Kyrie Irving to ATL - ESPN Trade Ideas

[AHF]

18 minutes ago, Diesel said:

There's not guarantee that we get back with this plan.   There's few generational talents in the next 3 drafts.. so building through the draft is just an exercise in mediocrity. 

GS built through the draft so how can you say that is an exercise in mediocrity?

We were in an exercise in mediocrity living close to .500 ball last season with no upward prospects looking forward.  Now we are entering an exercise with a much wider range of outcomes - from dismal to new heights.  Execution and luck will determine where in that much wider range we end up.

 

[sturt]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

There's not guarantee that we get back with this plan.   There's few generational talents in the next 3 drafts.. so building through the draft is just an exercise in mediocrity. 

 

Um.

You just didn't even pause to think about the presumption stuffed into those nine words when you typed them, did you.

Here, let me help.

Who are the "generational talents" that were thought to be "generational talents" even when they were drafted?

Lesseeee.... there's LeBron James.... and.... um.... ummmmm.... Curry?... nah, he wasn't even a top 5 draftee... and for years after, wasn't even considered top tier... okay, so, LBJ, annnnnnndd.... hmmmmmm....

 

Generational talents can almost never be foreseen even on draft night, let alone as many as 3 years ahead. C'mon now.

 

[hazer]

11 hours ago, Diesel said:

Dude it took this franchise 51 years to get to the ECF.  You think we "retool" with a mediocre PG and we will be back in 3... Yeah.. get me some of the stuff that you're smoking... I need to dream of being a billionaire by Thursday. 

Our current coach and GM have 7 rings combined. Albeit, not as coach and GM yet, but they've only been at it 4 and 0 years respectively. I haven't looked, but I'd venture to say that's more rings than all our coach/GM tandems combined over those 51 years. You change things by changing things...

[Diesel]

9 hours ago, sturt said:

 

Generational talents can almost never be foreseen even on draft night, let alone as many as 3 years ahead. C'mon now.

 

Uhm...  The whole world knew that Lebron would be Special.   The whole world knew that Shaq would be special.   The Whole World knew that  DHoward would be special.   OF Course there are some guys who were not seen as being as good as they became such as Curry and Wade.   However, even with guys like that, the signs were there.    When you say that "talents can almost never be foreseen" you do a disservice to the scouts who work to know everything about a player.   YOU may not know about the talent of a player but in those war rooms, there are scouts who knows a lot about every player.  GMs now are trying to be able to know about guys picked 16-30... that's where the hard part starts.   Even then, some frontoffices have been very good at projecting how good a player will be picked even then... so you know if you're talking about a top 5 pick... that's easy.

[Diesel]

6 hours ago, hazer said:

Our current coach and GM have 7 rings combined. Albeit, not as coach and GM yet, but they've only been at it 4 and 0 years respectively. I haven't looked, but I'd venture to say that's more rings than all our coach/GM tandems combined over those 51 years. You change things by changing things...

Just because you take a coach or a GM from a winning program, it doesn't mean that they know how to win or how to put together a winner. 

Here's a list of the Poppovich coaching tree:

 Alvin Gentry, Bart Taylor, Ben Sullivan, Brad Jones, Brandon Williams, Bret Brielmaier, Brett Brown, Brian Keefe, Brian Pauga, Chad Forcier, Chris Babcock, Chris Quinn, Coaching, Danny Ferry, David McClure, Dell Demps, Dennis Lindsey, Dominique Wilkins, Earl Watson, Featured, George Rodman, Gregg Popovich, Jacque Vaughn, Jason Fraser, Jason Sumerlin, Jim Boylen, Joe Prunty, Kevin Hanson, Kevin Pritchard, Logan MacPhail, Malik Rose, Mark Bryant, Marlon Garnett, Michael Finley, Mike Brown, Mike Budenholzer, Mike D'Antoni, Mike Wells, Nick Van Exel, Nixon Dorvilien, Noah Croom, Patrick Mutombo, Paul Rivers, Quin Snyder, Rob Hennigan, Sam Presti, Scott Layden, Sean Marks, Steve Hetzel, Steve Kerr, Taylor Jenkins, Top, Trajan Langdon, Vin Bhavnani, Zach Guthrie

 

Aside from Popp himself... which of these other guys have sniffed a championship as a head coach?  Better yet, let look at some coaching trees...

