison often attached to toxic assets like Carmelo Anthony.  Baze was was pressing during the regular season and got better down the stretch.  He was totally misused by Bud in the playoff and I firmly believe he will get better because of his work ethic

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Makes sense to look at what championship teams did and work from there.  

Got lucky?

In all seriousness. That's what the guy we just got from a championship team has said they did (and more than once, so we can be pretty sure he wasn't just making a joke).

And in all seriousness, I can remember when GSW first began to seem to establish themselves as a real contender... so were we seeming to establish ourselves as one, as well.

We all do. And when we beat them that 2014-15 season, there was some sense that we maybe were on the cusp of something special.

Clearly, we've regressed, while they've progressed.

Why is that?

We've debated it ad infiniitum, but I was and remain in the group that felt we just had too many injuries dogging us in the last month of the regular season and into the post-season, and then we had a double-whammy of losing a starter and losing, not the player himself, but the caliber-of-play from another starter.... and in neither case were we able to mitigate those losses with other talent.

Meanwhile, GSW just got better.

I also feel like... can't prove it... but feel like... we also are missing key ingredients on the coaching staff and it remains to be seen to what degree Hawks U is still Hawks U.

THAT to me, probably is more central than what we can possibly know for sure. If you're taking players that are drafted outside of those top 5 players draft after draft after draft, then it behooves you to enhance to whatever degree is imaginable that support staff. Being outside of the domain, who knows if they already have that support group in place, or if it's a work in progress, or even how you can have much of a feel for that if you're on the inside of the organization... dunno. But it's arguably merits the highest priority on the GM's list of several high priorities.

You've simply got to draft guys with high upsides and high motivation to improve, and then you have to develop them into the guys that everyone else covets as up-and-comers.

So, I'm turning my attention to see what I can learn about all those guys on the coaching staff who aren't named Budenholzer, and for that matter, who will be hired to staff the Bay Hawks.

 

 

[sturt]

10 minutes ago, kg01 said:

They want us to Philly tank

Whoever came up with that simple but oh-so-full-of-meaning term, I congratulate you.

[AHF]

My read is that virtually every championship team other than the Lakers and one-time champ Pistons won 20-29 games and drafted a cornerstone guy who was the best or second best guy on that team in their championship years in the lottery.  Do we have a guy who can be First Team All-NBA, NBA Finals MVP or MVP and can attract other FAs at that level?  No?  Then don't be afraid of making trades to acquire lottery picks or dipping your toes into the lottery via record and drafting your Curry, Wade, Duncan, Kobe, PP, Dirk, Jordan, Hakeem, etc. type.  

If you don't have a transformational talent, you are much more likely to be a pretend team (ala this year's Celtics) than a real contender.  So focus on the path that gives you the best chance of landing one and then work on multiplying that into two or three.

[JTB]

This is probably the first off season ever I care more about the draft than free agency. And that's not common for me.

[ISOJOE]

I was not really surprised that Schlenker said Dennis is a very good and underrated defender. Schröder outplayed Curry in 1,5 games this season (didn't play the second half of the home game). Scoring 43 Points in 58 minutes and Curry struggled because of his defense.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

You don't know that it will take 6-7 years to be an actual championship contender. We already have two pieces in place, if we got the right guys in the draft it could be far shorter than that. And to be fair it could take longer than that time frame as well if the pieces don't mesh.

I don't consider meaningless first or second round playoff appearances as winning. If your team is not a valid championship contender then you are either outright rebuilding or you are stuck in the middle which is the worst spot to be. I'm tired of this franchise being stuck. The only way to get out is to restart.

I only consider seriously competing for a title as the only focus a franchise should have. If you as a fan are happy with meaningless first round playoff losses year after year then that's fine. We just have significantly different standards of what we as fans should expect from our teams.

Even Travis Schlenk stated that it took seven years for Golden State to get to the point that they were a playoff contender. 

This attitude that since we aren't competing for a championship, we should just suck and get high draft picks is insane.  You truly want to become the Sacramento King/Minnesota Timberwolves/name any other perennial lottery bound team rather than be a playoff team. 

