This is a very important time - - -

[JayBirdHawk]

47 minutes ago, hazer said:

2017-18 was Schlenk/Collins, Korver/Sap/Thabo/Hardaway/Scott we’re shipped out, Year 1

I call that the tear down.  The rebuild started with our very own lottery pick in 10 years.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, enrique said:

I appreciate the fact that we all want to win games. I think the threshold of how much potential talent do you jettison for a more proven talent is different for each person. Then we have to compare the ceiling of the newly constructed team with the ceiling of the team before the trade. It is not a guaranteed deal either way. 

If we believe our existing team (due to contractual obligations, age, and general demeanor) is at its highest peak, then we need to do anything possible to win now...even if that means we reduce the future in the process. I personally believe we are in the opposite spot. I think if we jettison the future so that we win 6-7 more games this season, we have been sadly short-sighted and will need to be in another rebuild shortly afterwards. 

The Highlighted statement is both true and vague.   It requires a determination of the highest peak.  Unfortunately, there are many who would keep taking stabs at the lottery indefinitely until a bunch of young players proved that they could win.   That seems to be the plan that most here subscribe to.  The problem with that is that team building requires winning at the right time regardless of if you're at the peak of your potential or not.   The work of the GM is not to make the best draft picks only.  The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

Right now we have:

Trae, Huerta, Bembry, JC, Hunter, Reddish, and Bruno.   That's a starting 5 and 2 bench players of very good potential.  For JC.. he's progressed to a point where he could be in the all star talk this year.  SO the question is why not put us on a path to winning? For those proponents of us not trying to win and make the playoffs, my question for you is what exactly are we waiting on?  I think now is the time for us to show some progress. 

As I look at Philly and Denver... both of those teams are younger than ours.  Both of those teams will be in the playoffs and Both of those teams will challenge very deeply into the playoffs.  I doubt you would hear anybody around those teams saying... "It's Ok if we don't make the playoffs." .

 

 

[High5]

23 minutes ago, Diesel said:

The Highlighted statement is both true and vague.   It requires a determination of the highest peak.  Unfortunately, there are many who would keep taking stabs at the lottery indefinitely until a bunch of young players proved that they could win.   That seems to be the plan that most here subscribe to.  The problem with that is that team building requires winning at the right time regardless of if you're at the peak of your potential or not.   The work of the GM is not to make the best draft picks only.  The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

Right now we have:

Trae, Huerta, Bembry, JC, Hunter, Reddish, and Bruno.   That's a starting 5 and 2 bench players of very good potential.  For JC.. he's progressed to a point where he could be in the all star talk this year.  SO the question is why not put us on a path to winning? For those proponents of us not trying to win and make the playoffs, my question for you is what exactly are we waiting on?  I think now is the time for us to show some progress. 

As I look at Philly and Denver... both of those teams are younger than ours.  Both of those teams will be in the playoffs and Both of those teams will challenge very deeply into the playoffs.  I doubt you would hear anybody around those teams saying... "It's Ok if we don't make the playoffs." .

 

 

Please explain how Denver and Philly are younger than us since you obviously aren't using human years. 

[Vol4ever]

27 minutes ago, Diesel said:

The Highlighted statement is both true and vague.   It requires a determination of the highest peak.  Unfortunately, there are many who would keep taking stabs at the lottery indefinitely until a bunch of young players proved that they could win.   That seems to be the plan that most here subscribe to.  The problem with that is that team building requires winning at the right time regardless of if you're at the peak of your potential or not.   The work of the GM is not to make the best draft picks only.  The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

Right now we have:

Trae, Huerta, Bembry, JC, Hunter, Reddish, and Bruno.   That's a starting 5 and 2 bench players of very good potential.  For JC.. he's progressed to a point where he could be in the all star talk this year.  SO the question is why not put us on a path to winning? For those proponents of us not trying to win and make the playoffs, my question for you is what exactly are we waiting on?  I think now is the time for us to show some progress. 

