Zach Lowe breaks down everything wrong with a rebuild plan and how we already made some missteps.

[Bankingitbig]

49 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Boston hit on IT, Crowder, and stole Horford.  All those were 50/50 propositions at best.  Utah did a measured rebuild like we are said to be doing.  They won 25 games 4 years ago.  Portland went for 28, 35 wins 5 and 4 years ago.  They were rebuilding, but as you say blew it.

I guess I have different definitions of a good rebuild. Just because you lost a bunch of games doesn't mean you went the correct rebuild route to me.

Portland went from 48 wins to 28 wins because of injuries... Not because they were rebuilding. They had Aldridge, Batum, Mathews already and then were able to get Lillard due to only winning 28 games. They continued to build around those guys.

The Jazz lost 25 games because they lost Millsap, Al Jefferson and Mo Williams in free agency (top 3 out of 4 in PPG for them that season), along with losing Carroll without getting assets. They made one rebuilding move in trading Foye, but that was probably more to open up space for Burks. It's somewhat similar to us in that we never rebuilt when we should have and just lost a bunch of starters in free agency without getting much back in return.

I guess I am just confused on how this article "breaks down everything wrong with a rebuild" when it shows Philly (the notorious rebuilding team) as a Winner and Boston as a Winner. The two teams that TRULY did a rebuild and did them the more "correct" way in terms of trying to acquire as many young assets and picks, hoping that some pan out, while maintaining cap flexibility.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bankingitbig

[HawkItus]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Well, to be fair, actually you said more than what I said to Diesel. You took me to task in assigning to me this "intellectual superiority." I attached no label to Diesel, but only described what I "sensed" about how he routinely functions.

But you left us, or at least me, wanting to understand where the inherent "intellectual superiority" lies in merely observing that a paid sports writer is like the rest of us in (a) not having been hired by anyone in the industry because of his astute opinions and (b) not having been held accountable when he's wrong.

To the contrary, if anything, it seems you'd like to interject that Lowe is intellectually superior to the rest of us... and that, you, because you agree with him, get to join him in that same superiority.

Setting all that aside, one more time, please give me the argument AGAINST what I said about media people and why their opinions are not actually to be assigned any greater credibility necessarily than anyone of ours... if you can, great, let's hear it... and if you can't, and if you decide to concede the point, don't presume anyone thinks less of you for doing that... rather, I'm confident many would, like me, think more highly.

 

 

First you have assigned me a position to defend I did not take.  I posted an article while pointing out an assessment that I find relevant to our current situation.  You, without discussion of the content, went into the merits or lack there of for the writer and writers.  Secondly using your exact argument what separates us from the likes of Zach Lowe is that he is a paid professional.   If we attribute that Billy King by being paid, no matter his level of ineptness, is qualified, then we must afford the same to writers.  Finally, if my words offended you I apologize.  I meant them less as a slight and more as an observation and in response to you not debating the content, but only the source.  Thanks.

[HawkItus]

1 minute ago, Bankingitbig said:

I guess I have different definitions of a good rebuild. Just because you lost a bunch of games doesn't mean you went the correct rebuild route to me.

Portland went from 48 wins to 28 wins because of injuries... Not because they were rebuilding. They had Aldridge, Batum, Mathews already and then were able to get Lillard due to only winning 28 games. They continued to build around those guys.

The Jazz lost 25 games because they lost Millsap, Al Jefferson and Mo Williams in free agency (top 3 out of 4 in PPG for them that season), along with losing Carroll without getting assets. They made one rebuilding move in trading Foye, but that was probably more to open up space for Burks. It's somewhat similar to us in that we never rebuilt when we should have and just lost a bunch of starters in free agency without getting much back in return.

I guess I am just confused on how this article "breaks down everything wrong with a rebuild" when it shows Philly (the notorious rebuilding team) as a Winner and Boston as a Winner. The two teams that TRULY did a rebuild and did them the more "correct" way in terms of trying to acquire as many young assets and picks, hoping that some pan out, while maintaining cap flexibility.

I think purposely let those players go.  