This is such a poor strategy, because not only do you have to be lucky to get a top 3 draft pick, you have to be lucky that there is a true superstar player available in the draft.  And then you have to do it again, and again.  And then you have to give those guys time to actually mature on the court and to become stars at their peak.  We have just as much of a chance of getting a Kawhi Leonard/Jimmy Butler/Draymond Green/Paul Millsap type of star if we continue to be competitive and draft in the middle part of the first round as we do of getting a star at the top of the draft considering what is valued and what isn't valued in the draft these days. 

I got news for you.  There isn't a Kevin Durant in every draft.  I'm not tanking just to get Rudy Gay, I mean Andrew Wiggins.

[KB21]

43 minutes ago, AHF said:

My read is that virtually every championship team other than the Lakers and one-time champ Pistons won 20-29 games and drafted a cornerstone guy who was the best or second best guy on that team in their championship years in the lottery.  Do we have a guy who can be First Team All-NBA, NBA Finals MVP or MVP and can attract other FAs at that level?  No?  Then don't be afraid of making trades to acquire lottery picks or dipping your toes into the lottery via record and drafting your Curry, Wade, Duncan, Kobe, PP, Dirk, Jordan, Hakeem, etc. type.  

If you don't have a transformational talent, you are much more likely to be a pretend team (ala this year's Celtics) than a real contender.  So focus on the path that gives you the best chance of landing one and then work on multiplying that into two or three.

....and when you take this route, just realize that you have a much higher percentage chance of becoming a perennial lottery team like the Kings/Wolves.....etc than you do of becoming the Warriors.

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

....and when you take this route, just realize that you have a much higher percentage chance of becoming a perennial lottery team like the Kings/Wolves.....etc than you do of becoming the Warriors.

1 - We just smartly traded for a lottery pick last year and didn't collapse.  LA traded an All-Star to land Kobe and didn't collapse.  It can be done without following the path of losing that most champs have walked but that has been rare among champs.  LA was smart in recognizing that a mere playoff guy (Eddie Jones) wasn't going to be enough to get the next ring and that Kobe represented the potential for much more (MVP, rings, etc.).  They gambled and it paid off.  If they don't make that gamble, how many rings do they get with Eddie Jones?  I can tell you that their playoff chances were more secure in the short term not gambling but they recognized you better play in the lottery for a potential star rather than stick with someone you know is good but not great.

2 - I do accept that you invite a much wider range of outcomes from cellar dwellar to champion by trying to replicate the path of every champion for the last 30 years not named Detroit.  If you don't gamble,  you don't win a ring.  I get your idea of trying to make it a smart gamble, but you need both good management and luck to win big.  

[Lurker]

You can't just look at a team and say "oh, they had a nice, winning season!" when it's just 43 wins. There is more than meets the eye that comes in the new analytic stuff all the time. I'm not strictly on analytics, I'm more in the discussion area, but you usually can relate what the analytics say to what you actually see on the court.

And quite frankly, the Hawks didn't pass either test. The eye or analytic test. It was a very mediocre team that honestly, was quite bad without Millsap. It's a team that if you do nothing but lose Millsap, will not make the playoffs next season. On its own. Budenholzer is not Godenholzer. He's a good coach but he's not God, and he's not going to help this bad collection of players make the playoffs next year without Millsap.

If Millsap goes, the playoff streak will be dead on it's own. Even if the team is not stripped to the buds of it. It is just a bad collection of players that don't play well together.

If you thought this year's Hawks was a good team, you're viewing it through rosy glasses. It was mediocre with Millsap and quite bad without him. And when I say I will remember the ridiculous Houston and Cleveland comebacks for decades, I truly do mean it.

That does not make up for the ugliness that we saw a LOT over the season. The shock of seeing the awful score vs the Pelicans at HOME, the sad and ugly games at the Lakers and the Jazz, the sad @Phoenix game...should I say more?

[Lurker]

I'm not asking for a strip it down to the buds rebuild, because that can be painful too. But let me make it clear:

If Millsap goes, and I would say at best it's 50/50 that he stays or goes, the Hawks are going to naturally be bad unless they make other, significant moves.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Whoever came up with that simple but oh-so-full-of-meaning term, I congratulate you.

You're welcome, micky ficky.

I just took a bow.

[Guest]

I'm sorry but people saying it may or may not happen...NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Damn have a freakin opinion dayam that's dumb. No names mentioned though so no ding for me ...IM CLEAR MODS NOTHING TO SEE HERE..

