He wouldn't just say this....

[Buzzard]

8 hours ago, KB21 said:

Yet, did he not address the fact that it took 5 years to build the Warriors into a contender?

I think his statements explain a lot if people would not try and read more or less into them. Five years away from contending for a championship I would agree with. Three years away from being a respectable young team along with some vets back in the playoffs and showing promise,; I've no doubt that can be done as well. He may have us back in the playoffs after just two years.

I have no problem missing the playoffs this season and the next; while using our picks. I think that is a better alternative than being a 6th seed with our two best players being 30 plus years old and no cap to play with.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Buzzard

[KB21]

7 hours ago, MaceCase said:

???.  So your fear is he intends to tank 2 years from now?

Or does this not conform with your notion that the picks will take a couple years to develop....thus having players that will contribute today and be off the books when the young guys are ready would be beneficial?

And/or does that not make those deals tradeable useful filler, to go along with prospects, picks, and cap that could acquire a foundational piece?

Or you can just continue to say he's all in on the draft blah blah they'll take 30 years to develop blah blah.

No, but I'm not seeing anything done to prevent this from being yet another long rebuild just like the majority of teams that choose to go this route.  

[Diesel]

His job is to find a way to Lose competitively.  We are tanking... NO Doubt about it.  He just has to convince the fans that we have a shot.  He can't come right out and say... we're trying to lose on purpose and we want to get the best pick in the draft.  However, usually when GMs tell the fan base that we're going to grow through the draft and they get rid of all of the "high dollar" vets for draft picks... It's tanking.  Remember, he's the guy who has to put us in position to get a top draft pick and then tell us that we still have a chance with this young core. 

 

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, KB21 said:

The other problem with his comment is this.  He says he doesn't want to drop down for 2-3 years in a row.  Well, Mr. Schlenk, how do you propose avoiding that reality?  Even the teams that you can try and point to as successes with building via the lottery and the draft took at least 3 years to bring in the talent needed.  

There are two other acknowledgements there:

1.  We will drop. 

2.  We will drop this year.

3.  It's possible that we will drop for more than this year...

Now.. let's consider his moves in comparison to the tanking almanac.   The tanking almanac says... we're going to drop for 3 to 5 years easily.  

Year 2, he tries to sign a vet star... finds out how hard it is to bring one to Atlanta. 

Year 3, he frees up more money and has to make a choice on Dennis... 

Year 4, he figures out that trading and getting lottery picks are the best route for him while he's here. 

[MaceCase]

18 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No, but I'm not seeing anything done to prevent this from being yet another long rebuild just like the majority of teams that choose to go this route.  

No, you're just failing to see nuance but instead conflating any team sacrificing any number of wins as fitting into a singular all encompassing category. 

[KB21]

18 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

No, you're just failing to see nuance but instead conflating any team sacrificing any number of wins as fitting into a singular all encompassing category. 

Exactly what nuance am I missing?  I'm not because there is no nuance to losing and building a team with the intent to lose.  

[MaceCase]

13 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Exactly what nuance am I missing?  I'm not because there is no nuance to losing and building a team with the intent to lose.  

Exactly, because all losing is equal in your eyes.  You can't differentiate between the 3rd pick and the 13th but you'll sing praises as to the differences between the 14th pick and the 18th pick.

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Exactly, because all losing is equal in your eyes.  You can't differentiate between the 3rd pick and the 13th but you'll sing praises as to the differences between the 14th pick and the 18th pick.

You are not making your case very well.  Explain to me why bottoming the roster out is a good idea, and why doing this will make for a quick turnaround.  

[pimp]

I don't think we are necessarily in full tank mode.

I believe we are in "avoid bad contracts " mode. Giving around 65 mil per season to Sap , Baze, and THJ won't get this franchise anywhere. No big name free agent will want to play with those guys, and we would keep drafting around pick 16 -20.

[Peoriabird]

The Hawks have just hit the reset buttons... Their star players were getting too old to be star players and it was just time to turn over the roster.  If they win 40 games great...that would mean our young up and coming stars are starting to play well.  If they win 30 or less then we need more help from the lottery and free agency to continue to make the team better while waiting on our current young talent to break through.  I think that this notion of deliberately tanking is weird because I think we have capable players on the roster to win games.  We'll just have to wait and see how many but winning isn't only a function of player growth, it is also a result of player development and strategy.  I feel if we utilize the player's strengths on this team, we can easily win over 30 games.  But if the staff constantly forces payers to do things they aren't capable of doing then it will be hard.

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, pimp said:

I don't think we are necessarily in full tank mode.

I believe we are in "avoid bad contracts " mode. Giving around 65 mil per season to Sap , Baze, and THJ won't get this franchise anywhere. No big name free agent will want to play with those guys, and we would keep drafting around pick 16 -20.

No big name free agent is going to come to a team that has no chance at the playoffs either.

[MaceCase]

43 minutes ago, KB21 said:

You are not making your case very well.  Explain to me why bottoming the roster out is a good idea, and why doing this will make for a quick turnaround.  

Wow.....

I don't have to explain that because Schlenk isn't bottoming out the roster.  

You're making my case against you perfectly.  You really are incapable of seeing any differences thus why your diatribes are fruitless and tired.

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Wow.....

I don't have to explain that because Schlenk isn't bottoming out the roster.  

You're making my case against you perfectly.  You really are incapable of seeing any differences thus why your diatribes are fruitless and tired.

