Official Game Thread: Pelicans at Hawks

[AHF]

50 minutes ago, thecampster said:

start here:

 

 

Then maybe read here:

 

 

Include a little bit of this:

 

Stir gently and top it off with this:

 

 

He was off by a year...its been 4 years and we had to pay out big bucks in F/A to get here.  He wasn't wrong...not one bit.

KB was off with all kinds of things.  He claimed that the team would be doomed to failure because tanking inherently poisoned a team's culture and the development of the roster.  This is just a question of timeline.  He made the same claims about the Sixers.  Said they wouldn't have a winning record because they tanked when they turned the corner and had a winning record (winning 52 games so not close).  After it became clear they would have a winning record, he said that because of tanking they still would not make the playoffs and then they made the playoffs.  After they made the playoffs, he said they were an empty team because of tanking and said they not only wouldn't win their playoff series against Miami but that Miami would sweep them.  Then they beat Miami 4-1.  Now they are sitting on top of the Easter Conference despite having tanked and despite several bad decisions with the assets from tanking from subsequent GMs - they core their tanking produced is too good to get disrupted by garbage moves like trading Jayson Tatum and a lottery pick for Markelle Fultz, etc.

Now we are here with the Hawks.  He has claimed they poisoned themselves by tanking.   That they doomed themselves to long-term failure.

Like Philly when he was predicting they wouldn't have a winning record and wouldn't make the playoffs, he has a bet with met for this season where he was so sure this team would have one of the five worst records in the NBA that I don't even need the Hawks to have a winning record or even to make the playoffs to win that bet.  He stuck with the bet because he thought the team was so compromised by tanking that they would still be dismal even after we traded for Capela.

By my way of thinking, he was right that while we were tanking we would lose games and that is about it on that topic.  But that is no great feat.  Everyone on this board including the people who advocated tanking thought we would lose a ton of games while tanking.

Proof will be in the pudding this year if he is "not one bit wrong."  The 5th worst team in the league this season is winning at a 36% clip.  Over a 72 game season that means a 26 win year.

The Hawks have already won 27 games so we could go 0-21 the rest of the season and still see him be demonstrably wrong about this team and this rebuild.

 

[Atlantaholic]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

KB was off with all kinds of things.  He claimed that the team would be doomed to failure because tanking inherently poisoned a team's culture and the development of the roster.  This is just a question of timeline.  He made the same claims about the Sixers.  Said they wouldn't have a winning record because they tanked when they turned the corner and had a winning record.  After it became clear they would have a winning record, he said that because of tanking they still would not make the playoffs and then they made the playoffs.  After they made the playoffs, he said they were an empty team because of tanking and said they not only wouldn't win their playoff series against Miami but that Miami would sweep them.  Then they beat Miami 4-1.  Now they are sitting on top of the Easter Conference despite having tanked and despite several bad decisions with the assets from tanking from subsequent GMs - they core their tanking produced is too good to get disrupted by garbage moves like trading Jayson Tatum and a lottery pick for Markelle Fultz, etc.

Now we are here with the Hawks.  He has claimed they poisoned themselves by tanking.   That they doomed themselves to long-term failure.

Like Philly when he was predicting they wouldn't have a winning record and wouldn't make the playoffs, he has a bet with met for this season where he was so sure this team would have one of the five worst records in the NBA that I don't even need the Hawks to have a winning record or even to make the playoffs to win that bet.  He stuck with the bet because he thought the team was so compromised by tanking that they would still be dismal even after we traded for Capela.

By my way of thinking, he was right that while we were tanking we would lose games and that is about it on that topic.  But that is no great feat.  Everyone on this board including the people who advocated tanking thought we would lose a ton of games while tanking.

Proof will be in the pudding this year if he is "not one bit wrong."  The 5th worst team in the league this season is winning at a 36% clip.  Over a 72 game season that means a 26 win year.

The Hawks have already won 27 games so we could go 0-21 the rest of the season and still see him be demonstrably wrong about this team and this rebuild.