[Sothron]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Even Travis Schlenk stated that it took seven years for Golden State to get to the point that they were a playoff contender. 

This attitude that since we aren't competing for a championship, we should just suck and get high draft picks is insane.  You truly want to become the Sacramento King/Minnesota Timberwolves/name any other perennial lottery bound team rather than be a playoff team. 

This is such a poor strategy, because not only do you have to be lucky to get a top 3 draft pick, you have to be lucky that there is a true superstar player available in the draft.  And then you have to do it again, and again.  And then you have to give those guys time to actually mature on the court and to become stars at their peak.  We have just as much of a chance of getting a Kawhi Leonard/Jimmy Butler/Draymond Green/Paul Millsap type of star if we continue to be competitive and draft in the middle part of the first round as we do of getting a star at the top of the draft considering what is valued and what isn't valued in the draft these days. 

I got news for you.  There isn't a Kevin Durant in every draft.  I'm not tanking just to get Rudy Gay, I mean Andrew Wiggins.

Not every draft is going to reward a team in the lottery with a superstar. There are very few times a superstar was found outside the top 10 versus inside the top 10. This is simply playing the best odds.

You can hate on the TWolves but if they were in the East they would have already been in the playoffs the last several years. If Levine had not got hurt they probably would have made it this year. They are right on the cusp of something good with fantastic talent ready for that quantum leap forwards.

When is the last time the Hawks had something like that? We aren't getting free agents like that. We aren't trading for talent like that. We either get it in the draft or we continue this bleak existence as a first round doormat playoff team.

[MaceCase]

4 hours ago, kg01 said:

Ah, you're seeing thru the tankers bs, Peo.  They want us to Philly tank but that sounds ridiculous, so they keep using code words like 'rebuild'.  As you astutely point out, we actually kinda are rebuilding so ... what do these dudes really want?

Yup, the Hawks have rebuilt about a half dozen times in the past decade.  It's not a "rebuild" these folks are pointing towards.

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

Not every draft is going to reward a team in the lottery with a superstar. There are very few times a superstar was found outside the top 10 versus inside the top 10. This is simply playing the best odds.

You can hate on the TWolves but if they were in the East they would have already been in the playoffs the last several years. If Levine had not got hurt they probably would have made it this year. They are right on the cusp of something good with fantastic talent ready for that quantum leap forwards.

When is the last time the Hawks had something like that? We aren't getting free agents like that. We aren't trading for talent like that. We either get it in the draft or we continue this bleak existence as a first round doormat playoff team.

Sounds like a lot of ifs and buts but then again, as you've so eloquently stated, just making the playoffs isn't a winning season in your eyes.  The Wolves will have to enter the contender stratosphere instead of scratching at 8th seeds (no matter the conference) before any praise can be levied at their collection of talent after years of losing. 

Harsh, you'd think a playoff seed alone would be appreciated after almost 15 years of losing but instead it just increases the losing streak.

[Lurker]

I feel like I was trying to say that with Georgia football both in real life and on forums.

I will take 2007 and 2012 Georgia like seasons 9 times out of 10 but eventually you have to try for something higher than that as your upside. There is nothing wrong with that but eventually you need to at least try to shoot for the stars. I just wonder if what Georgia is doing is actually a good thing for them, as the "Alabama model" has led to (it started even before Richt was let go), much more boring and professional instead of carefree, fun, and loose teams.

It might not work but if you are conservative with everything you do in life, what is that going to get you?

And I am not meaning to completely blow up the team. No thanks to a Philly tank. But the same ole, different year is eventually going to get stale.

[Sothron]

53 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Sounds like a lot of ifs and buts but then again, as you've so eloquently stated, just making the playoffs isn't a winning season in your eyes.  The Wolves will have to enter the contender stratosphere instead of scratching at 8th seeds (no matter the conference) before any praise can be levied at their collection of talent after years of losing. 

Harsh, you'd think a playoff seed alone would be appreciated after almost 15 years of losing but instead it just increases the losing streak.

The Wolves are far closer to contender status than we are. They have to walk before they can run but that franchise has done the hard work and is now reaping the rewards. Meanwhile our franchise toils in playoff mediocrity with no chance of getting over the hump with the current lineup.

You guys disagree that we need to rebuild but you don't actually disagree that our current team isn't a contender. So which is it? You can't have both. Unless you want the franchise to stay a first round doormat?