The Tank Thread

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, KB21 said:

If there are no guarantees, then why adopt a strategy that actually does guarantee that you will be losing over multiple years?

There are no guarantees.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

There are no guarantees.

So, history doesn't suggest that teams who decide to bottom out don't spend at least 5 years in the lottery?  Or is this one of those "just because that's the way it has always been, doesn't mean that's the way it will be this time."

I prefer to lean on what history shows.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So, history doesn't suggest that teams who decide to bottom out don't spend at least 5 years in the lottery?  Or is this one of those "just because that's the way it has always been, doesn't mean that's the way it will be this time."

I prefer to lean on what history shows.

I agree there is a significant risk of a multiple year lottery run.  Boston bottomed out and got right back in the playoffs.  Even Philly doesn't meet your criteria.  Their first lottery season they didn't bottom out.  The bottomed out, spent 4 years in the lottery and are now likely to own home court when the playoffs start.  Plenty of examples of teams that bottomed out and spent at least 5 years but there are also a good number that didn't spend at least 5 years in the lottery after bottoming out.

There are no guarantees.

[KB21]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

I agree there is a significant risk of a multiple year lottery run.  Boston bottomed out and got right back in the playoffs.  Even Philly doesn't meet your criteria.  Their first lottery season they didn't bottom out.  The bottomed out, spent 4 years in the lottery and are now likely to own home court when the playoffs start.  Plenty of examples of teams that bottomed out and spent at least 5 years but there are also a good number that didn't spend at least 5 years in the lottery after bottoming out.

There are no guarantees.

Boston didn't bottom out.  Yet another myth pushed by the pro tankers.

[skimaskway23]

12 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So, history doesn't suggest that teams who decide to bottom out don't spend at least 5 years in the lottery?  Or is this one of those "just because that's the way it has always been, doesn't mean that's the way it will be this time."

I prefer to lean on what history shows.

suggest is far from guarantee. 

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, skimaskway23 said:

suggest is far from guarantee. 

So, give me an scenario of this path making the Hawks contenders within 2-3 years.

Edited April 6, 2018 by KB21

[skimaskway23]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Boston didn't bottom out.  Yet another myth pushed by the pro tankers.

How else do you think they got marcus smart at #6 overall?

Sixth worst record that season

[KB21]

Just now, skimaskway23 said:

How else do you think they got marcus smart at #6 overall?

Sixth worst record that season

That's not bottoming out.  They didn't completely gut their roster the way Atlanta has.

[skimaskway23]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

So, give me an scenario of this path making the Hawks contenders within 2-3 years.

You cant guarantee we wont be contenders in 2-3 years. 

[Buzzard]

16 minutes ago, AHF said:

I agree there is a significant risk of a multiple year lottery run.  Boston bottomed out and got right back in the playoffs.  Even Philly doesn't meet your criteria.  Their first lottery season they didn't bottom out.  The bottomed out, spent 4 years in the lottery and are now likely to own home court when the playoffs start.  Plenty of examples of teams that bottomed out and spent at least 5 years but there are also a good number that didn't spend at least 5 years in the lottery after bottoming out.

There are no guarantees.

Anyone can pick the worse case and say look at that. But the chances of being the worse case, Kings, Timberwolves,  is not the most likely. Best case is not either, Spurs with Duncan, but somewhere in the middle is. Three to five years and I am leaning towards three since we have so many picks; and good cap space coming over that three year time frame.

[skimaskway23]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That's not bottoming out.  They didn't completely gut their roster the way Atlanta has.

We arent gutted. We have 3 solid young players. We just let some 30+ age vets get paid elsewhere.

 

Boston shipped out kg and pierce. The squad that year had Avery Bradley and jared sullinger as their best players. If that aint gutting your squad than we haven't gutted our squad

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, skimaskway23 said:

You cant guarantee we wont be contenders in 2-3 years. 

Yes, I can.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, skimaskway23 said:

We arent gutted. We have 3 solid young players. We just let some 30+ age vets get paid elsewhere.

 

Boston shipped out kg and pierce. The squad that year had Avery Bradley and jared sullinger as their best players. If that aint gutting your squad than we haven't gutted our squad

The Hawks are completely gutted with an expansion team level roster right now.  It's very likely that only 1 player that is currently on this roster will actually be here when the team is ready to win again.

[Buzzard]

21 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That's not bottoming out.  They didn't completely gut their roster the way Atlanta has.

You do enjoy rewriting history. The Celtics gutted their roster in 2013 trading Pierce, Garnett, and JT to New Jersey. Then in December of 2014 they traded Rondo to the Mavericks. Smart was picked in 2014. It took Ainge all of two seasons to gut that team once Ray Allen left.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Buzzard

[skimaskway23]

9 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The Hawks are completely gutted with an expansion team level roster right now.  It's very likely that only 1 player that is currently on this roster will actually be here when the team is ready to win again.

The same could be said about that same boston team. Sullinger aint there, Brandon bass aint there.

Same shit dawg

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, skimaskway23 said:

The same could be said about that same boston team. Sullinger aint there, Brandon bass aint there.

Same shit dawg

No, it couldn't.  They didn't field a G-League level team.

[skimaskway23]

14 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No, it couldn't.  They didn't field a G-League level team.

Yes it could. None of those players on that boston team are still there. 

I'm pretty sure you have no clue as to what that roster consisted of. Google it

[AHF]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Boston didn't bottom out.  Yet another myth pushed by the pro tankers.

They absolutely did.  It is why they won 25 games after having a winning record the prior year.  They dropped 3 of their top 5 scorers from the prior season and had two players with a PER of 16 or higher:  Jared Sullinger and Kris Humphries.  Their win share leader was Brandon Bass. 

Let's look at your favorite BPM number.  Kelly Olynyk had a 0.5 BPM.  Every other member of the team was zero or negative BPM for the season.

It is hard to put together a team that subpar.  Even this year's Hawks have 4 guys with positive BPMs.

[High5]

Starting Vitor Faverani and Jordan Crawford and trading Hall of Famers for Kris Humphries and Gerald Wallace was a genuine attempt to contend. The Celtics just got unlucky that season. It's hard to believe the Bradley-Green-Bass Big 3 never won a championship.

[Peoriabird]

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

They absolutely did.  It is why they won 25 games after having a winning record the prior year.  They dropped 3 of their top 5 scorers from the prior season and had two players with a PER of 16 or higher:  Jared Sullinger and Kris Humphries.  Their win share leader was Brandon Bass. 

Let's look at your favorite BPM number.  Kelly Olynyk had a 0.5 BPM.  Every other member of the team was zero or negative BPM for the season.

It is hard to put together a team that subpar.  Even this year's Hawks have 4 guys with positive BPMs.

@KB21 already knows what you just posted...I covered it with him weeks ago...There is something else going on here...Is KB21 a real person or just a computer program designed to keep posters interested in the Hawks?  Never mind, A computer know more.