The Tank Thread

[Lurker]

Frankly considering that MPJ is out of game shape, he did well. It sucks we couldn't see him at his full ability this year.

[JTB]

37 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Frankly considering that MPJ is out of game shape, he did well. It sucks we couldn't see him at his full ability this year.

One thing about Porter Jr that frightens me isn’t the injury he had but the chance of him becoming another tall perimeter nba star and the hawks pass up on him.

[CBAreject]

The thing that strikes me about the debates in this thread is that the two sides are having different conversations.  The brutal FACT is that the Hawks as constructed in early 2017 could not have won a championship.  We probably will not win a championship by tanking either, and based on the standards of the anti-tank crowd, even if we win a championship 7 years after tanking, it still won't have "worked".  The reason is simple--they have a different expectation and hope for the team. 

The anti-tankers want to "compete".  I suspect they delude themselves a bit into thinking that if you just compete hard enough with a 45-win team year-in and year-out, you'll eventually get a ring with enough gumption.  But whatever the case, what they want is a team that has a chance to win most nights in the regular season.  

The tankers want a championship, and they generally realize that's a long-shot.  They also realize it's a no-shot if you have a bunch of mediocre players.  They watch the titles go to teams with superstars and think that we may as well gamble and get one of those.  All championship teams are built on lottery picks or the trading thereof.  There is one exception--the LA Lakers.  Nobody believes we have the ability to sign the best player in the NBA on the strength of our market, so we don't bank on being that exception.  Tankers have grown tired of being mediocre and want out. 

I don't think either of these is an invalid way to be a fan.  I think either strategy can "work", but only one has a shot of resulting in a championship for a non-LA or NY team.  Carry on.

 

 

[High5]

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

Not if your team is built with other stars and you trade?

We had a lottery pick.  Al.  We had allstars galore at one point.  People wanted to play with us but we didn't bring those guys in.  Instead, we decided our best mode of action was to trade away everybody for nothing and go after the lottery pick.   That's nothing like what you see with Miami and Cleveland.

You said does Lebron go to Cleveland without Kyrie and Love?  Well, after the league so graciously gave Cleveland all those #1 picks... I guess he did.  BUT Lebron built his own teams.  That includes Miami.   Lebron knows that he can't win a championship without lots of help. 

In fact, Lebron is the first superstar that built his own team.  

I noted that you left Detroit out of the discussion.  Was that because you recognize that they were built by a GM who knew how to build that team.

Funny though, you mentioned the Celtics.. Ainge was the architecht of that team and Ainge wins every deal he gets into.   It's not that Ray Allen and KG said.. hey, i want to go to Boston to play with Pierce.  No.  Ainge built the team with the things he had.   Schlenk could not do that.  In fact, Schlenk gave away the things he had and just hoped to get a lottery pick.   That's the same thing alot of the treadmill GMs do.   Expect to be back in the lottery and out of the playoffs for the next 4 years. 

 

1. What does Horford have to do with anything? He was gone a year before Schlenk took the job. "All-Stars" Teague and Korver were gone as well. An unsigned Sap was the only one still around when Schlenk chose to tank. 

2. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with the LeBron comments, but they're irrelevant to this discussion.

3. I referred to my original post which is where I commented on the Detroit and LA exceptions. Feel free to read it again. 

4. Boston had a HOF former lottery pick on their roster and they traded two lottery picks (along with a lot of other players/picks) to acquire two more HOF former lottery picks. What are you not understanding about this? 

[DBac]

The Nets won tonight. They're not tanking but they suck anyway. Get the Cavs and their lottery luck as far away as possible.

Edited March 9, 2018 by DBac

[KB21]

37 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

The thing that strikes me about the debates in this thread is that the two sides are having different conversations.  The brutal FACT is that the Hawks as constructed in early 2017 could not have won a championship.  We probably will not win a championship by tanking either, and based on the standards of the anti-tank crowd, even if we win a championship 7 years after tanking, it still won't have "worked".  The reason is simple--they have a different expectation and hope for the team. 

