The Tank Thread

[parfait]

56 minutes ago, benhillboy said:

Great post @parfait but I have to disagree with you on the premise that Bud U. can just hum along without Bud.  I can’t see it.  Especially if he takes Ham and/or Jent with him.  Tallying up all the individual skills that improved under Bud’s tenure clearly shows how maniacally creative he was with players.  I’m watching Ilyasova and Bellinelli play like off-ball Gods and transform the Sixers after Bud refined their games so much in a training camp and half season.

Those are definitely reasonable fears, especially if multiple assistants follow Bud out of town. This certainly points to Bud remaining and working with Schlenk as the ideal outcome of all of this. Perhaps Bud sticking around would also keep management on point and keep them from prolonging the rebuild, a system of checks balances that was not in place when Hinkie was rebuilding in Philly.

[KB21]

18 hours ago, parfait said:

Take a look this summary of a scientific study that was done looking at the effects of tanking in the NBA (I guess these "scientists" had a lot of extra time on their hands):

http://www.jonahlehrer.com/blog/2016/4/25/is-tanking-an-effective-strategy-in-the-nba

The study defines tanking as having multiple consecutive years with a top 10 pick in the first round.

They concluded that such a scenario is not conducive to building a winning team. So, tanking, in this manner, does not succeed.

They also concluded that the two factors that most contributed to a successful rebuild are:

1) The expertise of the person drafting the players

2) Player development

You'll notice that there is no mention of arbitrary win totals, such as 25 wins in a season, as being predictive of an unsuccessful rebuild. It comes down to the General Manager's drafting prowess, and the organization's Player Development program. That's it.

So, think about it. If you're hitting on a good percentage of your #1 draft picks (especially if you have many of them), and developing those players, then you should not be drafting in the Top 10 for more than 2-3 years in a row. Once you're in the 11-14 range, then you're knocking on the door of the playoffs, which is a sign of progress, both in this study and in reality.

These findings just point further at what the focus of the Hawks rebuild is and should be. If they have the right person picking the players (and in our case, they have numerous chances to pick in the first round the next couple of years, even before possibly accumulating even more picks in trades this and next summer)...

and they maintain Hawks University (losing Bud would hurt in this regard, but the infrastructure for player development would still be there. When a University loses its Chancellor, the whole college doesn't just crumble to the ground)...

then they would remain on track for an approximately 3 year rebuild, as many of us on here foresee.

This doesn't even take into account the horrid salary cap situation league-wide that puts us in a very advantageous position for picking up quality veterans over the next couple of years.

And when we're picking up other people's #1 picks, that further lessens the pressure on the Hawks to lose games moving forward.

So, we've got to give Schlenk, who already has a stellar drafting track record, the requisite time (at least 3-4 years in total) to follow this formula.

Pick the right players. Develop those players. It's that simple. It's... !

I'm not sure how you got that out of that synopsis.  Here's the bottom line statement from that:

Quote

In his manifesto, Hinkie writes at length about the importance of bringing the rigors of science to the uncertainties of sport: “If you’re not sure, test it,” Hinkie writes. “Measure it. Do it again. See if it repeats.” Although previous research by the sports economist Dave Berri has cast doubt on the effectiveness of tanking,” this new paper should remind every basketball GM that the best way to win over the long-term is to develop a culture that doesn’t try to lose.

 

[CBAreject]

4 hours ago, KB21 said:

I'm not sure how you got that out of that synopsis.  Here's the bottom line statement from that:

 

 

A couple of problems.  Teams that draft at the top of the lottery several years in a row tend to be teams that have bad GMs and losing cultures.  That's a major confounder.  Studying whether those teams tend to succeed isn't the same question as whether a capped-out, aging squad with a negative point differential should rebuild, i.e., tank.  

To put it in doctor terms, what if I tell you that people who take Plavix have more heart attacks than people who don't take Plavix?  Are you going to be a terrible doctor and prescribe Plavix if it's causing all these heart attacks?  Of course you are, because you know what "confounding by indication" is.  