 

 

 

 

These coaching and GM trees are good for puttng out good guys but In terms of championship quality... It's a bad assumption. 

 

[Vol4ever]

Diesel, myself and others have been through Hawk rebuilds over the years and it has never been successful.   Just rolling the dice dont work.  We have no pieces to build around.  

[sturt]

Dies, this may be one of your all-timers--where you dig your heels in, and hold on to your premise like a pit bull clinging to a rope, thinking he actually has hold of something meaningful.

It's so out-there, I almost hate to even give it the implicit respect of response. But I'll indulge you, even knowing that when you put yourself out there like this, it's pretty futile to expect you to do any more concession of the point than what you just did when you said, "Of course there are some who become better than anticipated like Curry and Wade."

Just by acknowledging that much, though, you seemingly are oblivious to the fact that you blow-up your premise, which I've taken to be that you believe it's irrational to think that there will be any difference-makers who can propel your team to a championship in the next three drafts.

Somewhat an aside, since we're talking about a larger point... but, I don't regard Wade, by the way, as a "generational talent." Had he not participated in the player collusion that he did, he and Bosh both were plowing a path toward well-respected careers sans any championships. I also disagree strongly with your recall of Dwight Howard--to the contrary, many thought Billy Knight at the time was foolish to be pursuing trading up in the draft to get him. There was not the same consensus for him in the way that there was for a Shaq, or for a Tim Duncan.

So, truth is, most of the difference-makers in the annuls of time who have led their teams to championships... which is actually the meat here for us to chew on... were not understood to be "generational talents," though they--as were many others, mind you--were thought to potentially be difference-makers.

Then, there's this...

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

However, even with guys like that, the signs were there.    When you say that "talents can almost never be foreseen" you do a disservice to the scouts who work to know everything about a player.   YOU may not know about the talent of a player but in those war rooms, there are scouts who knows a lot about every player.

This is patently ridiculous, and serves as evidence for just how hard you've bitten down and refused to let go of the proverbial rope, even as you're spinning around in circles for no other reason than your own recreation.

It's not that there's anything wrong with saying "the signs were there," or that scouts know a lot about these players.

But it's that there is rarely wide consensus among scouts about the "generational-ness" (for lack of a better term) of a given 1st pick, and certainly even lesser such consensus as you move down the draft slots for each year. And yet, you talk here as-if I do some "disservice" as you call it in raising the point that so many who end up leading their teams to championships would not qualify as being considered "generational talents" even in the draft they're taken in, LET ALONE, to the point of this conversation, ONE, TWO OR THREE YEARS OUT.

That's just bunk, my friend. You know this. I know you know this.

Checking out of this thread... I think you're only pursuing this out of sheer boredom, and I'm just not so bored as to engage any further. Gotten to the point of silly talk.

[AHF]

There have been people who were well understood to be potential generational talents coming into their draft.  Magic, Hakeem, Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, etc. were all considered likely superstars who were the clear #1 in their drafts.  There have been guys who were considered no-brainer superstars who actually didn't pan out to be nearly or quite that good as well like Ralph Sampson, Patrick Ewing, Greg Oden, etc.

There have been plenty of others who were not considered no-brainers but who became generational talents like Bird, Jordan, Curry, Durant, etc.

It is a mixed bag.

[DBac]

I'd certainly consider DWade a generational player. Probably a top 3 SG alltime. He led his team to the playoffs straight out of the lottery in his first year, won a championship and finals MVP 2 years later, 12x allstar. Got 2 more rings on a stacked team but he was the still the #2. He was probably my favorite player to watch though so I'm likely bias.

Edited July 27, 2017 by DBac

[hazer]

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

Just because you take a coach or a GM from a winning program, it doesn't mean that they know how to win or how to put together a winner. 

