Spinoff Thread

[BrazilianHawk]

I don't like being bad. It's ugly and boring. Being bad for almost a decade... It'g uglier and more boring still.

How many more decades are you guys willing to live? I say enjoy what's good. Even if it's not the best team of all, I'd much rather root for a good team to win than for a bad team to lose.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

GM Chrysler are you kidding me?   Hey, does anyone remember when the hawks had 7 years of 25-35 wins and all those high draft picks.  What happened to our guaranteed championship????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

What a joke. 

But you know what?

(...he said, as he picked up a can opener in one hand and a can of worms in the other...)

Look at the GSW starting five... Billy Knight's roster building philosophy has been validated. People--no one here, of course, but... you know.... "people"--often took their shots at him for seeming to want to have five 6-8 players on the floor.

Unfortunately, time proved there were better draft choices he coulda/shoulda made... though, again, more often than not, the choices he made were the ones that many if not most of the "experts" said he should have.... which, of course, really goes more to the point @macdaddy made in the comment above.

And, unfortunately, he also needed, but failed to hire, the right coach to execute the best systems for taking advantage of the kind of roster he seemingly pursued. At the time, I don't recall there being very many ball-sharing-emphasis coaches.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

They have had a 0% chance as constituted and have never been on the cusp of a difference making trade.

Comparing the last decade of the Houston Rockets with the hey day of the Pistons who were in the 20 something win range on both sides of their peak, give me the Pistons and that ring all day.  I don't know how anyone would choose a team with a bunch of first and second round exits over a team that made 6 consecutive conference finals, made two finals and won one ring.

The parameters proposed by the OP are so specious so as to make the rest of the discussion almost too specious to be interesting.... though, somehow, in teasing out the specious qualities, maybe there's something productive here after all.

So, give me that Pistons team, if in fact, they're just a year or two or three away NOW from rising up to the top. I just don't think they are. They've had enough time, again given the parameters of the OP question, but where is the reason for optimism? I see none.

Zooming out, I just think Schlenk's talk about the necessity of being lucky is refreshingly candid, albeit, troubling in its own way for a new GM to be admitting.... we want this to be more scientific.... for there to be a clear, proven methodology that predictably produces championships.

Tragically, it doesn't exist.

 

[Sothron]

This poll is not realistic in the sense that if you can already know one path leads to a guaranteed title you would pick that every time.

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, Sothron said:

This poll is not realistic in the sense that if you can already know one path leads to a guaranteed title you would pick that every time.

I honestly think that some believe that.  That tanking for high draft picks is not just the ONLY way but also a virtually guaranteed way.   Despite the fact that WE JUST DID THAT (relatively speaking) and now feel the need to do it again.   

It's A way and no better or more effective than other ways.   If it was don't you think the people who make a living running teams would all be choosing that way?  

[Sothron]

3 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I honestly think that some believe that.  That tanking for high draft picks is not just the ONLY way but also a virtually guaranteed way.   Despite the fact that WE JUST DID THAT (relatively speaking) and now feel the need to do it again.   

It's A way and no better or more effective than other ways.   If it was don't you think the people who make a living running teams would all be choosing that way?  

That way has probably led to more titles in the history of the NBA but yes, it is just one way to win a title. If you can sign or trade for a  superstar to go with your existing talent you can win a title that way.

There's no guarantee in sports...

[sturt]

I think of all those years that GSW was deemed to be a hamster-wheel franchise.

I mean, really, don't all of us?

And while I wish it were us, and while I will never stop being not just critical but damning critical of ring-brats like Kevin Durant, I'm happy for them, and it puts some wind in my sails b/c it restores confidence that sometimes things do come together for those previously considered to be hamster-wheel teams.

It's a race, though, among 30 businesses for 1 prize.

It's not supposed to be easy.

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, sturt said:

The parameters proposed by the OP are so specious so as to make the rest of the discussion almost too specious to be interesting.... though, somehow, in teasing out the specious qualities, maybe there's something productive here after all.

So, give me that Pistons team, if in fact, they're just a year or two or three away NOW from rising up to the top. I just don't think they are. They've had enough time, again given the parameters of the OP question, but where is the reason for optimism? I see none.

Zooming out, I just think Schlenk's talk about the necessity of being lucky is refreshingly candid, albeit, troubling in its own way for a new GM to be admitting.... we want this to be more scientific.... for there to be a clear, proven methodology that predictably produces championships.

Tragically, it doesn't exist.

 

If you are talking about the current Piston's team, I agree.

To me the better comparison is whether you would like to be the Florida Marlins with two championships and a lot of miserable years or the Washington Nationals if they keep up what they have done the last 6 years - a bunch of 57% winning teams that don't go anywhere in the playoffs but are in the playoff race every year.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

I think of all those years that GSW was deemed to be a hamster-wheel franchise.

I mean, really, don't all of us?

And while I wish it were us, and while I will never stop being not just critical but damning critical of ring-brats like Kevin Durant, I'm happy for them, and it puts some wind in my sails b/c it restores confidence that sometimes things do come together for those previously considered to be hamster-wheel teams.

It's a race, though, among 30 businesses for 1 prize.

It's not supposed to be easy.

GS has never been a hamster-wheel franchise.  They went from making the playoffs once in 15 years to drafting their future MVP and building themselves into a juggernaut.

[sturt]

42 minutes ago, AHF said:

If you are talking about the current Piston's team, I agree.

To me the better comparison is whether you would like to be the Florida Marlins with two championships and a lot of miserable years or the Washington Nationals if they keep up what they have done the last 6 years - a bunch of 57% winning teams that don't go anywhere in the playoffs but are in the playoff race every year.

Honestly, it's Nats hands-down.