 

Tanking AKA rebuilding is part of the process any aging team has to go through, which is exactly what the Hawks were with Millsap and Dwight Howerd. Anyone with any sesnse could see that Schröder was not going to be some sort of star to build around and that clinging to the aging and declining vets made no sense in the short or long term. I think the notion of "tanking" is dramatic, and maybe it comes down to semantics but I never felt the Hawks "tanked" as much as simply conceded that the window with their current core had closed and moved on to create a new one. Every team in every sport has to go through that at some point, it's an incredible rarity where a team can just transition from one core to the next and not miss the playoffs... of course, it happens, but it's rare. 

[Sothron]

Why are you guys talking about that fraud? I don't want to see his ignored posts showing up again. Let it go. He never will admit he was wrong about anything because that's not what a troll does.

[bleachkit]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

KB was off with all kinds of things.  He claimed that the team would be doomed to failure because tanking inherently poisoned a team's culture and the development of the roster.  This is just a question of timeline.  He made the same claims about the Sixers.  Said they wouldn't have a winning record because they tanked when they turned the corner and had a winning record (winning 52 games so not close).  After it became clear they would have a winning record, he said that because of tanking they still would not make the playoffs and then they made the playoffs.  After they made the playoffs, he said they were an empty team because of tanking and said they not only wouldn't win their playoff series against Miami but that Miami would sweep them.  Then they beat Miami 4-1.  Now they are sitting on top of the Easter Conference despite having tanked and despite several bad decisions with the assets from tanking from subsequent GMs - they core their tanking produced is too good to get disrupted by garbage moves like trading Jayson Tatum and a lottery pick for Markelle Fultz, etc.

Now we are here with the Hawks.  He has claimed they poisoned themselves by tanking.   That they doomed themselves to long-term failure.

Like Philly when he was predicting they wouldn't have a winning record and wouldn't make the playoffs, he has a bet with met for this season where he was so sure this team would have one of the five worst records in the NBA that I don't even need the Hawks to have a winning record or even to make the playoffs to win that bet.  He stuck with the bet because he thought the team was so compromised by tanking that they would still be dismal even after we traded for Capela.

By my way of thinking, he was right that while we were tanking we would lose games and that is about it on that topic.  But that is no great feat.  Everyone on this board including the people who advocated tanking thought we would lose a ton of games while tanking.

Proof will be in the pudding this year if he is "not one bit wrong."  The 5th worst team in the league this season is winning at a 36% clip.  Over a 72 game season that means a 26 win year.

The Hawks have already won 27 games so we could go 0-21 the rest of the season and still see him be demonstrably wrong about this team and this rebuild.

 

You no matter what rebuilding strategy you use, you need luck and you need to get the right players. What if we had taken Bamba instead of Trae? What if Philly hadn't taken Embiid? Even the Danny Ferry model of acquiring under the radar smart vets that KB prefers, the requires some luck too.

[gHost83]

Just FYI. With more players available, LP was even more trash with this team... It's mind boggling...

[AHF]

35 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

You no matter what rebuilding strategy you use, you need luck and you need to get the right players. What if we had taken Bamba instead of Trae? What if Philly hadn't taken Embiid? Even the Danny Ferry model of acquiring under the radar smart vets that KB prefers, the requires some luck too.

I've never claimed tanking guarantees success.  There is no worse situation than tanking and screwing up your picks.  All team building requires some luck because it relies on player assessment and development and there is a lot of noise in that.

For Philly, they actually did screw up a number of picks but by going in with the volume of high quality picks it allowed them to have their success.

The debate was not about whether teams can screw up and fail in their tanking rebuild.  Both of us agreed that this could happen and there were plenty of examples of bad GMs failing under every build model, including tankings.  The issue was whether all tanking rebuilds were inherently doomed to failure.  

If Chicago fails to draft Jordan they don't become what they become.  If Philly doesn't draft Embiid same thing.  But what likely happens in that case?  Another team that lost a boat load of games to get to the top of the draft pool gets them.  It isn't a middle of the pack team like the Howard, Sap, Dennis Hawks that get them.

For this season, the issue was whether this team was doomed to failure this year due to its tanking ways.  I predicted us in the playoffs.  KB predicted us as a bottom 5 team in the league just like the last couple seasons.