The other point is that "winning culture" isn't something that comes from winning a certain number of games--it's about having the right GM and coaching staff.  Now, if we do lose Bud because we tanked, that will actually hurt our capacity to have a winning culture.  Hanging on for dear life to a horrible roster wouldn't have.  To that end, the first step in the destruction of the Hawks' winning culture was firing Danny Ferry because he read something out loud that someone else said and replacing him with a talentless, ineffectual hack because he endorsed politically correct opinions and made the ownership feel good about itself.  

 

[KB21]

24 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

 

A couple of problems.  Teams that draft at the top of the lottery several years in a row tend to be teams that have bad GMs and losing cultures.  That's a major confounder.  Studying whether those teams tend to succeed isn't the same question as whether a capped-out, aging squad with a negative point differential should rebuild, i.e., tank.  

To put it in doctor terms, what if I tell you that people who take Plavix have more heart attacks than people who don't take Plavix?  Are you going to be a terrible doctor and prescribe Plavix if it's causing all these heart attacks?  Of course you are, because you know what "confounding by indication" is.  

The other point is that "winning culture" isn't something that comes from winning a certain number of games--it's about having the right GM and coaching staff.  Now, if we do lose Bud because we tanked, that will actually hurt our capacity to have a winning culture.  Hanging on for dear life to a horrible roster wouldn't have.  To that end, the first step in the destruction of the Hawks' winning culture was firing Danny Ferry because he read something out loud that someone else said and replacing him with a talentless, ineffectual hack because he endorsed politically correct opinions and made the ownership feel good about itself.  

 

This, I will agree with.  Particularly when an independent investigation revealed that Ferry was not in fact being racist.

[deester11]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

This, I will agree with.  Particularly when an independent investigation revealed that Ferry was not in fact being racist.

Anybody thinking Ferry was a racist was looking for a reason to have a gripe. I knew he would be a scapegoat to save face, it's the world we live in.  Inherently, it's Atlanta sports.  We can't have nice things.  

[KB21]

1 minute ago, deester11 said:

Anybody thinking Ferry was a racist was looking for a reason to have a gripe. I knew he would be a scapegoat to save face, it's the world we live in.  Inherently, it's Atlanta sports.  We can't have nice things.  

That whole thing was a set up by Michael Gearon Jr., who very much disliked the fact that Danny Ferry had complete autonomy over decision making.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Let's not let Ferry off the hook for what is happening now either.  It was his initial commitment to keep the team "flexible", that led us to this situation in the first place.

The Hawks weren't supposed to go from 38 wins to 60 wins and a EC Finals in a mere 2 years.  But when that happened, that put the Hawks in a situation in which they either had to decide that they wanted to sustain the winning with their current roster, or continue to keep the roster "flexible".

The initial contract to Millsap, which was at first viewed as a great deal, ended up costing this team big time.  Millsap took the short deal, because he knew that the 2nd deal may get him paid a significant amount, with the huge bump in the Salary Cap looming in the summer of 2016.   

But the fact that Ferry didn't offer him a significant amount of money and years on that first deal, not only prevented the Hawks for owning his Bird Rights, it kept the Hawks from going over the salary cap to keep him, if need be. 

That's why when push came to shove at the end of the 2015 season, Bud and Wes had to make a choice between Millsap and Demarre Carroll, who was also signed to a 2-year contract, because they couldn't go over the cap to sign either guy.   Ferry got too cute, when he thought he was being the smartest dude in the room.  He didn't account for the fact that the team could rapidly improve so soon.

What Bud and Wes tried to do, was sustain the roster . . . ( i.e. - try to keep the "winning culture" going ).   

• Had to make the tough decision between keeping Millsap or Carroll.  They chose Millsap, of course.  CORRECT MOVE.

 

• Had to make another tough decision between keeping Jeff Teague or rolling with Dennis.  They chose Dennis and flipped Teague for Taurean Prince.   CORRECT MOVE.

 

• Traded their 2015 1st round pick, to acquire Tim Hardaway Jr.  Kelly Oubre Jr isn't a better talent than Hardaway Jr.  And the only possible guy picked after Oubre that has shown to be a decent player has been Josh Richardson ( GO VOLS! ).  CORRECT MOVE.

