The Tank Thread

[NBASupes]

41 minutes ago, jy23 said:

Why are we even arguing this? 

It's you guys arguing with the same two trolls. 

[DBac]

Please tell me more about all the free agents that we were going to attract while locked into paying our old core (and thus having no money for free agents). And if you say that you wouldn't have brought back Millsap then your plan isn't far from tanking, as he was the only player keeping this team in the playoffs last year.

 

Only way the Hawks could've put off rebuilding any longer was if Horford re-signed and they moved Millsap for good assets. But he didn't, Dwight was signed, Bazemore was signed and both turned out to be horrible deals.

 

--

 

Also having guys balling on cheap contracts is very valuable. Boston is able to bring in max contract guys because their depth is cheap guys and rookie contract guys. Philly will be able to do it too, with Simmons easily outperforming his rookie deal they have space for another big contract. Golden state was able to sign KD because of Steph's golden contract (obscure example but the point is the same.. massively outperforming your contract is the key).

Edited November 21, 2017 by DBac

[AHF]

5 hours ago, KB21 said:

How does it not?  It defies logic to even suggest that a team in the lottery has a better chance of winning a championship than a playoff team.

I didn't suggest we had better odds than Memphis.  That is yet another re-write red herring response. I said they were not meaningfully different.  Let's say for illustration that Memphis has 1/1000 odds.  Then say we have 1/50000.

Both are near zero.

[Diesel]

6 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

I just don't understand how certain posters can watch this team play and see Philadelphia of 5 years ago.  Dennis and Dedmon are already pretty good...Collins and Princes are potential stars.

3 things... 

1.  We are the worst team in the league right now.  So we're not as good as you lead us to believe. 

2.  Those potential stars have to be kept. 

3. The culture isn't one of winning. 

 

[Peoriabird]

15 minutes ago, Diesel said:

3 things... 

1.  We are the worst team in the league right now.  So we're not as good as you lead us to believe. 

2.  Those potential stars have to be kept. 

3. The culture isn't one of winning. 

 

You must admit that some of this losing is on Bud...No way should Delaney be in the game during crunch time...ESPECIALLY when Belinelli is hot.  I can't decided whether Bud is in on the tank or is his judgement just that poor.

[Diesel]

6 hours ago, MaceCase said:

So let me get this straight:

 

Winning games =/= Winning culture

                      but

Losing games = Losing culture

 

Oh that makes PERFECT sense.

So your logic suggests that you can have a Winning culture but Lose Games?

How is that possible?

Usually teams with a winning culture... wins games.   The ultimate case is San Antonio.  it doesn't matter who they put out there... they win.  

We've watched them sit Parker, Duncan and Ginobili and win. 

Even now... Leonard hasn't played 1 game this season... and they are 11-6.   It's not because LaMarcus Aldridge is balling outrageous... he's only putting up 22 ppg (19th in the league).   It's because they have a winning culture.  So much so that guys who look good with them.. go elsewhere and don't look so good. 

The thing about a winning culture.   People want to immulate it.  Next man up is the motto.  People want to be there.  It stands strong against controversy if it ever has them.   I hate the patriots... with a passion, but they have a winning culture.  I didn't like the 49ers under Seifert, but they had a winning culture. 

A losing culture can win some games.. but it's always talent dependent.   A losing culture has to have the most talent to win because winning is not in their fabric. 

But you believe based on your argument that a winning culture loses games?

You're giving Philly and Brooklyn false hope.

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You must admit that some of this losing is on Bud...No way should Delaney be in the game during crunch time...ESPECIALLY when Belinelli is hot.  I can't decided whether Bud is in on the tank or is his judgement just that poor.

Could be.  The difference between the winning culture and the losing culture of Golden State was trading out Mark Jackson for Steve Kerr.  Everything else was already in place (ownership wise).

[Peoriabird]

55 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Could be.  The difference between the winning culture and the losing culture of Golden State was trading out Mark Jackson for Steve Kerr.  Everything else was already in place (ownership wise).

I am just happy posters are starting recognize Bud's bizarre in game decisions.  Can't see us winning a championship with Bud as the head coach....He looks more like an assistant coach to me.  No one can explain why Bembry or Bazemore was playing power forward against San Antonio.

