The Tank Thread

[Royjr9]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

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 lottery picks.

Which is why I’m hopeful of schlenk. He’s two for two in my eyes Collins and Dorsey have been surprises. Give him four picks and I think we should come away with some talent. Also not all theses guys will stay with us. The next guy that cough cough is unhappy with his team the hawks could be in position to pounce and go from there. 

[davis171]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

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.

because Al isn't a max player

[Peoriabird]

Did KB21 under mitosis.  I though it was only one of him!  Where did this watchman come from?

[Watchman]

Just now, davis171 said:

because Al isn't a max player

No he's not, but the few hundred thousand dollars of difference over what they had offered Al should not have been the deciding factor.

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

Did KB21 under mitosis.  I though it was only one of him!  Where did this watchman come from?

Been here longer than you have.

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Been here longer than you have.

Just kidding around!

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Did KB21 under mitosis.  I though it was only one of him!  Where did this watchman come from?

@Watchmanis definitely not new and definitely his own person.  

4 minutes ago, davis171 said:

because Al isn't a max player

I think Al is worth max money.  The difference is that someone like LeBron is worth $50M or $60M, not $30M where he gets capped.  So the team with LeBron or Durant, etc. gets a huge amount of excess value to the team.

[Watchman]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

Just kidding around!

Good.  It's a good thing to have something to laugh about.

[davis171]

Just now, AHF said:

@Watchmanis definitely not new and definitely his own person.  

I think Al is worth max money.  The difference is that someone like LeBron is worth $50M or $60M, not $30M where he gets capped.  So the team with LeBron or Durant, etc. gets a huge amount of excess value to the team.

I 100% agree if we sign Al that offseason allows us to deal millsap for assets and build a core to complement Al as a PF.

[Watchman]

Just now, AHF said:

@Watchmanis definitely not new and definitely his own person.  

I think Al is worth max money.  The difference is that someone like LeBron is worth $50M or $60M, not $30M where he gets capped.  So the team with LeBron or Durant, etc. gets a huge amount of excess value to the team.

True, but what would happen if guys like Lebron got $50 million a year - would guys like Korver, Ilyasova, et al have to accept the league minimum?  I agree that Lebron at $30 million is a bargain compared to Al at $30 million, but it seems unfair to me to screw the "middle class" level of players.  I guess we have to live with it the way it is.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

I 100% agree if we sign Al that offseason allows us to deal millsap for assets and build a core to complement Al as a PF.

I would have been excited to see either a team with Sap, Al and Dwight all together on the same team or a roster where Sap gets dealt for assets to add to Al and Dwight.  What we got was sadly losing Al for nothing and facing down the prospect of losing Sap for nothing (after we bizarrely shopped him and then passed on trading him) or bringing Sap and Dwight back for more money after a failed season.

[davis171]

Just now, AHF said:

I would have been excited to see either a team with Sap, Al and Dwight all together on the same team or a roster where Sap gets dealt for assets to add to Al and Dwight.  What we got was sadly losing Al for nothing and facing down the prospect of losing Sap for nothing (after we bizarrely shopped him and then passed on trading him) or bringing Sap and Dwight back for more money after a failed season.

After we missed on Al I figured a rebuild was coming

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Watchman said:

True, but what would happen if guys like Lebron got $50 million a year - would guys like Korver, Ilyasova, et al have to accept the league minimum?  I agree that Lebron at $30 million is a bargain compared to Al at $30 million, but it seems unfair to me to screw the "middle class" level of players.  I guess we have to live with it the way it is.

I would like to see the elimination of the maximum salary.  I think what would happen is that teams wouldn't be able to stack LeBron, Wade and Bosh or LeBron, Love and Irving or Curry, Thompson, Durant and Green, etc.  They would have to compete with massive offers for the best guys and probably only be able to have one first team All-NBA player on the roster who wasn't on their rookie salary contract.  Then you get these guys on teams where the team is trying to build around them instead of on teams where they are basically a core of 3-4 MVP/All-Star players with surrounding role players.

[Watchman]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I would like to see the elimination of the maximum salary.  I think what would happen is that teams wouldn't be able to stack LeBron, Wade and Bosh or LeBron, Love and Irving or Curry, Thompson, Durant and Green, etc.  They would have to compete with massive offers for the best guys and probably only be able to have one of them on the roster who wasn't on their rookie salary contract.  Then you get these guys on teams where the team is trying to build around them instead of on teams where they are basically a core of 3-4 MVP/All-Star players with surrounding role players.

Good thinking.  However, I think they'd have to eliminate all the "exceptions" like "Bird rights" or you still end up with stacked teams.  Maybe a hard cap would help.

[CBAreject]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Also, even if whoever they draft is a potential star player, that guy won't be a star as a rookie.  All rookies suck.

 

Good, we need to lose for a few years to keep drafting high and accrue some assets.  

[KB21]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

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?

Not in an acceptable time frame.  Who has bottomed out and won a championship within a 4-5 year frame of time that didn't end up signing LeBron James as a free agent?  Who has done it based solely off who they drafted?

[davis171]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Not in an acceptable time frame.  Who has bottomed out and won a championship within a 4-5 year frame of time that didn't end up signing LeBron James as a free agent?  Who has done it based solely off who they drafted?

who has ever won a championship 4-5 years into having their star? I don't know what you wanted the hawks to do this past offseason and unless you give me specific moves I'm not taking you seriously.

Edited February 26, 2018 by davis171

[KB21]

14 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

 

Good, we need to lose for a few years to keep drafting high and accrue some assets.  

Which is why the strategy doesn't work.  Losing for multiple years is not acceptable to me, and it never will be.  

[davis171]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

Which is why the strategy doesn't work.  Losing for multiple years is not acceptable to me, and it never will be.  

Well no one cares what you think or agrees that is a path to a title.

Edited February 26, 2018 by davis171

[KB21]

Just now, davis171 said:

Well no one cares what you think!

Those who want to lose for years on end sure don't.  I'm just telling you the truth about how this process is going to go.  The only thing it guarantees is losing.  That's it.  The Hawks are going to lose for at least 3-5 years, probably more, because of the path Travis Schlenk has taken this team down.

[CBAreject]

46 minutes ago, AHF said:

@Watchmanis definitely not new and definitely his own person.  

I think Al is worth max money.  The difference is that someone like LeBron is worth $50M or $60M, not $30M where he gets capped.  So the team with LeBron or Durant, etc. gets a huge amount of excess value to the team.

This is the thing that all this boils down to—surplus value.  You can only win a championship with lots of surplus value.  That’s why it’s hard to do with a collection of mid-tier free agents.  Players that offer surplus value are assets.  Those that offer little value or negative value but are expensive are liabilities.  

Dwight Howard was a liability. That’s why he could only be traded for other liabilities.  Kent Bazemore is a liability.  Millsap was an asset who was bound to become a liability before his next contract was up.  Schröder is a marginal asset.  THJ was an asset until he became expensive, at which time he became a liability.  Good on us for letting the Knicks absorb him.  Speaking of which, the Knicks have been so bad for so long because they repeatedly built a team out of liabilities.  

All the discussions about our “alternatives” fail miserably to consider that we simply had virtually no assets, and we had a roster jammed full with expensive liabilities, I.e., no surplus value, with no cap room.  The question of how to increase our surplus value then was limited to the draft.  And so, drafting in the late teens, we would’ve had to find amazing steals repeatedly to improve significantly.  That’s a bad bet.  A much better bet was to cut loose some of the liabilities and move our draft position and odds higher.  It was a no-brainer.  Understanding surplus value makes this very straightforward.