Who the hell are we supposedly tanking for?

[noble]

I'm not a millennial I am a gen-x. I still am okay with a few years of trying to be a relevant team with a superstar. I want to see a championship, I'm tired if settling for a playoff appearance and seeing us exit and know we have zero shot at a championship. Tired of the suffering.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, noble said:

I'm not a millennial I am a gen-x. I still am okay with a few years of trying to be a relevant team with a superstar. I want to see a championship, I'm tired if settling for a playoff appearance and seeing us exit and know we have zero shot at a championship. Tired of the suffering.

You are definitely about to suffer, because it is going to be a LONG TIME before this team is relevant again due to the decision made to tank this year.

[noble]

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

You are definitely about to suffer, because it is going to be a LONG TIME before this team is relevant again due to the decision made to tank this year.

So basically the same ol same ol since I have been a fan. No championship? Okay, been through that. I've waited 20 years for the Hawks to be relevant again, I can wait longer while we try to get a Superstar.

[KB21]

Your superstar worship is your flaw.  The Hawks had a great TEAM in 2014-2015.  That was the most exciting basketball I've ever seen as a Hawks fan.  That team was #1 in the Eastern Conference and played for the Eastern Conference finals.  That was Bud's system at its pinnacle, and it is a shame they had to play in the ECF with an injured Carroll, Dellavadova takes out Korver and breaks his ankle, and I think even Millsap had a shoulder issue.  

That season was the best!  The ball moved.  The players moved.  Players didn't try to do too much.  It was the epitome of unselfish, team basketball.  That's what I want to get back to.  The team and the system are greater than the individual player.

[noble]

28 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Your superstar worship is your flaw.  The Hawks had a great TEAM in 2014-2015.  That was the most exciting basketball I've ever seen as a Hawks fan.  That team was #1 in the Eastern Conference and played for the Eastern Conference finals.  That was Bud's system at its pinnacle, and it is a shame they had to play in the ECF with an injured Carroll, Dellavadova takes out Korver and breaks his ankle, and I think even Millsap had a shoulder issue.  

That season was the best!  The ball moved.  The players moved.  Players didn't try to do too much.  It was the epitome of unselfish, team basketball.  That's what I want to get back to.  The team and the system are greater than the individual player.

I loved watching that team, but that team was never going to win a championship. They didn't have that ONE guy who could take over a game. The NBA is just that way, and even more so in the playoffs. You have to have that ONE guy, even as part of the whole, the guy who can elevate his game. Your flaw is thinking that was a championship caliber team. It was a really good team, one I loved watching just as much as you did. But, it was not a championship team. We got swept. Do you really think Korver and Carroll would have made the series flip to the Hawks? I just can't get there looking at the roster of the Cavs that year AND knowing they had LeBron who could take over at any moment. I would have loved to see it, but to be honest there was little surprise we lost that series. Surprised we got swept, but not lost it. Then, we couldn't keep Horf and started falling apart.

Did you ever think as to why we couldn't keep Al? I mean really think about it? Look at what he said from the outside looking in for a second after he left. He knew this wasn't a championship team without that one piece. He knew he wasn't that guy and we weren't getting that guy.

That is what is amazing about the Superstars and the NBA of today. They are part of the whole, it is just when they need to be more they can be so much more. You think Steph Curry is the ONLY reason the Warriors win? No, he fits the whole so well and can take the game over. Same with KD, LeBron, etc. You can have both, you need both.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, noble said:

I loved watching that team, but that team was never going to win a championship. They didn't have that ONE guy who could take over a game. The NBA is just that way, and even more so in the playoffs. You have to have that ONE guy, even as part of the whole, the guy who can elevate his game. Your flaw is thinking that was a championship caliber team. It was a really good team, one I loved watching just as much as you did. But, it was not a championship team. We got swept. Do you really think Korver and Carroll would have made the series flip to the Hawks? I just can't get there looking at the roster of the Cavs that year AND knowing they had LeBron who could take over at any moment. I would have loved to see it, but to be honest there was little surprise we lost that series. Surprised we got swept, but not lost it. Then, we couldn't keep Horf and started falling apart.