As I look at Philly and Denver... both of those teams are younger than ours.  Both of those teams will be in the playoffs and Both of those teams will challenge very deeply into the playoffs.  I doubt you would hear anybody around those teams saying... "It's Ok if we don't make the playoffs." .

 

 

Diesel you always provide good insight to offset all the rose colored posts we have.  It's fine to cheer our team on and hope our players do well.  Schlenks has drafted well and we have some framework but the NO bs game and explanation by the coach is really bothersome.  It tells me we are not worried about competing once again this year.  At some poi t like you say bringing in that one or two player that can really make us contenders will be challenging.  

Go Hawks

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

The Highlighted statement is both true and vague.   It requires a determination of the highest peak.  Unfortunately, there are many who would keep taking stabs at the lottery indefinitely until a bunch of young players proved that they could win.   That seems to be the plan that most here subscribe to.  The problem with that is that team building requires winning at the right time regardless of if you're at the peak of your potential or not.   The work of the GM is not to make the best draft picks only.  The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

Right now we have:

Trae, Huerta, Bembry, JC, Hunter, Reddish, and Bruno.   That's a starting 5 and 2 bench players of very good potential.  For JC.. he's progressed to a point where he could be in the all star talk this year.  SO the question is why not put us on a path to winning? For those proponents of us not trying to win and make the playoffs, my question for you is what exactly are we waiting on?  I think now is the time for us to show some progress. 

As I look at Philly and Denver... both of those teams are younger than ours.  Both of those teams will be in the playoffs and Both of those teams will challenge very deeply into the playoffs.  I doubt you would hear anybody around those teams saying... "It's Ok if we don't make the playoffs." .

 

 

Very good post other than the Philly/Denver comment!

 

2 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

  Schlenks has drafted well and we have some framework but the NO bs game and explanation by the coach is really bothersome.  It tells me we are not worried about competing once again this year.  At some poi t like you say bringing in that one or two player that can really make us contenders will be challenging.  

Go Hawks

I couldn't agree more with that criticism.  I'll add to the criticism  that this experimentation with the line ups with 2 weeks left to get ready for a regular season game is puzzling and not helpful.  You should already know the strengths and weakness of each player...You see them everyday in practice. Watched hours of film of them in competition.  There should already be a plan in place as to who to best utilize each and every player already.  We should be fine tuning our offensive and defensive sets not just throwing players together and after they turn the ball over 28 times a night say its O.K. cause we are in experiment mode.

[NBASupes]

Philly and Denver aren't younger than us in terms of key contributions. We might be the youngest by a mile.

[enrique]

5 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Philly and Denver aren't younger than us in terms of key contributions. We might be the youngest by a mile.

Exactly!

[Peoriabird]

I noticed that you guys ignored the fist of his post

[NBASupes]

16 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I noticed that you guys ignored the fist of his post

Not really. 

 

 

 

1

Quote

 The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

The bolded was good. The other is shit. The shit part is why I just moved from his point in general. 

Here is right about several things: 

TS job is team building

He is right about potential stars with vets. 

He is right about the right mix of potential and vet play. 

Here is right about that. 

 

Where he is completely wrong at: 

You don't trade players with LEGIT potential for vets unless the vet is a game-changer. 

 

Let's look at the best build home grow squads that have been Golden State and Denver in the last 10 years. 

Each of them maintains their young assets and refused to trade them unless it didn't work (Mudiay and D. Jones)

Both only made moves with draft assets and cap space (Iggy and Millsap)

 

That's how you build your team. You NEVER trade legit potential unless it's for a game-changer. Harrison Barnes who had legit potential was traded so they can land Kevin Durant. Legit game changer. 

It's that simple. 

[NBASupes]

Young players on who are higher-end you add in for trades are guys like Alex Len, Bembry, Jabari Parker, Damian Jones, etc. You do not trade legit potential at all. The worst thing you can do is trade legit potential. 

 

Why? 

