Draft chatter with Travis Schlenk

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

Well, when Duncan was no longer an all star, you were using him in your study to proved your point in your lottery picks= championships series

He still played at a superstar level.  Check out his performance during the playoffs with their last ring.  He was the rock behind every championship team they had.

[AHF]

36 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

Hmmmm...I think PG13 is there...Butler too possibly he still has a few years to prove he is a #1.

If Paul George isn't a superstar then there's only like 10-12 superstars in the NBA. PG13 is a top 20 NBA player without question, I'd even go top 15.

Ps I hate Larry Drew if I haven't mentioned it 137 times already...

 

 

Gianniiiiiisssssss whhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy :-(

That is correct.  As a shorthand for superstar, you are talking about the top handful of guys in contention for MVP.  You are not talking about the top contender for All-Star.

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

That is correct.  As a shorthand for superstar, you are talking about the top handful of guys in contention for MVP.  You are not talking about the top contender for All-Star.

If Paul George isn't a super star then why were many on this message board wanting to trade the farm for him or Jimmy Butler? We're they wrong?

[AHF]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

If Paul George isn't a super star then why were many on this message board wanting to trade the farm for him or Jimmy Butler? We're they wrong?

Because he was the best player we thought we could get.

[Peoriabird]

Just now, AHF said:

Because he was the best player we thought we could get.

But that equals treadmill and I thought that wasn't good enough?  y'all confuse me.

[Bankingitbig]

32 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

If paul George is Indy's superstar then why would they have to blow up the team? Kinda doesn't fit the tankers argument right?

They...... Don't........ In fact, I believe @Sothron said he would build around a PG type player. That said, they should have been more prudent with some of the contracts that they took on, but that is always easy to say that in hindsight. Plus, they came fairly close to making the Finals with PG once. Obviously, it's a gamble on whether or not he stays next year though and maybe that is a reason for trading him if you think he won't.

[Sothron]

7 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

But that equals treadmill and I thought that wasn't good enough?  y'all confuse me.

Why would that be treadmill? If he was on our team and we didn't have to sell the farm to get him we would be at least competitive enough to reach a conference finals.

3 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

They...... Don't........ In fact, I believe @Sothron said he would build around a PG type player. That said, they should have been more prudent with some of the contracts that they took on, but that is always easy to say that in hindsight. Plus, they came fairly close to making the Finals with PG once. Obviously, it's a gamble on whether or not he stays next year though and maybe that is a reason for trading him if you think he won't.

It is refreshing to see.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

But that equals treadmill and I thought that wasn't good enough?  y'all confuse me.

Not everyone wanted him but the reason a lot did is we were trying to win as many games as possible last season and he was the best possible player to add.  He is definitely good enough to put you in position to win a ring if you land another guy ala Lebron being added to Wade.  

You would need to look poster by poster to see if the logic is sound or if there has been an intervening event that has led them to look at this a different way.  Just saying "y'all want to rebuild and y'all wanted PG, what gives?" is too broad a stroke for the many different views on this board.

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, Sothron said:

Why would that be treadmill? If he was on our team and we didn't have to sell the farm to get him we would be at least competitive enough to reach a conference finals.

Well he is on Indy's team and they were worse than us...in my best Tom Cruz voice...Can you explain that?

[Sothron]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

Well he is on Indy's team and they were worse than us...in my best Tom Cruz voice...Can you explain that?

Explain what? Indy has inferior talent than we do this past season. PG was on some Indy teams that were legit contenders as well. Which Indy team are you trying to draw comparisons to? Are you trying to ask if PG is a superstar? In most ppl's eyes he is, I'd put him just outside that range. same with Butler from Chicago. If PG wanted to STAY in Indy then if I was the Indy GM I would build around him. But he doesn't want to stay, he's made it pretty obvious he wants to go to LA. So why keep him? Why not keep the young talent there (like Turner) and get the most you can get in a PG trade?

Is this so hard to understand?

[Peoriabird]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

Not everyone wanted him but the reason a lot did is we were trying to win as many games as possible last season and he was the best possible player to add.  He is definitely good enough to put you in position to win a ring if you land another guy ala Lebron being added to Wade.  

You would need to look poster by poster to see if the logic is sound or if there has been an intervening event that has led them to look at this a different way.  Just saying "y'all want to rebuild and y'all wanted PG, what gives?" is too broad a stroke for the many different views on this board.

For the record, Is PG a superstar and if so, why is Indy not a contender?

[Bankingitbig]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

Well he is on Indy's team and they were worse than us...in my best Tom Cruz voice...Can you explain that?

In case you didn't know.... Indy doesn't have a player named Paul Millsap or a player that is comparable to him. Nor do they have a coach named Mike Budenholzer or one that is comparable to him. Additionally, their starting five is horribly constructed. Not sure why that truly needed explaining........

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, Sothron said:

Explain what? Indy has inferior talent than we do this past season. PG was on some Indy teams that were legit contenders as well. Which Indy team are you trying to draw comparisons to? Are you trying to ask if PG is a superstar? In most ppl's eyes he is, I'd put him just outside that range. same with Butler from Chicago. If PG wanted to STAY in Indy then if I was the Indy GM I would build around him. But he doesn't want to stay, he's made it pretty obvious he wants to go to LA. So why keep him? Why not keep the young talent there (like Turner) and get the most you can get in a PG trade?