Did you ever think as to why we couldn't keep Al? I mean really think about it? Look at what he said from the outside looking in for a second after he left. He knew this wasn't a championship team without that one piece. He knew he wasn't that guy and we weren't getting that guy.

That is what is amazing about the Superstars and the NBA of today. They are part of the whole, it is just when they need to be more they can be so much more. You think Steph Curry is the ONLY reason the Warriors win? No, he fits the whole so well and can take the game over. Same with KD, LeBron, etc. You can have both, you need both.

Myth

[noble]

Just now, KB21 said:

Myth

So when was the last time a team won a championship without a Superstar? I can name ONE, the 2004 Pistons. Other than that I can't remember any other in over 30 years.

[DBac]

10 minutes ago, noble said:

I loved watching that team, but that team was never going to win a championship. They didn't have that ONE guy who could take over a game. The NBA is just that way, and even more so in the playoffs. You have to have that ONE guy, even as part of the whole, the guy who can elevate his game. Your flaw is thinking that was a championship caliber team. It was a really good team, one I loved watching just as much as you did. But, it was not a championship team. We got swept. Do you really think Korver and Carroll would have made the series flip to the Hawks? I just can't get there looking at the roster of the Cavs that year AND knowing they had LeBron who could take over at any moment. I would have loved to see it, but to be honest there was little surprise we lost that series. Surprised we got swept, but not lost it. Then, we couldn't keep Horf and started falling apart.

Did you ever think as to why we couldn't keep Al? I mean really think about it? Look at what he said from the outside looking in for a second after he left. He knew this wasn't a championship team without that one piece. He knew he wasn't that guy and we weren't getting that guy.

That is what is amazing about the Superstars and the NBA of today. They are part of the whole, it is just when they need to be more they can be so much more. You think Steph Curry is the ONLY reason the Warriors win? No, he fits the whole so well and can take the game over. Same with KD, LeBron, etc. You can have both, you need both.

This is it right here. That's what makes Steph so special is that he's both, plays within the system but when his team needs a bucket they know exactly who they are going to. KD has shown he can do that too since moving to Golden State. Oklahoma City didn't really have a system besides Russ and KD get buckets.

Lebron is the system haha. Give him the ball and let him dissect the defense.

I didn't wanna believe that the Hawks needed a superstar, but then I saw the Cavs series and the Cavs handled the Hawks without Kyrie or Kevin Love simply because they had Lebron and that's all they needed. JR Smith rendered Kyle Korver, arguably the key to the offense, to a detriment just as Bradley Beal had done the round prior. Eye opening series.

It wasn't until I watched Horford from an outsiders perspective that I realized how valuable he is in the NBA. I swear he's gotten better since he left, because it's crazy watching. Handling the ball, knockdown from 3, lateral agility to guard multiple positions, might be the best passing big in the NBA too. He had all that here, I guess it's just his partners in Boston accentuating that. Perfect compliment to a point guard like IT or Kyrie who are deadly on and off ball. And those guys can take over at the end of games. So I'd say Horford was right in his assessment. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by DBac

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, noble said:

So when was the last time a team won a championship without a Superstar? I can name ONE, the 2004 Pistons. Other than that I can't remember any other in over 30 years.

That is the only team that has won a ring without that MVP level talent over the last 30 years.  

Looking farther back for our franchise shows the same thing.  Do you think it is a coincidence that the Hawks have one championship and one player who won the MVP and that it happened to be that MVP who won the Hawks' only ring? Nope.

[noble]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

That is the only team that has won a ring without that MVP level talent over the last 30 years.  

Looking farther back for our franchise shows the same thing.  Do you think it is a coincidence that the Hawks have one championship and one player who won the MVP?  Nope.

That is a one in a million roster right there. There is a reason that hasn't happened before or since.  Nique had the talent, but sadly played at the same time as Jordan, Bird, Magic, just a lot of all-world talent all at once.