 

• Signed Bazemore to a 4yr / 70 mill deal.  If Baze played like he did last season, the deal still would be scrutinized, but not totally hated.  But this deal affected whether or not we brought Hardaway Jr back.  INCORRECT MOVE.

 

• Signed Dwight Howard to a 3yr / 70 mill deal. ( due to being dominated on the boards in the 2016 playoffs ).  They had to do something to stop the bleeding on the boards.  CORRECT MOVE

 

• Decided not to Max out Al Horford, but offer him close to the Max.  Horford is NOT a Max player, but obviously was important to team chemistry.  The Howard signing was initially an indication that they were "going for it", but the Hawks either weren't fully committed to "going for it" from a financial standpoint, or Horford was "offended" that Howard got his deal first.  In hindsight . . INCORRECT MOVE.

When people talk about "winning culture", the financial aspect goes along with it.  The "flexibility" game is really only played by losing teams, or teams who are greatly concerned about their finances.   At some point, if you REALLY want to win, you have to financially "go for it".

If it works, that's fantastic.  If it doesn't, that's OK.  Most of you would disagree, but I'd rather be "capped out" with good players on the squad, than to tank and hope for a miracle in the draft.   You can still transform your team for the better in the "capped out" mode, due to the trade of a good player for another one ( or a group of decent players ), and by acquiring players via the MLE ( if you're not in the Luxury Tax ).

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, deester11 said:

Anybody thinking Ferry was a racist was looking for a reason to have a gripe. I knew he would be a scapegoat to save face, it's the world we live in.  Inherently, it's Atlanta sports.  We can't have nice things.  

Sorry, but you can't make the comment he did, with him being in an executive position, and expect to survive.  Especially if you're in a metropolitan area full of people of African descent ( whether they be African-American, or immigrants from Africa )  

Put it like this.  If anyone Black ( or specifically a person with 1st generation African heritage ) would've been on that conference call, he WOULD NOT have made that statement.  That was Gearon Jr's issue with the statement he made.

Not to completely re-hash all of this, but let's have some context here.

Ferry's comment about Deng, from Gearon Jr's letter:

During the call, which we recorded so that notes could be made for our partners unable to participate live, our GM Danny Ferry discussed player personnel issues at some length. With respect to one potential free agent, a highly-regarded African-American player and humanitarian, Ferry talked about the player’s good points, and then on to describe his negatives, stating that “he has a little African in him. Not in a bad way, but he’s like a guy who would have a nice store out front but sell you counterfeit stuff out the back.” Ferry completed the racial slur by describing the player (and impliedly, all persons of African descent) as a two-faced liar and cheat.

We believe these comments by Ferry were far worse than Sterling’s because they were not from a private personal conversation—they were in a business environment on a business matter in front of a dozen or more people. If Ferry would make such a slur in a semi-public forum, we can only imagine what he has said in smaller groups or to individuals. We also note that the racial diversity of our management team has changed for the worse since Ferry took over. The media (and any savvy lawyer) would have a field day with that fact.

***************

Yes, Ferry did not write the negative comment about Deng.  But it's the equivalent of telling a racial joke, and saying "no offense", before or after telling the joke.  All Ferry had to say, was that Deng has a perception by some, of being dishonest, or going back on his word at times.   He STILL may have caught some flack for that, but that's at least a statement that doesn't have any racial connotation to it.   

Imagine a similar comment being said about a woman seeking an executive position in the Hawks organization. 

"She has a little "woman" in her.   Not in a bad way, but she’s like a girl who would make great decisions 90% of the time.  But she may be too emotional to make correct decisions 10% of the time, when that "that time of the month" came around.

Would Ferry survive, if he made a comment like that?

That is the litmus test when you're an executive or the boss.  If you can't say something that you can't say in front of everyone, especially when you're talking about employment, it's best to keep it to yourself.  Instead, Ferry used some ridiculous analogy to describe a player who is one of the better human beings in the league.