1. Financially controllable. 

2. Growing leaps and bounds.

3. Higher ceiling. 

4. You put major investments into them. 

 

Look at the cost for Prince. He was a legit potential player that was traded who didn't fit nor was he from TS era. He came from BudCox. Look at the cost for Brooklyn. It was significant. 

 

We have a lot of ways to add vet talent due to our draft assets and vet contracts which are favorable for trades. If we want to make a deal, we got options. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by NBASupes

[terrell]

7 hours ago, Diesel said:

Progress my friend. 

The NBA is about winning.   Winning is what brings in FAs and winning is what makes your players want to stay. 

We can develop stars.  However, if Stars don't think we're trying to win or contend for anything they will be asking to be traded.   What happens if JC says... please trade me because I want to be on a winner or at least a team whoose mission is more than winning the lottery. 

Don't be Naive.... Our Guys are watching Guys like Philadelphia, Toronto, Dallas, and Denver.  They see teams that are just as young as they but these teams are progressing. 

Philly/Toronto/DEnver isnt as young as we are..As far as the main core..And Dallas is progressing? How so? THey look like the same ole Mavs so far..

[JayBirdHawk]

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

The Highlighted statement is both true and vague.   It requires a determination of the highest peak.  Unfortunately, there are many who would keep taking stabs at the lottery indefinitely until a bunch of young players proved that they could win.   That seems to be the plan that most here subscribe to.  The problem with that is that team building requires winning at the right time regardless of if you're at the peak of your potential or not.   The work of the GM is not to make the best draft picks only.  The work of the GM is team building.  At some point, a GM has to take what he has, note it's potential and then surround the potential stars with some vets that can move them forward.  In some cases, that means moving potential for players who are vets that fill a need.   Having potential rely on potential is like trying to play basketball in the dark.  Sure, we have great potential, but without the right mix of potential and vet play, they will never be ready to win and we'll always be waiting for said player to reach their peak.

Right now we have:

Trae, Huerta, Bembry, JC, Hunter, Reddish, and Bruno.   That's a starting 5 and 2 bench players of very good potential.  For JC.. he's progressed to a point where he could be in the all star talk this year.  SO the question is why not put us on a path to winning? For those proponents of us not trying to win and make the playoffs, my question for you is what exactly are we waiting on?  I think now is the time for us to show some progress. 

As I look at Philly and Denver... both of those teams are younger than ours.  Both of those teams will be in the playoffs and Both of those teams will challenge very deeply into the playoffs.  I doubt you would hear anybody around those teams saying... "It's Ok if we don't make the playoffs." .

 

 

I get what you are saying for the most part...but we have seen Trae and Huerter play for 1 year.

Hunter, Reddish, Bruno has not played one meaningful NBA minute.

That is 5 of the 7 potential.

I don't see how we are ready to 'trade potential for vets'  THIS year to move forward. The only 'vets' that would get us closer to championship this season is a player of Giannis' ilk.

 

Regarding Denver and Philly - the young core of their teams have been in the NBA 4+ years, they have been in the playoffs at least the last 2 years - so I don't get the comparison to the Hawks at all. They made trades and signed FAs when their young cores showed they could win. Which by the way is exactly what Schlenk has said.

At least give the core foundation pieces a chance to establish themselves.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

6 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

Diesel you always provide good insight to offset all the rose colored posts we have.  It's fine to cheer our team on and hope our players do well.  Schlenks has drafted well and we have some framework but the NO bs game and explanation by the coach is really bothersome.  It tells me we are not worried about competing once again this year.  At some poi t like you say bringing in that one or two player that can really make us contenders will be challenging.  

Go Hawks

The NO games was a BS game and I take no issue with the approach. It was about just rolling the ball out and playing to get the jitters and anxiousness out. I've actually heard several coaches referenced that for the 1st preseason game they did not scout the other team, it's more common than you seem to think.

Question: Did you see a different approach to game #2?

4 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Very good post other than the Philly/Denver comment!

