The Tank Thread

[KB21]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

WHAT DO YOU WANT THE HAWKS TO DO

Win

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That increase in spending is marginal and only temporary, and it's only up this year because they are carrying a little more than $26 million in dead money.  Next year, Atlanta has only $68 million tied up in the active roster, and they will not spend to the salary cap next year.

I expect them to keep taking on bad contracts for future assets but we'll see.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Because teams have repeatedly risen from the bottom to win championships.  So....

 

While I can point out a ton of teams that were at the bottom of the standings, you can't point out one that has a ring doing things the way you say the Hawks should do them.

Actually, they haven't. 

[Royjr9]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

But the chances of drafting a superstar with a high pick isn't rare?

Depends on where you are picking and if you get the pick right. 

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

Something they cannot or will not do.  Win.

 

Just now, KB21 said:

Win

Does last seasons' negative point differential and two games over .500 record count as meeting your definition of "win"?

[davis171]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

Something they cannot or will not do.  Win.

@KB21 @Watchman Okay what moves would you have made this offseason to do that without breaking the cap? The best we were going to be was mediocre with millsap and okay we keep dwight what else you doing with no cap space.

[Watchman]

Just now, AHF said:

 

Does last seasons' negative point differential and two games over .500 record count as meeting your definition of "win"?

No.  Does this year's differential meet your definition of "win"?

[davis171]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

No.  Does this year's differential meet your definition of "win"?

How would you have gone about this with no cap space and no assets other teams want?

[Royjr9]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

Actually, they haven't. 

Actually they have. Golden state and Cleveland. Golden state was mediocre post the baron, Jackson years. They gutted the team signed David lee to a massive contract. Then they got lucky in the lottery people passed on curry and klay. Jettisoned monta and acquired bogut and Barnes and drsymond. Rest is history. Cleveland was in no mans land as they were an older capped out roster that wasn’t good post LeBron move to Miami. Couple years later acquired Bennett who was a bad pick, Wiggins and kyrie and flip a couple for love rest is history. 

[Watchman]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

@KB21 @Watchman Okay what moves would you have made this offseason to do that without breaking the cap? The best we were going to be was mediocre with millsap and okay we keep dwight what else you doing with no cap space.

I would have at least tried to orchestrate sign and trades.  Trading a performing player for a non-performing player who earns half as much gives you no shot at winning.  People weren't beating down the door to acquire a stiff like Plumlee, were they? 

Slinky basically conceded that he didn't have what it takes to do what the Spurs have done, and continue to win in spite of losing star after star over the last few years (and please, don't tell me that Parker and Ginobili still meet the definition of "star" and don't tell me that Lamarcus Aldridge is a "superstar.")

[AHF]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

Actually, they haven't. 

You really expect me to believe that there haven't been teams that lost among the most games in the entire league and went on to win rings?  Like the Spurs (20 and 21 wins - worse pace than we are on), Bulls (27 wins, second worst in league), Celtics (24 wins, second worst in league), Cavs (19 wins), Rockets (14 wins), Heat (15 wins), Mavs (19 wins), etc. didn't all do this?

[AHF]

8 minutes ago, Watchman said:

No.  Does this year's differential meet your definition of "win"?

Absolutely not.  Both are failures in my eyes (if the target is being a winning team in a given season).  Question is how to move from an aging losing roster to a championship team while never stopping winning.  The Lakers are the only team I've ever seen do it and the LA market played a big factor in making that possible.

[Watchman]

Just now, AHF said:

Absolutely not.  Both are failures in my eyes.  Question is how to move from an aging losing roster to a championship team while never stopping winning.  The Lakers are the only team I've ever seen do it and the LA market played a big factor in making that possible.

Spurs may not win a championship, but they stand a chance of doing so.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Spurs may not win a championship, but they stand a chance of doing so.

They have won exactly jack squat since Duncan retired.  Duncan was acquired with the #1 overall pick in the draft.  They have zero championships without a #1 overall pick as the core of the team.

I don't think they stand a chance this year unless Kawhi comes back healed.  Then they become a longshot but at least do have a chance.

Let me add that if our team had an MVP-level player on it along with another All-Star and good role players, I would absolutely want us to go for it like the Spurs.  We don't anyone who remotely resembles that kind of talent and we haven't for a long time.

[MaceCase]

14 minutes ago, Watchman said:

None of those salaries put us into the luxury tax, which Ressler avoids at all cost.  To keep a "superstar" you're going to have to come up with more than $15 million a year.

Heh, you’re just going throw whatever crap against the wall in the hopes it sticks.  I want to understand why would the Hawks be worried about the tax preventing them from signing a superstar draft pick 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now?  I mean I could see that possibly being the case if they decided to go the treadmill route by burning cap re-signing guys like Hardaway and Millsap but I’m wondering, when was it exactly that Ressler let a superstar walk for fear of paying the tax?

[Watchman]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

They have won exactly jack squat since Duncan retired.  Duncan was acquired with the #1 overall pick in the draft.  They have zero championships without a #1 overall pick as the core of the team.

I don't think they stand a chance this year unless Kawhi comes back healed.  Then they become a longshot but at least do have a chance.

Let me add that if our team had an MVP-level player on it along with another All-Star and good role players, I would absolutely want us to go for it like the Spurs.  We don't anyone who remotely resembles that kind of talent.

If we had a track record of taking full advantage of those high level draft picks, perhaps I'd share your optimism.  

[davis171]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

If we had a track record of taking full advantage of those high level draft picks, perhaps I'd share your optimism.  

the hawks have no past success at anything so stop looking there.

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, Watchman said:

If we had a track record of taking full advantage of those high level draft picks, perhaps I'd share your optimism.  

As far as I'm concerned, if the Lakers had Pete Babcock and the Hawks had had Jerry West then those guys wouldn't have their fortunes reversed just because one team was blessed and the other cursed.  Simply, the Lakers hired a genius who no doubt had some good luck and the Hawks hired a series of dolts who had some bad luck.

The only track record that matters for me is Schlenk's and he is 1 for 1 drafting on his own.  That doesn't mean he will hit home runs but it means I at least carry some hope that he will.  I don't think the Hawks past draft failures are doomed to repeat themselves.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, davis171 said:

the hawks have no past success at anything so stop looking there.

Our past GMs do have a record of making some pretty good trades even while they almost uniformly stubbed their toes in the draft in epic fashion.  I don't think it is a GM issue that has prevented us from having an MVP player outside of the draft - it is a matter of us being pretty good but not great for most of our existence which means we rarely even had a theoretical chance at an MVP level player.  Teams give those guys up very rarely and when they do it is usually for other stars or very high draft picks.

[Watchman]

5 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Heh, you’re just going throw whatever crap against the wall in the hopes it sticks.  I want to understand why would the Hawks be worried about the tax preventing them from signing a superstar draft pick 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now?  I mean I could see that possibly being the case if they decided to go the treadmill route by burning cap re-signing guys like Hardaway and Millsap but I’m wondering, when was it exactly that Ressler let a superstar walk for fear of paying the tax?

We've not had a superstar in decades, and even then it was iffy, so we've not been in a position to do so.    (Nique was extremely talented but he was no Jordan or Bird.) 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but you have just as good a chance of being wrong as I do.  I'm just going off Ressler's public statements about his "priority one" and then totally reneging on it when it came down to money.  He could have spent the difference to retain Al Horford.  Why didn't he?  Bottom line is he has avoided going into the luxury tax thus far.