Here's a list of the Poppovich coaching tree:

 Alvin Gentry, Bart Taylor, Ben Sullivan, Brad Jones, Brandon Williams, Bret Brielmaier, Brett Brown, Brian Keefe, Brian Pauga, Chad Forcier, Chris Babcock, Chris Quinn, Coaching, Danny Ferry, David McClure, Dell Demps, Dennis Lindsey, Dominique Wilkins, Earl Watson, Featured, George Rodman, Gregg Popovich, Jacque Vaughn, Jason Fraser, Jason Sumerlin, Jim Boylen, Joe Prunty, Kevin Hanson, Kevin Pritchard, Logan MacPhail, Malik Rose, Mark Bryant, Marlon Garnett, Michael Finley, Mike Brown, Mike Budenholzer, Mike D'Antoni, Mike Wells, Nick Van Exel, Nixon Dorvilien, Noah Croom, Patrick Mutombo, Paul Rivers, Quin Snyder, Rob Hennigan, Sam Presti, Scott Layden, Sean Marks, Steve Hetzel, Steve Kerr, Taylor Jenkins, Top, Trajan Langdon, Vin Bhavnani, Zach Guthrie

 

Aside from Popp himself... which of these other guys have sniffed a championship as a head coach?  Better yet, let look at some coaching trees...

 

 

 

 

These coaching and GM trees are good for puttng out good guys but In terms of championship quality... It's a bad assumption. 

 

Just because it took 51 years to get to the ECFs previously doesn't mean it will again.

[hazer]

2 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

Diesel, myself and others have been through Hawk rebuilds over the years and it has never been successful.   Just rolling the dice dont work.  We have no pieces to build around.  

I'm almost 50 and have been following the Hawks since 1980. I've been through Hawks rebuilds...

[Diesel]

38 minutes ago, DBac said:

I'd certainly consider DWade a generational player. Probably a top 3 SG alltime. He led his team to the playoffs straight out of the lottery in his first year, won a championship and finals MVP 2 years later, 12x allstar. Got 2 more rings on a stacked team but he was the still the #2. He was probably my favorite player to watch though so I'm likely bias.

He became a generational talent.. but coming out of Marquette... that wasn't seen... even though he was a 5th pick. 

[DBac]

Just now, Diesel said:

He became a generational talent.. but coming out of Marquette... that wasn't seen... even though he was a 5th pick. 

Yeah I was just disagreeing with sturt on that point. I don't think you can forecast 3 drafts ahead. 

 

On the other hand, a lot of scouts consider Marvin Bagley to be a generational talent. 

[bleachkit]

Golden State did an incredible job, but lets face it, they got crazy lucky with those draft picks. 

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, bleachkit said:

Golden State did an incredible job, but lets face it, they got crazy lucky with those draft picks. 

Exactly.   Draymond was a 2nd round pick.   He wasn't targetted. 

And this was the scouting report on Klay.

Quote

While Thompson shows potential to contribute on the offensive end at the next level, his defensive ability leaves much to be desired, both in terms of fundamentals and athleticism. He is neither a particularly explosive nor fluid athlete and his below average lateral quickness severely limits him on defense. He can use his length to disrupt shooters on the perimeter, but he was often slow closing out his man. Ultimately, though he showed an increased willingness to defend, he must continue to stay focused and interested on this end of the floor he otherwise he'll almost surely struggle at the next level against more athletic offensive players.

Though his below average defense and athleticism present more than a few questions about his potential at the next level, Klay Thompson his size and scoring instinct work in his favor and make him a legitimate prospect. He can and should get better next season, especially if his comfort level increases and he continues to improve his skill set. Though it would be nice to see Thompson continue to diversify his offensive game, it is essential that he consistently hit shots with his feet set and work hard on the defensive end. Efficiency is the key, however, as Thompson must convince scouts that he can play a role as a spot-shooter in the NBA while carrying the offensive load for a young, upstart Washington State team. - Source: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Klay-Thompson-5490/©DraftExpress

Not necessarily a ringing endorsement for somebody who was drafted 11.

Here's the grade for Klay's draft. 

Quote

The decision made by the Warriors to add shooting to their backcourt suggests that they are indeed becoming closer to moving Monta Ellis. Unfortunately Thompson isn't a great athlete or defender and neither is his future running-mate Stephen Curry, but acquiring Iguodala or an athlete in his mold could supplement that. On the bright side, Klay is a no risk pick and should be able to contribute something instantly. Something that can't be said about many of this year's picks. Jeremy Tyler is an excellent risk/reward pick, and if things work out then he could really add some talent to the Warriors' frontcourt. The Warriors added 3 new members to their front office and seemed to make a pick for each (Jerry West / Klay Thompson - his guy, Mark Jackson / Charles Jenkins NY ties, and new assistant GM Bob Myers who had ties to Jeremy Tyler through his agent days at Wasserman Group).