As for Philly they haven't completed this yet.   And as winners they have a lot of misses (MCW, Okafor) Boston actually hasn't done much with the assets from the rebuild.  It has been shrewdness/luck with FA and trades that garnered the recent success.  Again for every winner there are losers.  Even when those winners are pointed out it is a large amount of luck that benefited them.  Everything wrong is that you can be on the right track and end up right where the Hawks just got off.  Even the writers in Philly see it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/Sixers_Jazz_Gordon_Hayward_What_happened_to_could_happen_here.html

[Sothron]

Repeat: this should be moved to the official rebuilding topic since this whole thing is just a straw man to continue the rebuild debate in yet another topic. This article doesn't even address rebuilding.

[Bankingitbig]

3 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

I think purposely let those players go.  

As for Philly they haven't completed this yet.   And as winners they have a lot of misses (MCW, Okafor) Boston actually hasn't done much with the assets from the rebuild.  It has been shrewdness/luck with FA and trades that garnered the recent success.  Again for every winner there are losers.  Even when those winners are pointed out it is a large amount of luck that benefited them.  Everything wrong is that you can be on the right track and end up right where the Hawks just got off.  Even the writers in Philly see it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/Sixers_Jazz_Gordon_Hayward_What_happened_to_could_happen_here.html

I disagree somewhat about Boston not doing much with the assets from the rebuild. Crowder was from the rebuild. I also think them having all those BKN picks is a big reason why Horford chose to sign there. Same could be said for Hayward. If it was only Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart with late first round picks, then I think Hayward would likely stay in Utah. But now add in two top-3 picks (Brown and Tatum) and another likely top-3 pick next year.... That's a lot of potential to help a team out on cheap contracts or that could be spun for other assets.

Fully agree that there is a large amount of luck involved, but I think that is the same for any path to a championship.

[sturt]

41 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

First you have assigned me a position to defend I did not take.  I posted an article while pointing out an assessment that I find relevant to our current situation.

While it's true you did not initially agree or disagree with Lowe, it seems to me you have since made it pretty clear that you agree.... no?

41 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

You, without discussion of the content, went into the merits or lack there of for the writer and writers.

Right. I did. It is relevant since it seems that often people like to assume a given writer is automatically owed some additional...  your word.... superiority.

41 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Secondly using your exact argument what separates us from the likes of Zach Lowe is that he is a paid professional.  

Indeed. He is paid.

And so, I've already addressed that point. He is paid because he chose to go into that industry. Many of us also would be paid if we had chosen to go into that industry. He is ostensibly NOT paid on the basis of being right. He is paid on the basis of the perception that he is a good writer, able to convey his thoughts in a rational and entertaining, perhaps even clever, way. THAT is why he's paid. NOT as-if he is going to be fired next year if they go back and read his July 2017 article that shows he was all wrong. Neither can he expect to get a pay hike if he's later proven right. There is no accountability there.

Counterpoint to that? I'm listening.

41 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

If we attribute that Billy King by being paid, no matter his level of ineptness, is qualified, then we must afford the same to writers.

But at least, superior to any of the rest of us, there was some track record at some point in his life that made employer decide "this guy is the best of the applicants for this job."

And then, as important, his very income and career depended on him making good decisions, so he clearly had the utmost reason and motive to invest his all in that.

That's very different than any of us.

Anyone and everyone will be wrong some times. GMs almost never survive very long. Or even if we just look at scouts and coaches. All of them have an edge that none of us can claim, and so, yes, it is justified imo to assign a higher value to someone who has EVER been in that position than one of us who haven't been.

That SHOULDN'T be taken to mean any one of them naturally is going to be more right than any given one of us (including Lowe) concerning any particular issue or decision made. Rather, it should be taken only that their opinion deserves an appreciably greater benefit of a doubt, imo.

41 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Finally, if my words offended you I apologize.  I meant them less as a slight and more as an observation and in response to you not debating the content, but only the source.  Thanks.

I've been called the same, I've been called worse. No offense taken.

And I suppose it could be taken, ironically enough, as supporting the assertion when I say, I don't really care that someone diverts to criticizing me, the person, rather than criticizing the argument presented.

(Mind you, make no mistake, if you were a person in my social network, that would be different... I would care what you thought of me.)