[BrazilianHawk]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

time for me to dust off the way back machine   there was a series of KB21 leading the charge and me in quiet line stating tanking was not the way to go, but to flip cap space for vets other teams needed to dump that could still play.  Myself and KB21 were advocating for the type of cap space use that was used on our acquisitions this year. We were never in line with tanking. You flip assets for high draft picks (like Boston), you do not purposely lose hoping your scouting department is smarter than everyone else.

I'll find the posts.

I remember that. You will for sure find me complaining about tanking. I'm also a never-tanker and I was upset about the Millsap fiasco. I absolutely hated Schlenk because of what happened to Millsap and coach Bud.

 

Four years have passed, and nowadays I just dislike him. 

 

[BrazilianHawk]

1 hour ago, RedDawg#8 said:

I dont have a horse in the race but counting seasons we only MISSED the playoffs 3 years in a row. My question is when does the clock start and stop on a rebuild? We took one season to tear it all down and only 2 to build it back up. Far ahead of many other recent rebuilds. But this year, if we make it to the playoffs, shouldn't count as a year off. Only the seasons we missed the playoffs. Nobody will look back 10 years from now and say the 20-21 Hawks were rebuilding this year. No, we were contending this year.

Travis Schlenk pulled off a 3 year rebuild. 

To be fair, we were definitely NOT in contention under LP, so that would make 4 years out. We happened to be lucky enough we alredy had Nate under contract and that we he knew what to do to improve. 

The 'rebuild' took 3 years, ok, but I'm certain I was counting how many years would it take to be back in the playoffs. So, if we get there, which looks like we will, it will be 4 years. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. We all should celebrate if/when we claim that playoff spot.

 

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

KB was off with all kinds of things.  He claimed that the team would be doomed to failure because tanking inherently poisoned a team's culture and the development of the roster.  This is just a question of timeline.  He made the same claims about the Sixers.  Said they wouldn't have a winning record because they tanked when they turned the corner and had a winning record (winning 52 games so not close).  After it became clear they would have a winning record, he said that because of tanking they still would not make the playoffs and then they made the playoffs.  After they made the playoffs, he said they were an empty team because of tanking and said they not only wouldn't win their playoff series against Miami but that Miami would sweep them.  Then they beat Miami 4-1.  Now they are sitting on top of the Easter Conference despite having tanked and despite several bad decisions with the assets from tanking from subsequent GMs - they core their tanking produced is too good to get disrupted by garbage moves like trading Jayson Tatum and a lottery pick for Markelle Fultz, etc.

Now we are here with the Hawks.  He has claimed they poisoned themselves by tanking.   That they doomed themselves to long-term failure.

Like Philly when he was predicting they wouldn't have a winning record and wouldn't make the playoffs, he has a bet with met for this season where he was so sure this team would have one of the five worst records in the NBA that I don't even need the Hawks to have a winning record or even to make the playoffs to win that bet.  He stuck with the bet because he thought the team was so compromised by tanking that they would still be dismal even after we traded for Capela.

By my way of thinking, he was right that while we were tanking we would lose games and that is about it on that topic.  But that is no great feat.  Everyone on this board including the people who advocated tanking thought we would lose a ton of games while tanking.

Proof will be in the pudding this year if he is "not one bit wrong."  The 5th worst team in the league this season is winning at a 36% clip.  Over a 72 game season that means a 26 win year.

The Hawks have already won 27 games so we could go 0-21 the rest of the season and still see him be demonstrably wrong about this team and this rebuild.

 

I wish I was as strong, young and verile as you. It must be backbreaking moving those goal posts all day.  Right about the tank and right about Philly are not the same thing. Quit trying to lawyer everything.  Tanking sucked! Love the young guys we got out of it, but they were losing nightly before the vets arrived and a certain coach started playing to their strengths.

[High5]

KB consistently said we were doomed to miss the playoffs for the next 5+ years because of Schlenk’s decision to tank. If we make them this season then it will have only been 3. 

[thecampster]

9 minutes ago, High5 said:

KB consistently said we were doomed to miss the playoffs for the next 5+ years because of Schlenk’s decision to tank. If we make them this season then it will have only been 3. 

because we changed course as directed by the owner

[macdaddy]

I've thoroughly enjoyed the last 3 years way more than i enjoyed a team anchored by Dennis/Baze/Dwight.