[KB21]

13 hours ago, noble said:

That is a one in a million roster right there. There is a reason that hasn't happened before or since.  Nique had the talent, but sadly played at the same time as Jordan, Bird, Magic, just a lot of all-world talent all at once.

So tell me, why are the Spurs and Pistons the only teams in NBA history to win a championship within 4 years of having a top 3 pick?  If a top 3 pick is all you need to win a championship, you would think more teams would have won a championship within the first contract of said top 3 pick.  The only reason they are the only two is because both were good teams who ended up with a top 3 pick to add to an already good team.  Neither team stripped their roster bare to get those picks.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 11/1/2017 at 11:50 PM, CP61 said:

Bingo! 100% this. Playoffs mean nothing if you aren't a contender. I'd rather have a lottery pick than be a pretender. More hope, less heartbreak. I don't care how many years it takes.

To say this, you're obviously not a person that is paying money to see these games live.  Because for the paying customer, why would they want to waste money watching a horrible product year after year . . . unless that's the only source of entertainment in town?

What all of the losing does, is make you realize how much you miss even being 1st round fodder in the playoffs.  When the Hawks finally got back to the playoffs in 2008, after a 7 year drought, Atlanta was on fire.  I'll never forget being at Game 3 and Game 6 vs Boston, and the euphoria we all felt when we took out Boston.

But going to the playoffs and not winning, makes people complacent and even turn sour toward the team . . . like being with your dependable wife or girlfriend for a length of time, but she doesn't provide that "spark of life" that you're now looking for.  So you think you'll be better off chasing after another woman who is more exciting and better for you . . . than just sticking with "ol reliable".

So you get rid of Ol Reliable, and find yourself to be even more miserable, because those women that are out there aren't even up to Ol Reliable's level.  Then, 8 years down the road, you MIGHT find one better than Ol Reliable, and she brings you more joy than you could ever imagine.

[KB21]

16 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

To say this, you're obviously not a person that is paying money to see these games live.  Because for the paying customer, why would they want to waste money watching a horrible product year after year . . . unless that's the only source of entertainment in town?

What all of the losing does, is make you realize how much you miss even being 1st round fodder in the playoffs.  When the Hawks finally got back to the playoffs in 2008, after a 7 year drought, Atlanta was on fire.  I'll never forget being at Game 3 and Game 6 vs Boston, and the euphoria we all felt when we took out Boston.

But going to the playoffs and not winning, makes people complacent and even turn sour toward the team . . . like being with your dependable wife or girlfriend for a length of time, but she doesn't provide that "spark of life" that you're now looking for.  So you think you'll be better off chasing after another woman who is more exciting and better for you . . . than just sticking with "ol reliable".

So you get rid of Ol Reliable, and find yourself to be even more miserable, because those women that are out there aren't even up to Ol Reliable's level.  Then, 8 years down the road, you MIGHT find one better than Ol Reliable, and she brings you more joy than you could ever imagine.

Absolutely perfect analogy!

[noble]

5 hours ago, KB21 said:

So tell me, why are the Spurs and Pistons the only teams in NBA history to win a championship within 4 years of having a top 3 pick?  If a top 3 pick is all you need to win a championship, you would think more teams would have won a championship within the first contract of said top 3 pick.  The only reason they are the only two is because both were good teams who ended up with a top 3 pick to add to an already good team.  Neither team stripped their roster bare to get those picks.

4 years? That is all? Hell I've been waiting over 30 for a championship. I guess what you are saying is the difference why some are okay with trying this and some aren't. You are okay making the playoffs and hoping magic happens to get that Superstar, MVP, whatever we want to call it. Not sure beyond some freak injuries how that was going to happen since we couldn't get one in FA, hell we couldn't even keep key players. Others are okay hoping to hit in the lottery. 

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

To say this, you're obviously not a person that is paying money to see these games live.  Because for the paying customer, why would they want to waste money watching a horrible product year after year . . . unless that's the only source of entertainment in town?

What all of the losing does, is make you realize how much you miss even being 1st round fodder in the playoffs.  When the Hawks finally got back to the playoffs in 2008, after a 7 year drought, Atlanta was on fire.  I'll never forget being at Game 3 and Game 6 vs Boston, and the euphoria we all felt when we took out Boston.