 

I couldn't agree more with that criticism.  I'll add to the criticism  that this experimentation with the line ups with 2 weeks left to get ready for a regular season game is puzzling and not helpful.  You should already know the strengths and weakness of each player...You see them everyday in practice. Watched hours of film of them in competition.  There should already be a plan in place as to who to best utilize each and every player already.  We should be fine tuning our offensive and defensive sets not just throwing players together and after they turn the ball over 28 times a night say its O.K. cause we are in experiment mode.

That's just unrealistic. Training camp started Oct 1st.  And even if he knew the strength and weaknesses of each player there is still the concept of fitting it all together in an actual game concept. That doesn't hapoen over night. 

You don't have a finely tuned machine in 10 days of training camp particularly when only 6 players are returning and a bunch of new guys with the core of the new guys having played not one NBA minute.

Regarding TOs:

 

And to note (not and excuse, but)  6 of the TOs were of the traveling variety outside the 3pt line (shuffling feet). Another team had 8 a few nights ago....it seems to a point of emphasis in preseason, so it's something the players and coaches will have to get used to.

[gurpilo]

I think we have a good young core in Young, Huerter, Reddish, Hunter, Collins and even Fernando. I think we are far from winning and our first and only priority is to develop them and see what we have. If I am Schlenk I would be looking to give 30 min to all of them this season and see what we have, that would be my priority, even at the cost of some wins. If the team is capable to make the playoffs... Hey perhaps we have something special... If the team loose that would be what you can expect on 95% of the situations, we will use the season to develop and evaluate these players and we will complete the team through the draft. I don't have any doubt that we will end on a better position to win a ring if we get a top 5 pick and draft Wiseman and fill the team on 2021 Free agency than if we make the playoffs now and go and overpay for a weak Free Agent class on 2020. I am fine with being at player development one more year.

 

Be patient guys

Edited October 12, 2019 by gurpilo

[hazer]

10 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I call that the tear down.  The rebuild started with our very own lottery pick in 10 years.

Ok, I’ll put it this way: this will be year 3 since they hit the reset button 🖲

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, hazer said:

Ok, I’ll put it this way: this will be year 3 since they hit the reset button 🖲

...ok, I'll take it.

[Peoriabird]

6 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Regarding TOs

And to note (not and excuse, but)  6 of the TOs were of the traveling variety outside the 3pt line (shuffling feet). Another team had 8 a few nights ago....it seems to a point of emphasis in preseason, so it's something the players and coaches will have to get used to.

New Orleans is averaging 10 fewer turnovers per game and have to abide by the same rules...Why the excuses for the hawks?

[Peoriabird]

4 hours ago, gurpilo said:

I think we have a good young core in Young, Huerter, Reddish, Hunter, Collins and even Fernando. I think we are far from winning and our first and only priority is to develop them and see what we have. If I am Schlenk I would be looking to give 30 min to all of them this season and see what we have, that would be my priority, even at the cost of some wins. If the team is capable to make the playoffs... Hey perhaps we have something special... If the team loose that would be what you can expect on 95% of the situations, we will use the season to develop and evaluate these players and we will complete the team through the draft. I don't have any doubt that we will end on a better position to win a ring if we get a top 5 pick and draft Wiseman and fill the team on 2021 Free agency than if we make the playoffs now and go and overpay for a weak Free Agent class on 2020. I am fine with being at player development one more year.

 

Be patient guys

Even after what happened in this last draft, people still have the more loses = better draft pick mentality.  Wake up people.  It doesn't work like that anymore.  Plus who or what position are you targeting in next year's draft anyway?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

Even after what happened in this last draft, people still have the more loses = better draft pick mentality.  Wake up people.  It doesn't work like that anymore.  Plus who or what position are you targeting in next year's draft anyway?

[NBASupes]

2 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

New Orleans is averaging 10 fewer turnovers per game and have to abide by the same rules...Why the excuses for the hawks?

As someone who watched every New Orleans game. They are clearly running a system and trying to play to their strengths. We haven't done that in our first two games. The focus is just taking good shots, take Hawks shots and play defense. We really aren't running any plays. New Orleans is.