The Tank Thread

[KB21]

11 years?  Then it didn't work.

[CBAreject]

@KB21, tanking doesn’t work if you define “tanking” in a very particular way and “work” in a very particular way, which are both self-serving for your predetermined conclusion.  

[davis171]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

11 years?  Then it didn't work.

So you wouldn't give up 10 years to bring the first title to Atlanta since 1996? He really Isn't saying that because you can contend before that. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by davis171

[KB21]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

So you wouldn't give up 10 years to bring the first title to atlanta since 1996

No.

[davis171]

Just now, KB21 said:

No.

Okay everyone else would thats the difference. You would rather live in mediocrity than have a chance at a title even if it means sacrificing a few years 

[KB21]

Just now, davis171 said:

Okay everyone else would thats the difference. You would rather live in mediocrity than have a chance at a title even if it means sacrificing a few years 

I would rather be good and actually have a chance to be great than to suck and not have a chance.  That's the difference.

[davis171]

Just now, KB21 said:

I would rather be good and actually have a chance to be great than to suck and not have a chance.  That's the difference.

Well no one has ever done what you are saying so that makes no sense. 

[KB21]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

Well no one has ever done what you are saying so that makes no sense. 

No one has ever done what you are saying and won in an acceptable time period as well.  You have to actually be good to have a chance.

Edited February 26, 2018 by KB21

[CBAreject]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

Okay everyone else would thats the difference. You would rather live in mediocrity than have a chance at a title even if it means sacrificing a few years 

And again, we’re at an impasse here. We are literally having different discussions.  It’s like living on different continents and disagreeing about how to describe the weather today.

 Nobody disagrees that the Hawks could’ve continued to win 40 games or so for many more years.  Nobody disagrees that we would’ve been without a superstar for the duration of that time, and thus irrelevant.

[CBAreject]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I would rather be good and actually have a chance to be great than to suck and not have a chance.  That's the difference.

We would rather have that, too.  But we had no chance to be great once we were paying Bazemore, Millsap, and Howard $70 million.

[davis171]

Just now, CBAreject said:

We would rather have that, too.  But we had no chance to be great once we were paying Bazemore, Millsap, and Howard $70 million.

Thank you. Obviously it is ideal to stay relevant however what moves could we have made to both brighten our future and continue to compete? 

[davis171]

11 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No one has ever done what you are saying and won in an acceptable time period as well.  You have to actually be good to have a chance.

The hawks in their existence have never been an honest championship contender. so take 20 years if thats what it takes to win a championship. AND the only person I see worried about the time frame is you.

Edited February 26, 2018 by davis171

[CBAreject]

And if it takes 10 years, it’s not like you win 20 games for 9 years and then 60 games in year 10.  Best case, we get a franchise center and we are at least “interesting” to watch as soon as next year.  What would be really sad is if we had resigned Millsap and THJ and won 40 games and just missed the playoffs.  We had some years like that with Nique, and it was depressing.  

[Watchman]

4 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

And if it takes 10 years, it’s not like you win 20 games for 9 years and then 60 games in year 10.  Best case, we get a franchise center and we are at least “interesting” to watch as soon as next year.  What would be really sad is if we had resigned Millsap and THJ and won 40 games and just missed the playoffs.  We had some years like that with Nique, and it was depressing.  

Believe me.  We are depressing now.

[CBAreject]

Just now, Watchman said:

Believe me.  We are depressing now.

Agreed, but there are levels of hell.  If we land in the top 3 picks, I will be way more optimistic than I was when we got bounced in the first round and had a team about to be older and more expensive with no prospects for improvement.  

[Lurker]

The point that keeps going over people is the Hawks had their chance to retool the "right way" while remaining competitive but made mistakes with it, and it starts with PO'ing Al Horford. 

If you want to do this, I'm not calling it impossible because it absolutely is not, but you have to trade to create assets before it's too late, and it was too late by the offseason before this season. 

And a Jeff Teague or Dennis Schröder wasn't going to create enough assets. 