He's not bottoming out the roster?  Right now, the Hawks have a roster full of either young players whose production is barely above replacement level at this stage of their development, or they have veterans who are essentially replacement level players.  Either way you go, that's the definition of bottoming out the roster.  Young teams do not win games, and teams of replacement level players do not win games.  If the Hawks win 25 games with this roster, then they should put a statue of Mike Budenholzer in front of the newly renovated Philips Arena.

[Lurker]

Here's why this narrative is just so bad:

With the way you're talking, you seriously think this:

#14 pick in the draft: They suck! They're tanking for no reason!
#15 pick in the draft: They're doing what they're supposed to be doing! Trying to win at all costs.

SMH. No. This is wrong. And this is why they need to contract the NBA playoffs back to being at best the top 4 teams to stop stupid narratives like this.

[pimp]

40 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No big name free agent is going to come to a team that has no chance at the playoffs either.

Making the playoffs 9 years in a row didn't have free agents beating down our door either.

We had absolutely no chance at competing for a championship with the team we had.  

You have have to draft at least 1 star player that free agents want  to come play with.

Every championship team in the last 10 years has drafted a franchise player.

Spurs - Duncan , Lenard

Heat - Wade

Warriors - Curry

Cavs - Lebron

Mavs - Dirk

Celtics - Pierce

next - didn't win but made it to the finals.

Thunder - Durant

Magic - Howard

We have to build through the draft. 

Edited July 16, 2017 by pimp

[sturt]

9 hours ago, JTB said:

you say Schlenk hadn't done anything to make the team better .

I stopped here.

I never said that.

My fundamental point is his words can't be taken to mean anything lock-certain, so it's fundamentally a futile pursuit to try to conclude anything that he has said predicts anything that he's going to do.

[MaceCase]

24 minutes ago, KB21 said:

He's not bottoming out the roster?  Right now, the Hawks have a roster full of either young players whose production is barely above replacement level at this stage of their development, or they have veterans who are essentially replacement level players.  Either way you go, that's the definition of bottoming out the roster.  Young teams do not win games, and teams of replacement level players do not win games.  If the Hawks win 25 games with this roster, then they should put a statue of Mike Budenholzer in front of the newly renovated Philips Arena.

This is tragic.  So your definition of "bottoming out" doesn't actually have  anything corresponding to "lowest point" or, you know, a bottom included in it.  Interesting.  It's a new take on the old adage of the glass being half empty or half full... if the glass isn't full therefore it's empty. 

This further confirms my point that you can't differentiate between winning enough to garner a 3rd pick or a 13th pick yet the alternative of striving for the 18th pick is a worthy enough goal worth tying up resources for.  And you're now going to misuse a stat to predict team wins.  Great, this is all great.

[KB21]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

Here's why this narrative is just so bad:

With the way you're talking, you seriously think this:

#14 pick in the draft: They suck! They're tanking for no reason!
#15 pick in the draft: They're doing what they're supposed to be doing! Trying to win at all costs.

SMH. No. This is wrong. And this is why they need to contract the NBA playoffs back to being at best the top 4 teams to stop stupid narratives like this.

It is better to be on the green than be off the green.  If I'm on the green, I at least have a chance to two putt.  If I'm off the green, then I have to use a stroke to get on the green to have a chance to two putt. 

If you are in the playoffs, you are at least on the green with a chance to two putt.  

The pro tankers are taking the putter out of the bag hoping for a hole in one.  

[Lurker]

10 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It is better to be on the green than be off the green.  If I'm on the green, I at least have a chance to two putt.  If I'm off the green, then I have to use a stroke to get on the green to have a chance to two putt. 

If you are in the playoffs, you are at least on the green with a chance to two putt.  

The pro tankers are taking the putter out of the bag hoping for a hole in one.  

This is not Major League Baseball or the National Football League. This is the National Basketball Association. Unless you have a historical perennial all NBA first team player (it doesn't matter if they aren't that year), history has shown you have an absolute 0% chance at a title. Period. End of story.

Its not like MLB where you have Kansas City Royals and San Francisco Giants stories consistently, meh teams that decided to go hot fire in the playoffs. It's not like the NFL where you had the New York Giants who were mediocre most of the year and won the Super Bowl.

It is the NBA. Only one 8th seed has ever made the finals. The 6-8 seeds usually don't make it without extenuating circumstances like an injury to....a top caliber player.

Contract the playoffs. And stop stupid narratives of "we've always got a chance if we're in!"

No.

That's only the case in MLB and NFL.

[Peoriabird]

4 minutes ago, Lurker said:

This is not Major League Baseball or the National Football League. This is the National Basketball Association. Unless you have a historical perennial all NBA first team player (it doesn't matter if they aren't that year), history has shown you have an absolute 0% chance at a title. Period. End of story.

Its not like MLB where you have Kansas City Royals and San Francisco Giants stories consistently, meh teams that decided to go hot fire in the playoffs. It's not like the NFL where you had the New York Giants who were mediocre most of the year and won the Super Bowl.

It is the NBA. Only one 8th seed has ever made the finals. The 6-8 seeds usually don't make it without extenuating circumstances like an injury to....a top caliber player.

Contract the playoffs. And stop stupid narratives of "we've always got a chance if we're in!"

No.

That's only the case in MLB and NFL.

I will add to what you have stated about acguiring talent by saying that occasionally you can get extremely lucky and find that type player outside the lottery or sign a free agent or trade too.  Having said that, I think we will find out in a few years if not sooner that we indeed fell into the category of extremely lucky with John Collins. I think the league got it wrong with this dude.