But where discussion/deliberation on a sports message board is concerned, I'm just one of those people very focused not only on what we debate, but how we debate it.... and hence, my persistence in asking you to address the validity of the point made with a logical counterpoint, rather than veering away into the personality weeds.

Central point here, though is that I disagree with you when you suggest the source doesn't matter. The source does matter.

I argue that it matters because people imo can tend to assign higher credibility to an opinion written by a some paid media person than, in actuality, is deserved... just because s/he is a paid media person, nothing else.

Even if you yourself are not one of those people (I can't say whether you are or whether you aren't, of course, though there is at least that insinuation when you wrote "what separates us from the likes of Zach Lowe is that he is a paid professional"), it almost goes without saying that many of those people are out here, and read and participate on sports message boards.

[ATLien_]

57 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Boston hit on IT, Crowder, and stole Horford.  All those were 50/50 propositions at best.  Utah did a measured rebuild like we are said to be doing.  They won 25 games 4 years ago.  Portland went for 28, 35 wins 5 and 4 years ago.  They were rebuilding, but as you say blew it.

The Utah situation is scariest of all. They were doing it right and their best drafted player just left and set them back. I really think the league is broken. There is really no way for certain markets to compete. 

Too many teams are trying to lose for very unlikely chance of drafting the next generational talent. Drafting all stars doesn't get you rings in this league. I honestly think the NBA should get rid of the draft which removes the incentive to tank. Make all Rookies free agents and give teams outside the playoffs first dibs negotiate with the rookies and get rid our the rookies salary scale. Like major league baseball you may have to give the top prospects a huge deal, so signability matters. Limit each team to two signees. This will allow teams to compete on price, organization, development etc.. for young talent. If you get it wrong your stuck paying a bust 20m a year. Contending teams will likely be near capped out, so unless a Rookies willing to forgo big money for a ring then I doubt they'll go to contenders. I think this gives more teams a chance to compete sooner. Maybe the league would have less bust too if players could pick teams they fit with. It seems certain teams can never develop players properly. My overall point is let's not reward teams with top talent for being bad. 

Alright I'll put the down now and go back to reality of the bad product that is the NBA.

[sturt]

33 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Repeat: this should be moved to the official rebuilding topic since this whole thing is just a straw man to continue the rebuild debate in yet another topic. This article doesn't even address rebuilding.

Concur.

[REHawksFan]

33 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Repeat: this should be moved to the official rebuilding topic since this whole thing is just a straw man to continue the rebuild debate in yet another topic. This article doesn't even address rebuilding.

i was wondering if I was the only one that thought that article has nothing to do with rebuilding and certainly doesn't "breakdown everything wrong with a rebuild." Frankly, the article doesn't get into any breakdown of a rebuild - either positive or negative. 

[AHF]

45 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

i was wondering if I was the only one that thought that article has nothing to do with rebuilding and certainly doesn't "breakdown everything wrong with a rebuild." Frankly, the article doesn't get into any breakdown of a rebuild - either positive or negative. 

That is why it is moving to around the association and not getting folded into the rebuild topic.

[KB21]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

He may prove to be.

Broken record here....

I just plead for a modicum of humility from all of us as we work through this phase of Hawks history that's bound to be especially open for deliberation as to what is right and what is wrong with the decisions that are being and will be made.

That is, merely choosing words that offer an ounce of suggestion that "I could be wrong about this" will go a long way toward limiting hostilities as we discuss this stuff now and going forward. And that's one of the few things that's empirically NOT wrong, by the way.... any one of us COULD be wrong.

I'm not wrong about this though.  This is going to be a long, miserable process that will likely cost both the head coach and GMs their jobs long term.  Neither will be here to see the rebuild come to fruition.  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

I'm not wrong about this though.

"I have ample reason to believe I'm not wrong about this" is what you can say concretely. (And I for one am inclined to agree, fwiw.... don't forget, I was probably the first person here to ask, "would we be ahead of the game if Schlenk would just go ahead and install his own guy rather than waiting a year or two?")

The time/space continuum and your mortality (an assumption on my part that you are mortal, of course), however, argue against the statement made as-is.

The world, imo, is much too convinced too much of the time "I'm not wrong about this, though." Politically and otherwise.