The Tank Thread

[BrazilianHawk]

3 minutes ago, hazer said:

Did what, not win a single game past the 2nd round since 1958? WOOP!!!

Well I guess it's better than to win 10 or 12 games the entire season. Or do you still think they'll win all of 32 games?

 

Like it or not, that was the best Atlanta Hawks ever. And it was built by Ferry's cunning. Facts are facts.

[hazer]

4 minutes ago, BrazilianHawk said:

They did it, right? That's what matters to me. That was the best Atlanta Hawks ever, and yes, they got swept by the better team.

But the fact is they still did it.

“Doing it” for me is getting to the ECFs on a regular basis, winning some games there, being in contention to make the Finals, actually making it to Finals, being in contention for a Championship while there, and winning a Championship. Not getting swept in the ECFs the 1 year you made it there in almost 50 years.

[nathan2331]

Now that's funny. You are content with being awful for years and criticize the ones who are OK with "mediocrity"? So if you don't win it all you are mediocre? What about the team that loses it all?

 

First, its not gonna take years. Look at the standings, the Pistons are 2nd and the Magic are 3rd. They are not good teams. Others like the Raptors or Wizards will play better eventually, but they are not contenders. The only two contenders right now are the Cavs and Celtics. And we know Lebron won't be Lebron forever. We've got 3 pieces, and we'll have a chance to add at least 1 more in the draft. Give us a bit more time and we can compete with the Celtics within a couple of seasons.

 

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

 

 

[StephenHawking]

vor 10 Minuten, BrazilianHawk sagte:

The point is, you can get rid of players that doesn't fit (Howard, should've gotten more for him) and that aren't worth their offers (Timmy Jr.) and keep adding pieces to fill those holes, via draft or whatever.

You don't need to suck to be good. That's the point. And please don't pretend the Hawks didn't reach the ECF, or the second round of the playoffs time and time again.

You'r partially right. BUT, and that's what you dont want to see, wilcox buried us into mediocrity. We had no choice but to tank to get back to being relevant

[hazer]

16 minutes ago, BrazilianHawk said:

Well I guess it's better than to win 10 or 12 games the entire season. Or do you still think they'll win all of 32 games?

 

Like it or not, that was the best Atlanta Hawks ever. And it was built by Ferry's cunning. Facts are facts.

Hawks will win more than 11 games, but less than 32, so you can hold up on that laughter. 27 was the low end of my predicted range, and now I’m hopeful and confident they don’t even reach that. That was the best Hawks team since the ‘58 Champs , but add up those starting salaries now and tell me how you keep that band together. It’s time for a new “best Atlanta Hawks ever”, because that one was just not good enough or sustainable.

Edited November 13, 2017 by hazer

[KB21]

22 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

We could do that really easily if we wanted to. What good would that be? The Magic are 7-5 and 3rd in the East right now? Is that what you want for us? The rebuild should've started two years ago, but I'd rather start now than waste another two seasons hoping Lebron misses the playoffs or our franchise savior walks through the door. Being good got us nowhere but a sweep in the ECFs. It's time to learn from our mistakes, lose some games and get these draft picks right.

 

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

 

 

So, it's better to suck and hope that a franchise savior walks through the door than it is to actually win games and hope a franchise savior walks through the door?  

The difference is, I'm not hoping for a franchise savior.  I just want to see good team oriented, fundamentally sound basketball and could care less for the flash.  More importantly, I want to continue the winning culture that has been built in Atlanta.  You are right in that it is time to learn from our mistakes as well as the mistakes other organizations have made.  If we had paid attention, we would have seen that tanking does not work, but we didn't.  Instead, we have decided to take the route that takes the longest to actually build up something.

[nathan2331]

So, it's better to suck and hope that a franchise savior walks through the door than it is to actually win games and hope a franchise savior walks through the door?  

The difference is, I'm not hoping for a franchise savior.  I just want to see good team oriented, fundamentally sound basketball and could care less for the flash.  More importantly, I want to continue the winning culture that has been built in Atlanta.  You are right in that it is time to learn from our mistakes as well as the mistakes other organizations have made.  If we had paid attention, we would have seen that tanking does not work, but we didn't.  Instead, we have decided to take the route that takes the longest to actually build up something.

Look, we messed up years ago by signing Millsap and Carroll to two-year contracts instead of three. That success we had isn't coming back. Keeping last year's team together would've done nothing for us this year. Might as well get a high pick to potentially build around rather then stay put and do nothing. The Sixers didn't work out because of their draft picks weren't on the floor and they drafted the same position 3 times. Like I said, if we really wanted to, we could make some moves and get into the playoffs.

 

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

 

 

[StephenHawking]

It's really not that difficult to understand. Most of us would prefer a simple rebuild to a tank job. But the situation we were in after last season made it impossible to rebuild. The only option left was to tank.

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, StephenHawking said:

It's really not that difficult to understand. Most of us would prefer a simple rebuild to a tank job. But the situation we were in after last season made it impossible to rebuild. The only option left was to tank.

That is simply a false statement.  

[StephenHawking]

vor 5 Minuten, KB21 sagte:

That is simply a false statement.  

Keep it coming

[AHF]

2 hours ago, BrazilianHawk said:

 I just think it's more likely to be one of the good teams that drafted that Giannis guy (hey, it could have been us, right?) than the one that drafted KAT.

Nope.  Our record was mediocre but high enough that we couldn't have drafted him.  He wasn't on the board when we drafted.  Neither was Kawhi.  The non-lottery unicorns are great if you can get them but they are much rarer than the lottery and you still have to be on the board when the player is available to be picked.

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That is simply a false statement.  