[macdaddy]

Draft high/cap space/free agents/trades - execution went very well.   This is all part of the plan.    And somehow it was an 'accident' that Nate was hired as an assistant when we know that Travis would have let LP go in the offseason were it not for covid.   Ok.   Can't we just be happy that Travis has nailed this rebuild so far?

[AHF]

18 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I wish I was as strong, young and verile as you. It must be backbreaking moving those goal posts all day.  Right about the tank and right about Philly are not the same thing. Quit trying to lawyer everything.  Tanking sucked! Love the young guys we got out of it, but they were losing nightly before the vets arrived and a certain coach started playing to their strengths.

How was he right about the tank?  I don't get it.

He said we would lose a bunch of games during the tank.  Everyone in existence agreed on this point.  Everyone knows in a tank you have to take it on the chin in the short term for long-term success.  The Cubs and Astros lost epic numbers of games before their tanks paid of in rings.  There is no particular insight offered in suggesting that the short-term pain will happen because that happens by design!

The discussion was about whether tanking teams can ever compete.  He said we (and Philly and all other teams) would be forever tainted and doomed to failure because of it. 

He argued for this season that the tank would doom this team to a bottom 5 finish and we are #4 seed in the East.  He said because of our tanking it would stunt our ability to compete and that only 4 teams would be worse than us when there are 19 teams worse than us.

But he "not a bit" wrong?  I don't even know what he was right about that the pro-tank people weren't right about!

[bleachkit]

10 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I've thoroughly enjoyed the last 3 years way more than i enjoyed a team anchored by Dennis/Baze/Dwight.

That was a bad crew. Losing Horford was the end of that era. 

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

You no matter what rebuilding strategy you use, you need luck and you need to get the right players. What if we had taken Bamba instead of Trae? What if Philly hadn't taken Embiid? Even the Danny Ferry model of acquiring under the radar smart vets that KB prefers, the requires some luck too.

I agree with you partially but I think there's a case that if you decide to center your franchise around a guy and heavily invest in him in multiple ways (training, minutes, coaching, time and patience, etc.) you can produce a star.  I don't think everyone has the talent to be an all-star, but I firmly believe that most guys in the lottery can be developed into all-star caliber players if they're given the right situation and resources.  There's no scrubs getting drafted in the top 10.  The X factor is the work ethic of the player you choose.

I don't know if I'm verbalizing the point I'm trying to make very well but I just think a lot of guys have that potential, and it's up to the team/organization to unlock it

[Spud2nique]

@KB21 and @Diesel coke out of hiding and eat your crow sammies! @kg01 is making them today! He will make you a couple each you deserve it!  

 

Wipe your agenda driven feet before coming in!  

Hawks success>being right about $hit

[bleachkit]

3 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

I agree with you partially but I think there's a case that if you decide to center your franchise around a guy and heavily invest in him in multiple ways (training, minutes, coaching, time and patience, etc.) you can produce a star.  I don't think everyone has the talent to be an all-star, but I firmly believe that most guys in the lottery can be developed into all-star caliber players if they're given the right situation and resources.  There's no scrubs getting drafted in the top 10.  The X factor is the work ethic of the player you choose.

I don't know if I'm verbalizing the point I'm trying to make very well but I just think a lot of guys have that potential, and it's up to the team/organization to unlock it

Complete busts get drafted in the top 10, and it's not all about work ethic. Some guys just don't pan out. It's a futures market, and athletic upside, length, etc. doesn't always translate into basketball success.

[Atlantaholic]

17 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I've thoroughly enjoyed the last 3 years way more than i enjoyed a team anchored by Dennis/Baze/Dwight.

hmm.. last year was ROUGH. But I agree about the other two. The Trae Young rookie year was fun to see Collins and Trae potential towards the end of the year, this year we've had glimpses of brilliance.

[Atlantaholic]

8 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

That was a bad crew. Losing Horford was the end of that era. 

In the end he probably did us a favor by standing us up at the alter. Accelerated the rebuild by at least a year.