The anti-tankers want to "compete".  I suspect they delude themselves a bit into thinking that if you just compete hard enough with a 45-win team year-in and year-out, you'll eventually get a ring with enough gumption.  But whatever the case, what they want is a team that has a chance to win most nights in the regular season.  

The tankers want a championship, and they generally realize that's a long-shot.  They also realize it's a no-shot if you have a bunch of mediocre players.  They watch the titles go to teams with superstars and think that we may as well gamble and get one of those.  All championship teams are built on lottery picks or the trading thereof.  There is one exception--the LA Lakers.  Nobody believes we have the ability to sign the best player in the NBA on the strength of our market, so we don't bank on being that exception.  Tankers have grown tired of being mediocre and want out. 

I don't think either of these is an invalid way to be a fan.  I think either strategy can "work", but only one has a shot of resulting in a championship for a non-LA or NY team.  Carry on.

 

 

That's not true in the least.  The least likely route to a championship is by tanking, which the data proves, but the pro tankers believe that a championship is guaranteed if you land the #1 overall pick.

 

[davis171]

12 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That's not true in the least.  The least likely route to a championship is by tanking, which the data proves, but the pro tankers believe that a championship is guaranteed if you land the #1 overall pick.

 

Who has said that it is guaranteed?

[KB21]

1 minute ago, davis171 said:

Who has said that it is guaranteed?

It's clearly implied.  Where else do you think all the comments about having to tank to be able to win a championship comes from?

[davis171]

18 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's clearly implied.  Where else do you think all the comments about having to tank to be able to win a championship comes from?

Um other teams have done it. The only reason I think being bad this season was the best option is Sap neutralized cap space that could be used to acquire assets rather through trade or FA that make us better long term than an over the hill PF. There was no way to improve that team with him taking a third of the cap.

Edited March 9, 2018 by davis171

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, davis171 said:

Um other teams have done it. The only reason I think being bad this season was the best option is Sap neutralized cap space that could be used to acquire assets rather through trade or FA that make us better long term than an over the hill PF. There was no way to improve that team with him taking a third of the cap.

So, what exactly is going to be done over the next two years to improve the team now?

The Hawks now have the stain of tanking on them.  No legitimate free agent is going to come to Atlanta without a significant overpay.  If you say that we will use Paul's salary slot/cap space to take on a bad contract attached to an unknown quantity, I mean an "asset", then exactly how does that make the team better now?  If it doesn't, then this idea that the team couldn't have kept Paul and stayed competitive over the next two years goes out the window.  

So, the Hawks could have kept Paul Millsap without it really hurting the team down the road, and by doing it, you keep out the losing culture that now pervades this franchise.

But, with the direction the Hawks have chosen, the path is very long and mistake filled, and the only guarantee is that the team will lose a shit ton of games.

[High5]

11 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

The thing that strikes me about the debates in this thread is that the two sides are having different conversations.  The brutal FACT is that the Hawks as constructed in early 2017 could not have won a championship.  We probably will not win a championship by tanking either, and based on the standards of the anti-tank crowd, even if we win a championship 7 years after tanking, it still won't have "worked".  The reason is simple--they have a different expectation and hope for the team. 

The anti-tankers want to "compete".  I suspect they delude themselves a bit into thinking that if you just compete hard enough with a 45-win team year-in and year-out, you'll eventually get a ring with enough gumption.  But whatever the case, what they want is a team that has a chance to win most nights in the regular season.  

The tankers want a championship, and they generally realize that's a long-shot.  They also realize it's a no-shot if you have a bunch of mediocre players.  They watch the titles go to teams with superstars and think that we may as well gamble and get one of those.  All championship teams are built on lottery picks or the trading thereof.  There is one exception--the LA Lakers.  Nobody believes we have the ability to sign the best player in the NBA on the strength of our market, so we don't bank on being that exception.  Tankers have grown tired of being mediocre and want out. 

I don't think either of these is an invalid way to be a fan.  I think either strategy can "work", but only one has a shot of resulting in a championship for a non-LA or NY team.  Carry on.

 

 

I don't mind people being against tanking. None of us like watching the team lose (as much as we appreciate what the losses mean) and there is a chance we fail to make it back to the playoffs for several years to come. The arguments being used in this thread just aren't based in reality. That's why we're approaching page 100.