But going to the playoffs and not winning, makes people complacent and even turn sour toward the team . . . like being with your dependable wife or girlfriend for a length of time, but she doesn't provide that "spark of life" that you're now looking for.  So you think you'll be better off chasing after another woman who is more exciting and better for you . . . than just sticking with "ol reliable".

So you get rid of Ol Reliable, and find yourself to be even more miserable, because those women that are out there aren't even up to Ol Reliable's level.  Then, 8 years down the road, you MIGHT find one better than Ol Reliable, and she brings you more joy than you could ever imagine.

This isn't even close to a marriage my man. Sports is about two things. Money and championships. Neither of which have been with the Hawks. You put an entertaining successful product out there, people will pay to see it. People want to be a part of a championship. It's why fans turned cold as the Hawks had their playoff run, there was no championship coming.

How many years did the Cavs and Warriors have empty arenas? They got good enough for a championship and had elite talent people wanted to see. 

The fans you speak of isn't the casual fan. The casual fan won't be interested until there is a chance. Hardcore fans will watch, but maybe not go to the games if they are bad but will go to a playoff game even knowing there is almost no chance at a title.

My real question to those opposed to trying to find a Superstar level player to chase a ring in the draft. How would you have proposed they get one to get the ring? Remember we couldn't get any with what was supposed to be a great core of unselfish players in FA. We couldn't even keep them together. Just curious how the other side saw the solution to the problem of being a middle of the road playoff team without a real championship shot without that ONE guy.

Edited November 4, 2017 by noble

[KB21]

Correction.  I'm fine with making the playoffs because you have to actually be in the playoffs to win a championship.  There are people who THINK they are fine with tanking, but when they realize it is going to take years upon  years to dig out of the tanked hole, they will change their tune.  I've seen it before.

[marco102]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Correction.  I'm fine with making the playoffs because you have to actually be in the playoffs to win a championship.  There are people who THINK they are fine with tanking, but when they realize it is going to take years upon  years to dig out of the tanked hole, they will change their tune.  I've seen it before.

This is what I don't get. You've said this at a minimum of 50 times.  No one has changed your opinion on tanking and you obviously haven't changed theirs.  So why do you make every post about this?  It's just spamming at this point.  Why not help everyone see why Luca Doncic or some other player is the player the Hawks should be picking. Because no matter what you say or do, the tank is on.  Rather we like it or not, we have no choice but to hope for the best players available in the draft.

[KB21]

42 minutes ago, marco102 said:

This is what I don't get. You've said this at a minimum of 50 times.  No one has changed your opinion on tanking and you obviously haven't changed theirs.  So why do you make every post about this?  It's just spamming at this point.  Why not help everyone see why Luca Doncic or some other player is the player the Hawks should be picking. Because no matter what you say or do, the tank is on.  Rather we like it or not, we have no choice but to hope for the best players available in the draft.

Because I'm never going to embrace the strategy, and everything for down the road is tied to how far behind this strategy puts this organization behind the eight ball.  So, even if we are able to land Doncic, this strategy has f***ed the organization for years.

[noble]

23 hours ago, KB21 said:

Because I'm never going to embrace the strategy, and everything for down the road is tied to how far behind this strategy puts this organization behind the eight ball.  So, even if we are able to land Doncic, this strategy has f***ed the organization for years.

This is what I don't get. It's done. We are where we are. Hate it, love it, or somewhere in the middle. It doesn't mean we will be a terrible team for years as you say, nor does it mean we will win a championship. Just move forward. I wasn't really loving the idea at all, until we couldn't get stars to come and we couldn't keep the players we had. At that point it is retool the entire thing. Higher statistical probability of doing that with a high pick or 2 than hang around the middle of the draft. So I felt like if we were going to lose players, just blow it all up. It's where we are.

[marco102]

Just so everyone knows, Draftexpress still posts video breakdowns on youtube.

[hazer]

Ayton, Bagley, Doncic, that’s who we’re tanking for...