Ask Supes

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Three years? We are literally on year 2.

Exactly.

Pierce is a year and a half into a head coaching gig, same as Trae into his NBA career. They are apart of the rebuild. They were not apart of the tear down under Coach Bud.

 

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Exactly.

Pierce is a year and a half into a head coaching gig, same as Trae into his NBA career. They are apart of the rebuild. They were not apart of the tear down under Coach Bud.

 

So we are going to act like the 24 win season didn’t actually happen?

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So we are going to act like the 24 win season didn’t actually happen?

Was Pierce coaching that team. Yes or No.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Was Pierce coaching that team. Yes or No.

Schlenk was the GM, and that was the season he decided to foolishly tank.

This is year three of losing, and like I told you when this started, it will be five years before the team is competitive again.  We are already in year three, and the team is not competitive.

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, KB21 said:

Schlenk was the GM, and that was the season he decided to foolishly tank.

This is year three of losing, and like I told you when this started, it will be five years before the team is competitive again.  We are already in year three, and the team is not competitive.

How long has Lloyd Pierce and Trae Young been on the team?

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

How long has Lloyd Pierce and Trae Young been on the team?

Doesn’t matter.  The losing from the 17-18 season counts.

[AHF]

27 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Schlenk was the GM, and that was the season he decided to foolishly tank.

This is year three of losing, and like I told you when this started, it will be five years before the team is competitive again.  We are already in year three, and the team is not competitive.

How do you define "competitive"?  Just want to make sure I understand how Bud's theoretical 2017-18 team (i.e., the team he would have had after the actual 2016-17 season if we stuck with him as President and kept trying to make the playoffs) that we both agree very likely would have been in the lottery and the next two years Hawks teams will either meet or not meet this definition.

[Thomas]

Still waiting on that "yes or no" answer. Eternity waits no doubt.

[KB21]

55 minutes ago, AHF said:

How do you define "competitive"?  Just want to make sure I understand how Bud's theoretical 2017-18 team (i.e., the team he would have had after the actual 2016-17 season if we stuck with him as President and kept trying to make the playoffs) that we both agree very likely would have been in the lottery and the next two years Hawks teams will either meet or not meet this definition.

Competitive = trying to win and making moves with winning in mind.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Competitive = trying to win and making moves with winning in mind.

I think your goal will be met next year.  We don't even need to wait and see if they win any.  As long as they try and make some moves with winning in mind, the definition will be met.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I think your goal will be met next year.  We don't even need to wait and see if they win any.  As long as they try and make some moves with winning in mind, the definition will be met.

That should have been the goal the entire time.  Next year is year 4, so they better actually do more than just try to win.  They better actually win.

I’m not holding my breath that Travis will make moves that will move the needle enough to get this team in the playoff mix in year 4 though.

[NBASupes]

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Competitive = trying to win and making moves with winning in mind.

Have you been paying attention to the direction we are going in. We about to do that. In fact we got Jeff here now. 

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Have you been paying attention to the direction we are going in. We about to do that. In fact we got Jeff here now. 

I have been paying attention, and what I see is an unwillingness to give up draft picks for players that will help make this team better.  

[Plainview1981]

6 hours ago, AHF said:

At their peak, they still didn't win a game beyond the second round of the playoffs.  After that, Ferry faced a huge challenge trying to keep the team at that level and couldn't do it.  I didn't think removing Ferry was the right thing to do on multiple levels so I view that as a mistake.  At that point, he could have continued to build from that base by making smart trades and decisions and tearing down then would have been a mistake.  Instead, Bud got put in and the roster degraded - notably missing windows to "rebuild on the fly" by dealing Horford and Sap for real value before they left. 

By the time Schlenk wiped the slate clean and started over, the team we had was build around a rotten foundation so tearing down made sense.  Tanking has worked very well in multiple sports and most champions have been built around players drafted after woeful lottery teams even where they did not tear it down deliberately but instead organically sucked enough to be in position to add that MVP-level impact player.  (E.g., Spurs opportunistically kept their guys benched / recovering and tanked for Duncan, Chicago sucked to draft MJ, Houston sucked to draft Hakeem, Miami sucked to draft Wade and then recruited FA LeBron, Cleveland tanked to make the roster attractive to recruit LeBron, GS sucked to draft their core and then recruited Durant, etc.)  The Lakers with their ability to acquire guys like Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, etc. are the franchise that most defies the historical trends of NBA champions.

The current team that exemplifies successfully building from the middle is the Houston Rockets.  While they are still waiting to make the finals, they have been contenders to make them for several years after never going deep into the lottery.

Sure, Ferry got fired undeservedly, but it’s very hard to see how he would have put together a better team that could have beat Lebron. 

By the time the playoffs rolled around they didn’t look that good against the Nets or the Wizards in that playoff run.

Getting to the 3rd round and having such an embarrassing performance really isn’t that much better than losing a competitive 2nd round series.

It’s not until the 3rd round that the contenders start to be revealed.

I view the 60 win season as if it were a less successful 98 Falcons. A team full of vets that for one year did better than expected as a team.

[AHF]

21 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That should have been the goal the entire time.  Next year is year 4, so they better actually do more than just try to win.  They better actually win.

I’m not holding my breath that Travis will make moves that will move the needle enough to get this team in the playoff mix in year 4 though.

Your definition of "competitive" is what you said above.  You can complain about them not winning just like someone could have done that with Bud but you will need to acknowledge them as being competitive regardless of record...if they try to win and make moves with winning in mind.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, Plainview1981 said:

Sure, Ferry got fired undeservedly, but it’s very hard to see how he would have put together a better team that could have beat Lebron. 

By the time the playoffs rolled around they didn’t look that good against the Nets or the Wizards in that playoff run.

Getting to the 3rd round and having such an embarrassing performance really isn’t that much better than losing a competitive 2nd round series.

It’s not until the 3rd round that the contenders start to be revealed.

I view the 60 win season as if it were a less successful 98 Falcons. A team full of vets that for one year did better than expected as a team.

Unfortunately, we left that season still never having won a game past the second round in the Hawks' time in Atlanta.  I don't think your view on the team is unfair.  I do question whether Ferry could have put anything together that could have beat LeBron.  But I know I would much rather have seen his attempt at it than what we watched from Budcox.  Ferry let guys walk rather than overpay - he wouldn't have re-upped Baze at that price.  He traded guys who were going to get overpaid to get some value - I think he would have dealt Horford and/or Sap.  Now would that have been enough to beat LeBron?  Probably not but would have been more interesting.

By the time Budcox walked away, the team was a shell of where it was under Ferry.  An overpaid roster of mediocre players facing the decision to show creativity and resourcefulness that Budcox never showed, absolutely miss the playoffs by allowing some of the overpaid players to walk or being forced to pay through the nose to bring back the vets (here the key vets were Dennis, THJr and Sap).    

[Watchman]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

How long has Lloyd Pierce and Trae Young been on the team?

Why are we basing the time frame on Pierce/Trae?  They are not the architects behind the tank.  Schlenk is.  This is the third year.

[NekiEcko]

48 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I have been paying attention, and what I see is an unwillingness to give up draft picks for players that will help make this team better.  

Well, we still have a couple of weeks before the trade deadline and that might change but I am on board on the patience mode because this year FA is not good but next years is going to be the best in a long time. so I think that we keep all of pieces until a player that can tilt the scales will come and then we pounce.

[Vol4ever]

Hawks have three glaring weaknesses.

1.  Center

2.  Shooter

3.  Head Coach

[KB21]

Which Bud assistant should we hire to replace PIerce?