 

[parfait]

4 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Sorry, but you can't make the comment he did, with him being in an executive position, and expect to survive.  Especially if you're in a metropolitan area full of people of African descent ( whether they be African-American, or immigrants from Africa )  

Put it like this.  If anyone Black ( or specifically a person with 1st generation African heritage ) would've been on that conference call, he WOULD NOT have made that statement.  That was Gearon Jr's issue with the statement he made.

Not to completely re-hash all of this, but let's have some context here.

Ferry's comment about Deng, from Gearon Jr's letter:

During the call, which we recorded so that notes could be made for our partners unable to participate live, our GM Danny Ferry discussed player personnel issues at some length. With respect to one potential free agent, a highly-regarded African-American player and humanitarian, Ferry talked about the player’s good points, and then on to describe his negatives, stating that “he has a little African in him. Not in a bad way, but he’s like a guy who would have a nice store out front but sell you counterfeit stuff out the back.” Ferry completed the racial slur by describing the player (and impliedly, all persons of African descent) as a two-faced liar and cheat.

We believe these comments by Ferry were far worse than Sterling’s because they were not from a private personal conversation—they were in a business environment on a business matter in front of a dozen or more people. If Ferry would make such a slur in a semi-public forum, we can only imagine what he has said in smaller groups or to individuals. We also note that the racial diversity of our management team has changed for the worse since Ferry took over. The media (and any savvy lawyer) would have a field day with that fact.

***************

Yes, Ferry did not write the negative comment about Deng.  But it's the equivalent of telling a racial joke, and saying "no offense", before or after telling the joke.  All Ferry had to say, was that Deng has a perception by some, of being dishonest, or going back on his word at times.   He STILL may have caught some flack for that, but that's at least a statement that doesn't have any racial connotation to it.   

Imagine a similar comment being said about a woman seeking an executive position in the Hawks organization. 

"She has a little "woman" in her.   Not in a bad way, but she’s like a girl who would make great decisions 90% of the time.  But she may be too emotional to make correct decisions 10% of the time, when that "that time of the month" came around.

Would Ferry survive, if he made a comment like that?

That is the litmus test when you're an executive or the boss.  If you can't say something that you can't say in front of everyone, especially when you're talking about employment, it's best to keep it to yourself.  Instead, Ferry used some ridiculous analogy to describe a player who is one of the better human beings in the league.

 

Great post TheNorthCydeRises. I think that this very important point has been lost amidst the "Ferry got screwed" argument. Professional decorum would have dictated that the reader of that statement either self edit it, or preface it with, "My God, this next scouting report is incredibly racist." Instead, he simply read it, and then compounded the transgression by trying to translate it. This was a clear HR violation. And when you have very few allies in the organization, you'd better be a model of decorum. Ferry, by multiple accounts, was not.

[CBAreject]

I get your points @TheNorthCydeRises and @parfait   

I just have a few remarks:

1) I don’t see what difference the substitution of gender for race/ethnicity makes in northcyde’s example.  The implication is that sexism matters to people but not racism, which I think is a faulty assumption and why the example will fall flat.  Both of them matter very much to me and to most people.  But reading a racist or sexist comment in a forum where full disclosure of sourced comments was expected would not suggest to me that the reader, himself, was a bigot, only the source.

2) it is NOT the equivalent of telling a racist joke, even if the teller heard it elsewhere.  That would be a clear indication that the teller was racist or at least racially insensitive.  It would be more like quoting the teller of a racist joke in a legal deposition where it isn’t seen as an endorsement of the joke.  Is everyone at ESPN who wrote about Donald Sterling’s comments a racist for reporting them?

3) Even if one argues that in reading verbatim quotes (which apparently was the expectation of him), Ferry should have paraphrased this one in particular, and in not doing so, he exercised poor judgment or a lapse in “professional decorum”, how does it follow that he should then have his career ended as a result?  And please don’t respond with “you can’t expect to do that and survive”, because that much is apparent.  We live in a world in which a lapse in judgment will unleash an intolerant Twitter mob that will call for your head.  That doesn’t mean you or I have to be part of it.  I prefer a world of grace, forgiveness, and second chances.  I genuinely hope that none of us is ever up against that.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by CBAreject

[deester11]

7 hours ago, parfait said:

Great post TheNorthCydeRises. I think that this very important point has been lost amidst the "Ferry got screwed" argument. Professional decorum would have dictated that the reader of that statement either self edit it, or preface it with, "My God, this next scouting report is incredibly racist." Instead, he simply read it, and then compounded the transgression by trying to translate it. This was a clear HR violation. And when you have very few allies in the organization, you'd better be a model of decorum. Ferry, by multiple accounts, was not.