I do agree with this.  You always have a range of options.  The most traditionally 'Hawks' option would have been to bring back the band and hope for better results.  We could easily have brought back the gang, be capped out with a team that would win 40-48 games and have a post-season range of barely missing the playoffs to getting backhanded in the second round (most likely outcome being a first round loss).

We didn't only have one choice.  

[JTB]

I have a good question....been thinking about this all day .

 

So here’s the Scenario:

lets just say all the top 4 prospects we generally talk about the most in this thread and whom are top 4 in most mock drafts live up to the college hype, that’s would be: Porter jr., Doncic, Ayton, Bagley....and the hawks happen to luck up and get the number 1 pick.

 

So here’s the question regarding that scenario:

Who do the hawks take at number 1 if all 4 of those top college prospects live up to the hype?

do you go perimeter? Taking Porter Jr or Doncic?

or do you go big and lock up a future big in Bagley or Ayton?

 

My take:

This is something that very well could happen and unfortunately the hawks need both perimeter and paint help. Not to mention these particular four prospects all have something special about them that’s not common in your every year draft and if they all 4 happen to have good college seasons (of course for doncic that means having another good season over seas) it’d be an extremely hard pick.

its reasons like this I have always said one of the hardest jobs in today’s nba is being a gm.

[Peoriabird]

you pick the best player available!

[Lurker]

Do I really have to beat this dead horse again?

OK, I will:

The NBA postseason is the most predictable postseason around. It's not like the NFL where you can simply be piping hot and make it all the way. It's not like MLB where you see mediocrity make it to the series all the time. The stats bare it out, unless your case is one where a superstar was out for a while and then returned, if you are below #1-4 in the standings, your chance at winning a championship is relying on all of those teams having complete disasters happen, and that has a .00000001% chance at actually being a reality.

Unless you are somewhere between #1 and 4 in the standings in the NBA, you're a mediocre team in my book without the superstar injury circumstance, and maybe even worse in the Eastern Conference with that conference. Yes, I just discounted winning records. I mean it when I do so. What exactly are you establishing with multiple 40-45 win teams in a row?

(And I'm still waiting for KB21 to provide me a SPECIFIC list of teams that had several 40-45 win teams in a row and then suddenly jumped into being a consistently good to very good team. Give me that specific list or stop crowing about how "All of the very good teams start out at 40-45 win teams and then make a big jump!!!!!!!!")

The Boston Celtics do not count. They rebuilt/tanked for a year, no matter how much KB21 wants to deny it. In fact, they even made him mad by getting ultimate AAU crybaby, Kyrie Irving. ;))

Like I said, give me that list, or you're 100% FOS. Not stats, a LIST.

[StephenHawking]

vor 2 Stunden, AHF sagte:

I do agree with this.  You always have a range of options.  The most traditionally 'Hawks' option would have been to bring back the band and hope for better results.  We could easily have brought back the gang, be capped out with a team that would win 40-48 games and have a post-season range of barely missing the playoffs to getting backhanded in the second round (most likely outcome being a first round loss).

We didn't only have one choice.  

OK but that simply wouldn't fulfill their claim of getting better until you are a championship team. Sure it's an option but not if you want to get better. You can get better through trading assets or the draft. We had not one asset this offseason. Not one. Thats why the end of the story is we had no chance to get better while avoiding the tank. We had no options. Period.

[Packfill]

3 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

First, its not gonna take years. Look at the standings, the Pistons are 2nd and the Magic are 3rd. They are not good teams. Others like the Raptors or Wizards will play better eventually, but they are not contenders. The only two contenders right now are the Cavs and Celtics. And we know Lebron won't be Lebron forever. We've got 3 pieces, and we'll have a chance to add at least 1 more in the draft. Give us a bit more time and we can compete with the Celtics within a couple of seasons.

 

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

 

 

Every team in the league has 3 pieces if you think the Hawks have three pieces. 

Look at it this way, our three pieces are Dennis (age 24), Prince (23) and Collins (20), Boston has three pieces in Kyrie (25), Brown (21) and Tatum (19) which are collectively better.  All that does not even take into account the fact that they have guys like Horford and Hayward, two all-star caliber veterans, and a host of other guys like Smart, Rozier and Morris.

 

[StephenHawking]

vor 7 Minuten, Packfill sagte:

Every team in the league has 3 pieces if you think the Hawks have three pieces. 

Look at it this way, our three pieces are Dennis (age 24), Prince (23) and Collins (20), Boston has three pieces in Kyrie (25), Brown (21) and Tatum (19) which are collectively better.  All that does not even take into account the fact that they have guys like Horford and Hayward, two all-star caliber veterans, and a host of other guys like Smart, Rozier and Morris.

 

Although Boston sure as hell has the better roster, the jury is still out on which 3 pieces are better. Prince, Collins, Brown and Tatum are still in their first years of basketball. Also I'd like to review in the end of the season if Kyrie is the better player than Dennis. So far this season they are pretty much on par.

[KB21]

Just off the cuff here, the 1991 Chicago Bulls that won the championship averaged 48 wins a season over the four seasons prior to winning their championship.

 

The 1994 Houston Rockets averaged 46.8 wins per season in the previous 9 years prior to winning the championship.  

The 1999 San Antonio Spurs averaged 50 wins a season over the previous 8 seasons prior to winning the championship.

I can keep going on, but it will do nothing but reinforce the point that you have to actually be good before you can be great.

[BrazilianHawk]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Nope.  Our record was mediocre but high enough that we couldn't have drafted him.  He wasn't on the board when we drafted.  Neither was Kawhi.  The non-lottery unicorns are great if you can get them but they are much rarer than the lottery and you still have to be on the board when the player is available to be picked.

That is just silly. You know full well Larry Drew took him out of spite for the Hawks. Yes, it could have been us and that was one of the few mistakes Ferry did while GMing for the Hawks. He fired Larry Drew too soon.