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, hazer said:

Just because it took 51 years to get to the ECFs previously doesn't mean it will again.

My point is that many of us have seen rebuild after rebuild of this franchise and there are a One thing that a GM needs to know about US..Atlanta...

We don't attract Free Agents even when we have the MOST money. 

So I laugh when I hear a GM talking about Flexibility and then he starts a firesale and gets nothing of value back.   I laugh because I know that the GM doesn't understand the Point above.  It took us about 50 years... maybe 46 to get to the ECF.. Why.. because the arrogance of GMs.  GMs who felt like all they had to do was just free up cap space and free agents will come.

 

GMing in Atlanta is this...  

1.  Making winning trades. 

2.  Developing talent. 

If a GM neglects either of these... he's in for a long ride.   Schlenk has already put us in losing trades.  Schlenk has already started his firesale and got nothing of value back.  Critics of ME... says  that I'm wrong for thinking that Schlenk is using the 76ers handbook because we kept players of value.  Let me ask.. what can we trade those players for today?  If we were making a dollar for dollar trade with some team... what could Dennis get us?  What could Prince get us??  What could Bembry get us??

About 50 years to get to the ECF... if we keep going the path that we're going, it will be another 50 years.  We have a problem of understanding. 

[AHF]

44 minutes ago, DBac said:

Yeah I was just disagreeing with sturt on that point. I don't think you can forecast 3 drafts ahead. 

Pretty sure you badly misread @sturt's post.  Diesel was saying that scout frequently know the generational talents years in advance while sturt was arguing that scouts frequently can't forecast it in advance or even at the time of the draft.

Here is a snipped of what sturt said:

Quote

And yet, you talk here as-if I do some "disservice" as you call it in raising the point that so many who end up leading their teams to championships would not qualify as being considered "generational talents" even in the draft they're taken in, LET ALONE, to the point of this conversation, ONE, TWO OR THREE YEARS OUT.

 

[DBac]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

Pretty sure you badly misread @sturt's post.  Diesel was saying that scout frequently know the generational talents years in advance while sturt was arguing that scouts frequently can't forecast it in advance or even at the time of the draft.

Here is a snipped of what sturt said:

 

 I was just disagreeing with this part. I got what he was saying.

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Somewhat an aside, since we're talking about a larger point... but, I don't regard Wade, by the way, as a "generational talent." Had he not participated in the player collusion that he did, he and Bosh both were plowing a path toward well-respected careers sans any championships.

 

[hazer]

8 minutes ago, Diesel said:

My point is that many of us have seen rebuild after rebuild of this franchise and there are a One thing that a GM needs to know about US..Atlanta...

We don't attract Free Agents even when we have the MOST money. 

The "many of us you speak of" includes me. And I agree about Atlanta and free agents. Then again, Golden State used to not attract free agents either. Things change.

In prior years of not attracting free agents, Atlanta wasn't the hip hop capital of the world. Wasn't Hollywood South. Didn't have what may turn out to be the badest-a$$ arena in the NBA. Didn't have stable ownership including the well-liked-by-players Grant Hill, that wasn't the awful Atlanta Spirit or Time Warner. Didn't have the high BBIQ, high character, Spurs-style team ball culture now in place with Pop's right-hand man and COTY Budenholzer at the helm. Didn't have the Atlanta U rep of improving player's careers. Didn't have a GM who helped build the Warriors into its current dynasty.

This is WHY FAs weren't previously attracted to Atlanta, and why they may consider it now. Oakland??? Who the hell wanted to go to Oakland??? No one, until recently.

Things change. 

 

[Jody23]

Golden State was fortunate to draft the guys they did, but their becoming good enough to win titles is also due to outstanding player development.  The same can be said of the Spurs.  Up until Ferry and Bud, I don't think the Hawks have had much in the way of player development.  We've seen guys with decent talent become better players under the current player development program.  I'd like to see what can be done with guys who have better talent (higher draft picks).