This is a recreation/entertainment choice. I turn on my MLB.tv and because I'm out of market, I get to watch 162+ games of baseball commercial-free.... and enjoy it, year after year.

Sure, October has sucked.

And/but, hey, there's nothing guaranteed for MIA the next time they get good, either.

The cumulative enjoyment I get from routinely seeing my team win, and coupled with that, the reason for optimism that we might someday break through, easily exceeds to my mind the intense-but-too-brief thrill of one year of achieving the ultimate prize.

 

[HawkItus]

This whole discussion is crazy.  Anything that promises a title would be the choice all day.  Problem is there are no guarantees     Tell me where the guaranteed result lies in any route of tanking or treadmilling.   Dallas treadmill then lucked into a title.   The Clippers, Knicks, Philadelphia, Orlando, Minn., SAC etc.  have tanked and not approached a title. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

But you know what?

(...he said, as he picked up a can opener in one hand and a can of worms in the other...)

Look at the GSW starting five... Billy Knight's roster building philosophy has been validated.  Blah, blah, blah ... words ...

 

The bolded is true beyond measure.  I never doubted the strategery, only the picks.

[macdaddy]

15 minutes ago, kg01 said:

The bolded is true beyond measure.  I never doubted the strategery, only the picks.

I'd say BK's strategy was partly validated.  The part that wasn't was he didn't particularly care if the long, athletic guys could shoot consistently.   That was a pretty fatal flaw in the plan. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

GS has never been a hamster-wheel franchise.  They went from making the playoffs once in 15 years to drafting their future MVP and building themselves into a juggernaut.

Um. I think I'm using a broader version of the "hamster-wheel franchise" term.

By "hamster-wheel," I mean "generally in the middle of the pack, rarely at the very bottom or very top."

Since conclusion of the Al Attles era (82-83), the team has been more bad than good, but rarely exceptionally bad (or, for that matter, exceptionally good).

The W/L% over that time translates to 37.5 wins per year.

I'll grant you that "hamster-wheel" can seem more frustrating when your team is among those in the 4-5 games above .500 neighborhood than it would seem if your team tends to be in the 4-5 games below .500 neighborhood.

 

[sturt]

57 minutes ago, kg01 said:

The bolded is true beyond measure.  I never doubted the strategery, only the picks.

I can't say I doubted the picks... but that's because I was agreeing with practically every mock draft expert out there in their assertion that Marvin had this unique skill set for his size and had such a huge upside, ATL and BK had to take him... and earlier, because I was agreeing with many (though I can't say "most" because I don't think there was a definitive consensus either way) who thought Deng, Childress and Iggy were all just about as likely as the other to excel.... and because, everyone thought we needed a big with the pick in 2006, but everyone also thought any big taken at #5 would be a reach, and Blockhead was the least "reach" of many (... in fact, as it turned out, the only big that would emerge from that draft as a real talent was Aldridge--already gone--and the 4-time All-Star who Utah drafted in the 2nd round, after they'd already had two other picks). He did, of course, get a couple of picks right by the standard of most... Horf, and Smoove.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I'd say BK's strategy was partly validated.  The part that wasn't was he didn't particularly care if the long, athletic guys could shoot consistently.   That was a pretty fatal flaw in the plan. 

That and he saw no value in a point guard.  The idea he had could have succeeded had he made better choices.

[macdaddy]

Just now, AHF said:

That and he saw no value in a point guard.

That was definitely an issue but in his defense I think he tried to trade Chill for Calderon and was thwarted and then ultimately went and got Bibby so you can say he learned.   Maybe it was the other way around.

[sturt]

I disagree that he didn't appreciate the need for PG. He signed Speedy, and he couldn't have known that he wasn't getting the PG that Speedy had been.

He then drafted Acie, but that was essentially the same problem that year that he'd encountered when he drafted Sheldon... bad year for drafting at that draft slot at that position, as it turned out.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

I disagree that he didn't appreciate the need for PG. He signed Speedy, and he couldn't have known that he wasn't getting the PG that Speedy had been.

He then drafted Acie, but that was essentially the same problem that year that he'd encountered when he drafted Sheldon... bad year for drafting at that draft slot at that position, as it turned out.

When we landed the second spot in the draft, I was on the phone watching the lottery with my brother and said "oh well.  That means Chris Paul."  The pick was that obvious and he passed.

The next year we desperately needed a PG and already had plenty of inside players yet passed on Brandon Roy, Kyle Lowry and Rajon Rondo among others.

Speedy was never good.  He was passable and a major injury risk before we got him.

The PG spot was absolutely not a priority for him.  In addition to the bad execution and lack of shooting, that was a fundamental problem.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

When we landed the second spot in the draft, I was on the phone watching the lottery with my brother and said "oh well.  That means Chris Paul."  The pick was that obvious and he passed.

The next year we desperately needed a PG and already had plenty of inside players yet passed on Brandon Roy, Kyle Lowry and Rajon Rondo among others.

Speedy was never good.  He was passable and a major injury risk before we got him.

The PG spot was absolutely not a priority for him.  In addition to the bad execution and lack of shooting, that was a fundamental problem.

1. That might have been what you and your brother said, but please don't make me go drudge up all of the mock drafts that by-far had Marvelous Marvin as the #2 pick.

2. 2006, there were no highly regarded PGs at the top of that draft. Roy was regarded as a SG. Rondo and Lowry weren't even regarded as lottery picks. And it was all but assumed that BK was going to hit the free agent market for a PG instead.... which, he did.

3. How good one regarded/regards Speedy is somewhat beside the point.... BK thought he was getting a capable PG, and certainly Speedy was widely regarded at that point as a good solution.