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, DBac said:

Please tell me more about all the free agents that we were going to attract while locked into paying our old core (and thus having no money for free agents). And if you say that you wouldn't have brought back Millsap then your plan isn't far from tanking, as he was the only player keeping this team in the playoffs last year.

 

Only way the Hawks could've put off rebuilding any longer was if Horford re-signed and they moved Millsap for good assets. But he didn't, Dwight was signed, Bazemore was signed and both turned out to be horrible deals.

 

--

 

Also having guys balling on cheap contracts is very valuable. Boston is able to bring in max contract guys because their depth is cheap guys and rookie contract guys. Philly will be able to do it too, with Simmons easily outperforming his rookie deal they have space for another big contract. Golden state was able to sign KD because of Steph's golden contract (obscure example but the point is the same.. massively outperforming your contract is the key).

 

First off, there's a higher chance of attracting guys who want to play here when we're winning than when we're tanking.   Moreover, FAcy for a winning culture is what it is.. being able to attract players... not having the money to attract players.  If you need money to attract players and you have to be the one who pays them the most... ask yourself.. is that a winning culture?

But it's more than FAcy... there's also trades and drafting.

Let's go back to San Antonio for a second.

What major Free agents did they acquire during their championship reign??  Which big name talent walked through that door?  Was it KG?  Was it Nash?  Was is Shaq?  Was it Baron Davis?  The answer is none of the above.  They could draft for exactly what they needed. 

Let's move over to GS...

Isn't it funny that they kept winning even by doing something as simple as going out and getting Zaza to replace Bogut?  Just watch.. they will be able to keep everybody on that team because of the culture.  Guys will take pay cuts and stay on the team.  That's what a winning culture does.  In a losing culture, you're overpaying guys to come or to stay. 

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sometimes when you win . . you really lose.

And sometimes when you lose . . you really win

And sometimes when you win and lose . . you actually tie

And sometimes when you tie . . you actually win

[jy23]

7 hours ago, NBASupes said:

It's you guys arguing with the same two trolls. 

I’ve never put anybody on ignore but I’m real close, it’s the same thing over and over again 

[Sothron]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Sometimes when you win . . you really lose.

And sometimes when you lose . . you really win

And sometimes when you win and lose . . you actually tie

And sometimes when you tie . . you actually win

Greatest sports movie of all time.

here comes the hook! here comes the hook! everybody, everybody here comes the hook!

3 minutes ago, jy23 said:

I’ve never put anybody on ignore but I’m real close, it’s the same thing over and over again 

I promise you will enjoy the boards a lot more when you put KB21 on ignore.

[jy23]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Sometimes when you win . . you really lose.

And sometimes when you lose . . you really win

And sometimes when you win and lose . . you actually tie

And sometimes when you tie . . you actually win

Classic lol

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

So your logic suggests that you can have a Winning culture but Lose Games?

How is that possible?

 

You tell me, it's apparently your logic that we are trying to get to the bottom of.  Philly can win more games but it does nothing towards establishing a "winning culture" while the Spurs can lose more games without it diminishing their "winning culture"? 

Cool, I can buy that but where does that leave the Hawks? 

That's the most important and relevant question that's being tap danced around. 

So the Hawks won games but had no "winning culture"?  So again... what exactly is the downfall if the Hawks lose games?  You can't have it both ways, you can't say there's a negative to the positive but no positive to the negative but the positive with a negative is better than the negative with no positive ERMAGERD! tanking sucks!

[DBac]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I didn't suggest we had better odds than Memphis.  That is yet another re-write red herring response. I said they were not meaningfully different.  Let's say for illustration that Memphis has 1/500 odds.  We have probably 1/50000.

Both are near zero.

For all intents and purposes, we have a 0 percent chance of winning a title

 

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

 

First off, there's a higher chance of attracting guys who want to play here when we're winning than when we're tanking.   Moreover, FAcy for a winning culture is what it is.. being able to attract players... not having the money to attract players.  If you need money to attract players and you have to be the one who pays them the most... ask yourself.. is that a winning culture?

But it's more than FAcy... there's also trades and drafting.

Let's go back to San Antonio for a second.

What major Free agents did they acquire during their championship reign??  Which big name talent walked through that door?  Was it KG?  Was it Nash?  Was is Shaq?  Was it Baron Davis?  The answer is none of the above.  They could draft for exactly what they needed. 