I don't blame them for trying with Dwight Howard on the real, but it just didn't work. If it worked and Al Horford didn't get PO'ed, then you would have seen what I was meaning put into motion. Maybe they sign a different big man after signing Horford and are able to trade Paul Millsap for the assets you are looking for. Then maybe you sign an undervalued free agent, you're able to get an undervalued young player in the assets, and boom, you have 17/18 Indiana. 

My point with after 16/17 is you aren't going to sign enough "undervalued players" for the idea of playing the "right way" to work.

[KB21]

34 minutes ago, davis171 said:

The hawks in their existence have never been an honest championship contender. so take 20 years if thats what it takes to win a championship. AND the only person I see worried about the time frame is you.

OK.  So, let's put it this way.

In two years, you will have a decision to make on Taurean Prince.  You will have to decide whether to extend him or not.  However, you have now put him into a situation that stunts his development.  The team is not going to be good over the next two years, so that makes the decision on Taurean even tougher.  He's the first player in all of this where a decision to extend will need to be made.  

In three years, you will have to do the same with John Collins.  Again, you have put John into a bad situation because the team is not going to be competitive during his rookie contract.  His development will be stunted, and you won't know what you really have with him because you brought him into a losing situation and not a winning one.

In four years, you will have to make a decision on whoever the rookie drafted this year is.  Again, the team is not going to be competitive during his entire rookie contract.  Only this time, you are going to have to give out a max deal to sign him to an extension.  To a player that has not helped you win to this point.  

So, now you have a losing culture and a situation where young players will go from being cost controlled to likely overpaid.  

 

 

[davis171]

7 minutes ago, KB21 said:

OK.  So, let's put it this way.

In two years, you will have a decision to make on Taurean Prince.  You will have to decide whether to extend him or not.  However, you have now put him into a situation that stunts his development.  The team is not going to be good over the next two years, so that makes the decision on Taurean even tougher.  He's the first player in all of this where a decision to extend will need to be made.  

In three years, you will have to do the same with John Collins.  Again, you have put John into a bad situation because the team is not going to be competitive during his rookie contract.  His development will be stunted, and you won't know what you really have with him because you brought him into a losing situation and not a winning one.

In four years, you will have to make a decision on whoever the rookie drafted this year is.  Again, the team is not going to be competitive during his entire rookie contract.  Only this time, you are going to have to give out a max deal to sign him to an extension.  To a player that has not helped you win to this point.  

So, now you have a losing culture and a situation where young players will go from being cost controlled to likely overpaid.  

 

 

You have explained this several times. But instead of rebuilding what was the path to be as good as last year even? I'm tired of listening to you say you know more than the whole fan base and the GM 

Edited February 27, 2018 by davis171

[AHF]

25 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No one has ever done what you are saying and won in an acceptable time period as well.  You have to actually be good to have a chance.

 

 

For me, Hakeem's Rockets were a huge success story.  For you, they failed to win a ring in 4-5 years and are therefore a failure.

Using my more lenient standard and granting that for you it would be a failure, can you name the teams that have gone from mediocre playoff teams without a superstar to a championship in any period of time without getting really bad in between?  10 years of playoff exits or near playoff misses is fine as long as you aren't using a team that sucked to get their core talent and then became mediocre on their path to a ring (i.e., the players who drive the championship teams need to be added while they are mediocre and not as part of the buildup to improving from really bad to mediocre to great)

[Lurker]

4 minutes ago, davis171 said:

You have explained this several times. But instead of rebuilding what was the path to be as good as last year even?

Like I have said before, with what feels like 100 times...

The ONLY way to making the retool while staying legitimately competitive route work, was to not make the mistakes that were made BEFORE last year in this guy's head. As the mistakes were not last year. Oh heck no.

If you don't trade to create assets, you simply aren't going to be able to sign enough **undervalued players** to even make that route work. If the plan was to mostly stand pat with a few moves like perhaps, have Kent Bazemore walk, it would have still led to a bad team this year.

I really don't care what the W's are once you're not in the playoffs.