Go back and look at the last 30 champions. 24 of the 30 drafted at least one HOF player in the top 10. Of the other 6, 5 are the Lakers. That is not a blueprint that can be followed. Prime Shaq is not signing here. The next Kobe isn't telling teams not to draft him because he wants to play for the 2014-15 Southeast Division Champions. That leaves one team in the last 30 years and even they traded Grant Hill (their former #3 pick) to get Big Ben.

So someone doesn't like tanking? Fine. Just don't ignore the vital role that drafting in the lottery has had for virtually every champion.

[davis171]

Just now, KB21 said:

So, what exactly is going to be done over the next two years to improve the team now?

The Hawks now have the stain of tanking on them.  No legitimate free agent is going to come to Atlanta without a significant overpay.  If you say that we will use Paul's salary slot/cap space to take on a bad contract attached to an unknown quantity, I mean an "asset", then exactly how does that make the team better now?  If it doesn't, then this idea that the team couldn't have kept Paul and stayed competitive over the next two years goes out the window.  

So, the Hawks could have kept Paul Millsap without it really hurting the team down the road, and by doing it, you keep out the losing culture that now pervades this franchise.

But, with the direction the Hawks have chosen, the path is very long and mistake filled, and the only guarantee is that the team will lose a shit ton of games.

You are just wrong. There are expected to only be 5-8 teams that even have cap space so you will not have to over pay for anyone. http://hoopshype.com/2017/09/14/only-five-nba-teams-project-to-have-cap-space-for-2018-offseason/ I could see some very cheap FA coming here. Besides you think DMC cared if the hawks had a winning culture he was a low end role player for Utah and was offered more minutes in Atlanta obviously you make that move same with Sap if you remember Utah had Kanter, Al Jefferson, Favors, and Sap so moving on to a team where you don't have to look over your shoulder made since.

[CBAreject]

42 minutes ago, davis171 said:

Who has said that it is guaranteed?

KB’s straw man generator. He’s become a caricature of himself.  

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, davis171 said:

You are just wrong. There are expected to only be 5-8 teams that even have cap space so you will not have to over pay for anyone. http://hoopshype.com/2017/09/14/only-five-nba-teams-project-to-have-cap-space-for-2018-offseason/ I could see some very cheap FA coming here. Besides you think DMC cared if the hawks had a winning culture he was a low end role player for Utah and was offered more minutes in Atlanta obviously you make that move same with Sap if you remember Utah had Kanter, Al Jefferson, Favors, and Sap so moving on to a team where you don't have to look over your shoulder made since.

Wait and see.   It's not enough to see that a team has never built anything worthwhile through tanking.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

KB’s straw man generator. He’s become a caricature of himself.  

The straw man argument is this idea that you have to tank to be a championship contender.  

No.  You actually have to win games to be a championship contender.  

[CBAreject]

43 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's clearly implied.  Where else do you think all the comments about having to tank to be able to win a championship comes from?

 

Do you understand that difference between necessity and sufficiency, I.e. something can be necessary but not sufficient for something else?

[davis171]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

Wait and see.   It's not enough to see that a team has never built anything worthwhile through tanking.

Dude the Celtics won 25 games 4 years ago and now they have a super bright future!

[CBAreject]

Just now, KB21 said:

The straw man argument is this idea that you have to tank to be a championship contender.  

No.  You actually have to win games to be a championship contender.  

Nobody said that.  Almost every champion has drafted one or both of its best 2 players in the lottery.  The exceptions have traded lottery picks or lottery selected players to build their core.  That doesn’t say that you have to tank to get those lottery picks.  But good luck trading Dwight Howard for one...

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, davis171 said:

Dude the Celtics won 25 games 4 years ago and now they have a super bright future!

And that's because they have built with veterans, and they did not tank.  

[davis171]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

And that's because they have built with veterans, and they did not tank.  

What do you call trading away your core that made the playoffs the year before? Had they kept JT, KG and PP they probably would have made the playoffs.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by davis171