Is this so hard to understand?

Its hard to understand because Indy followed your formula and failed...and even double dipped into the lotto last year...why can't  you explain why it didn't work in Indy if you are so sure it will work for the Hawks?

[Sothron]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

Its hard to understand because Indy followed your formula and failed...and even double dipped into the lotto last year...why can't  you explain why it didn't work in Indy if you are so sure it will work for the Hawks?

Where's the Picard face palm meme when you need it...

It did work for them a few years ago. Before PG injury. Remember when the Pacers were neck and neck with the Heat? That was a contender. Then PG got hurt and the talent around him got worse. That's their CURRENT situation. A disgruntled almost superstar level player who wants OUT and the team has to either trade him this upcoming season or this offseason or lose him for nothing.

So to answer your question: it did work for Indy. Injury to their star player is what changed the situation. If the Hawks could get a PG level talent in the draft then we'd be jumping up and down for joy.

[Peoriabird]

3 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

In case you didn't know.... Indy doesn't have a player named Paul Millsap or a player that is comparable to him. Nor do they have a coach named Mike Budenholzer or one that is comparable to him. Additionally, their starting five is horribly constructed. Not sure why that truly needed explaining........

Because all of the talk was getting this so called Superstar by tanking and Indy did just that and are and have been worse than us all but 1 year and almost lost to us in the playoffs with the Hawks missing Horford.  A protanker needs to explain this otherwise admit it isn't an exact science and quit preaching as though it is.

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Where's the Picard face palm meme when you need it...

It did work for them a few years ago. Before PG injury. Remember when the Pacers were neck and neck with the Heat? That was a contender. Then PG got hurt and the talent around him got worse. That's their CURRENT situation. A disgruntled almost superstar level player who wants OUT and the team has to either trade him this upcoming season or this offseason or lose him for nothing.

So to answer your question: it did work for Indy. Injury to their star player is what changed the situation. If the Hawks could get a PG level talent in the draft then we'd be jumping up and down for joy.

Oh please, we should have beaten them in that 1st round series missing Horford. Teague almost played as well as the so called franchise when he was healthy.

[Peoriabird]

Plus it's funny that everyone is changing their tune about the amount of talent on Indy's team now...I seem to remember a lot of posters predicting Indy to challenge Cleveland in the conference finals at the beginning of the season because they added Teague but now they have no talent? Sounds like a Jeff Sessions testimony in front of congress to me. Lol!

[Bankingitbig]

16 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Because all of the talk was getting this so called Superstar by tanking and Indy did just that and are and have been worse than us all but 1 year and almost lost to us in the playoffs with the Hawks missing Horford.  A protanker needs to explain this otherwise admit it isn't an exact science and quit preaching as though it is.

Not sure if Indy truly tanked, as PG was selected at #10, which has been their highest pick since picking #7 in 1989. In fact, I feel like Indy did almost opposite of what tanking is in terms of trying to get high picks and build through the draft. They traded their 2011 first round pick (Kawhi Leonard) for George Hill and traded their 2014 first round pick for Luis Scola....

Don't think I have seen anyone calling tanking an exact science. Think it is a case by case basis.

[Bankingitbig]

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Plus it's funny that everyone is changing their tune about the amount of talent on Indy's team now...I seem to remember a lot of posters predicting Indy to challenge Cleveland in the conference finals at the beginning of the season because they added Teague but now they have no talent? Sounds like a Jeff Sessions testimony in front of congress to me. Lol!

Can't speak for others, but I really don't recall many people thinking Indy would challenge Cleveland at the beginning of the season. Though it was pretty much consensus that it would be Cleveland #1 and Boston #2. Many people thought Indiana was flawed from a roster standpoint with Teague and Monta Ellis as the guards, then add in their weak coaching staff. Then account for the fact that Paul Geroge is the only starter-worthy player on the roster that can actually play defense.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Plus it's funny that everyone is changing their tune about the amount of talent on Indy's team now...I seem to remember a lot of posters predicting Indy to challenge Cleveland in the conference finals at the beginning of the season because they added Teague but now they have no talent? Sounds like a Jeff Sessions testimony in front of congress to me. Lol!

Drop that mic, Peo.

Please Peo, don't hurt 'em.

I just want folks to say they want us to tank.  Stop sugar coating it.  It's ok.  I mean, we all have our opinions.  I wanted us to tank before, IIRC, the 2012 draft but now I don't feel it's really a road to sustained success.  It's fool's gold.

For example, and this won't be popular, I'm sure folks think MIN is thisclose to being a contender.  I disagree.  I think they're about 2 years from figuring out they have to trade Wiggins or Lavine.  Then, they're about 3 years away from truly learning to be a perennial playoff team.  Then, if it all works out (and that's a huge IF), they're about 2 years away from being a contender.  Do that math on that.

IOW, they're several years away from being on our current level.  With all their fancy 'assets, they're multiple seasons away from being on the Hawks' middling level.  Then again, that's if we're being honest and not being blinded by assets.