This post sums it up.  Inherently, I don't think he is /was a racist.  I do think the sensitivity around it was means to a quick exit.  Give people who hate you ammunition and that's all it takes.  I do think that Bud the GM was a disaster however.  These things can only happen in Atlanta.

[AHF]

Gearon used the incident to humiliate Ferry and the team as a selfish power play because he wanted the GM to answer to him as a minor it owner.  Shades of Belkin.  If you have listened to the tape you can tell he wasn't offended.  It was just ammunition and leverage to try to regain his former quasi GM power.

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, Jungle Jack said:

I actually agree with you on the whole.  San Antonio is utterly the model which for a time we ascribed to and it is difficult to see the direction we are going to take from here.  That said, the Spurs built much of their dynasty on getting Duncan after Robinson going down. 

Relative to the Spurs, I think getting Duncan is largely overstated and what's understated is how they filled the team around him.  Tony Parker was a late 1st round pick.  Manu Ginobili was drafted at the end of the 2nd round.  Kawhi Leonard was a mid 1st round pick that they traded to get.  The Spurs were down for one year due to an injury to a generational talent.  They didn't tank no matter how hard some on here try to convince you of that.  They added Duncan to a team that was already great.  

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Relative to the Spurs, I think getting Duncan is largely overstated   They added Duncan to a team that was already great.  

LOL!!!! Worst record in the league is considered great??  You continue to out do yourself dude!  Keep up the great work!

[KB21]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

LOL!!!! Worse record in the league is considered great??  You continue to out do yourself dude!  Keep up the great work!

Yeah.  That would have been a terrible team with a healthy David Robinson and Sean Elliott.

[Peoriabird]

10 hours ago, KB21 said:

Yeah.  That would have been a terrible team with a healthy David Robinson and Sean Elliott.

I think the Bulls without Jordan going to the conference final would disagree with the term you used to describe the Spurs without Robinson...Great teams don't end up with the worse record in the league because their best player is injured.

[KB21]

22 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I think the Bulls without Jordon going to the conference final would disagree with the term you used to describe the Spurs without Robinson...Great teams don't end up with the worse record in the league because their best player is injured.

When that player is with 30 wins and another 10 win player is injured, yes it does.  That was a 55 plus win team when healthy, but I’m sure you think the Hawks can win 55 plus this year with what they have on the roster.  

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

When that player is with 30 wins and another 10 win player is injured, yes it does. 

Can you translate this for me?

[AHF]

9 hours ago, KB21 said:

No one is ever going to get me to buy into the idea that because we aren't a LA or NY sized media market that we have no choice but to intentionally lose.  SA is a smaller market than Atlanta, and they don't tank.

They did tank.  They got Duncan throwing in the towel, keeping players out and looking to add a piece.  Then they struck gold.  Had their coach gone to the league and admitted they saw a lost season and just shelved the idea of really trying to win they would have been in the same jeopardy as the Hawks which is why no team would trust a coach who would sell them out.  They tanked just like Memphis this year - injuries hit and they sold out the rest of the season for a lottery pick.  All teams have skeletons to hide as far as seasons where they stopped competing to intentionally rack up losses and get a pick.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

They did tank.  They got Duncan throwing in the towel, keeping players out and looking to add a piece.  Then they struck gold.  Had their coach gone to the league and admitted they saw a lost season and just shelved the idea of really trying to win they would have been in the same jeopardy as the Hawks which is why no team would trust a coach who would sell them out.  They tanked just like Memphis this year - injuries hit and they sold out the rest of the season for a lottery pick.  All teams have skeletons to hide as far as seasons where they stopped competing to intentionally rack up losses and get a pick.

No, they didn't.  They did not get rid of every good player they had and play with G League level players.  They were bad because they were injured.