Let's move over to GS...

Isn't it funny that they kept winning even by doing something as simple as going out and getting Zaza to replace Bogut?  Just watch.. they will be able to keep everybody on that team because of the culture.  Guys will take pay cuts and stay on the team.  That's what a winning culture does.  In a losing culture, you're overpaying guys to come or to stay. 

 

 

Well then, we never had a winning culture. Neither Horford nor Demarre were willing to take a paycut.

Speaking of Horford, why is it that he would go to Boston, a team in the midst of a rebuild (that we, with our established winning culture, beat)?

[hazer]

22 minutes ago, jy23 said:

I’ve never put anybody on ignore but I’m real close, it’s the same thing over and over again 

I have, and it smells so much better around here without that dead horse stench. 

[GThawks3]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

I am just happy posters are starting recognize Bud's bizarre in game decisions.  Can't see us winning a championship with Bud as the head coach....He looks more like an assistant coach to me.  No one can explain why Bembry or Bazemore was playing power forward against San Antonio.

Because Bud wants a top 5 pick. Lol

[Wretch]

Adding some fuel for constructive conversation...

All this talk about a "winning culture" started when we hired Danny Ferry.  In my haste to dismiss this man, based mostly on his previous stint in Cleveland, I wrote that off as treadmill logic or WLOC v2.0 ...  

Ferry did something when he came here though and I have to tip my hat to him.  He created a winning culture around a good coach, decent talent, and unselfish basketball.  For a brief moment, the vibe was different around this team.  I didn't think that was possible without introducing franchise quality talent.

That being said, I don't think the prerequisite for a winning culture is winning games.  The prerequisite is to assemble a team that can win games and subsequently win MEANINGFUL games.  If you're not winning meaningful games, then you are not having a positive impact on the culture.  All you are doing is maintaining the status quo.  Do we not have enough evidence for that at this point?

This is the reason why we are perceived the way we are.  It's not for the years we were rebuilding.  If so, people would be associating us with the likes of the Sixers or the Kings.  No, people know that we are a playoff team.  We are ALWAYS a playoff team - as evidenced by our ranking behind the Lakers, Celtics, and Spurs for playoff berths.  Isn't it some kind of clue that we are not held in the same regard?

You can't change that perception by tanking.

Let's just get that out of the way.  At the same time however, you cannot change the perception by rolling out more warmup squads for the contenders year after year.  I mean, it's not like we don't have twenty-something years of case studies to prove it.  It's a forgone conclusion at this point.  What this team needs is the kind of talent that wins meaningful games and our best chance of getting it is to sift though the most potent talent pool in the draft.  With perhaps two exceptions, and asinine semantics and selective logic aside, that's how every other team has built the foundation of their contender.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests a better alternative for us.

[Lurker]

Let me say it again, for all intents and purposes, there IS another point in the divide between good and bad whether you want to believe so or not, especially in the East, but in general with all sports.

The general rule of thumb is (standings wise):

1-4: The great and good teams.
5-10: Mediocre teams.
Everyone below 10: Bad teams.

Yes I realize the Hawks are one of the bad teams. This is trying to continue my point that there is no cut and dry you're either good or you are awful.

It IS however cut and dry who has a chance at winning it all in this league. The NBA's postseason is the most predictable postseason in sports. There is no "But if you actually MAKE it to the postseason everything that happened in the regular season doesn't matter anymore!" in the NBA. Because oh yes. It does. This is why the postseason needs to get contracted to just the top 4 in each conference. 

And let's not act like the precedent is going to break either. The NBA has been in existence for several years. It is what it is, and it's not going to change to what the NFL and MLB are. In those leagues you have the top seeded teams winning a lot, but it's not unprecedented for the teams viewed as "mediocre" to get smoking hot and have a chance at the glory.

It is in the NBA.

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, Sothron said:

Greatest sports movie of all time.

here comes the hook! here comes the hook! everybody, everybody here comes the hook!

I promise you will enjoy the boards a lot more when you put KB21 on ignore.

Greatest Sportsmovie???

You say White Men can't Jump...

What about:

Remember the Titans.

Hoosiers

Major League

Any Given Sunday

The Replacements

Field of Dreams...  Ok... maybe not this one.

Rocky?

Ali?

There are others.