Tanking / Building a Championship Discussion

[BangHolman]

1 minute ago, Afro said:

Thats not a good argument, guys lol. So we're trading Trae to end up with Vassell and JJ(if were using our history as a projection).

This is EXACTLY how you build the Bud Hawks. And guess what happens then. 

60 wins, ECF appearance, and a shot at a title?

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, Afro said:

You're trading Trae for a bunch of players you hope are good role players and Vassell who already is a good role player.

How is that team ever supposed to truly compete for a title? 

Well I suppose you don't stop with trading Trae.  Maybe that's all you do in the first year. But then you develop the young players you drafted this year, use the acquired future picks, and existing vets to improve the roster.  

I'm really confused by your strategy.  You think we should do what exactly?  Trade Trae for other picks, and then build through the draft?  That's exactly what you are criticizing.  So what's the plan if Trae wants to be traded?  

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, Afro said:

Thats not a good argument, guys lol. So we're trading Trae to end up with Vassell and JJ(if were using our history as a projection).

This is EXACTLY how you build the Bud Hawks. And guess what happens then. 

That's exactly how the Nuggets were built.  That's exactly how the Bucks were built.  That's exactly how the Heat have been able to consistently stay good.  

[Afro]

1 minute ago, BangHolman said:

60 wins, ECF appearance, and a shot at a title?

Lol that team never had a shot. Because they didn't have a star. Which is why trading our star for a package of role players is just recreating the same thing. 

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Well I suppose you don't stop with trading Trae.  Maybe that's all you do in the first year. But then you develop the young players you drafted this year, use the acquired future picks, and existing vets to improve the roster.  

I'm really confused by your strategy.  You think we should do what exactly?  Trade Trae for other picks, and then build through the draft?  That's exactly what you are criticizing.  So what's the plan if Trae wants to be traded?  

Basically, what they want to do if they trade Trae is to trade DJ, JJ, OO, Kobe, and anyone else that has the potential to be good so the team can suck for the next 6 years and have a lot of high lottery picks.  With the only guarantee that you will never win a championship by doing that.  

Edited May 15 by KB21

[REHawksFan]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

My point is to have the picks available to you to either use on a player or trade for a player.  Where the picks end up has no bearing, IMO.  

That's fine. The point is we aren't aiming to use them in the lottery. If we end up with the 20th pick and draft someone, fine. I don't have an issue with that.  The intent of the picks, to me, would be as an asset to make the team better.  Not as a lottery ticket to try and get the number 1 pick in the draft. 

[REHawksFan]

2 minutes ago, Afro said:

Lol that team never had a shot. Because they didn't have a star. Which is why trading our star for a package of role players is just recreating the same thing. 

I don't disagree with this at all.  But you keep ignoring the $40M issue.  This whole discussion is based on the underlying premise that Trae is traded.  So what do you trade him for?  If history is any indication, it's picks and the best role players you can find.  It's very rare that you trade a star player for another star player.  

[AHF]

30 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So, you obviously think spending multiple years in the lottery is the way to win a championship.

Teams have been built after spending multiple years in the lottery before acquiring the key piece to their championship and then won around that talent. 

Champions over the last 25 years who were built through years in the lottery:

Detroit Pistons 2x - 6 straight years in the "lottery" before winning their championship (drafted their best player #2 overall)

Chicago Bulls 6x - 6 straight years in the "lottery" before winning their championship (drafted their best player #3 overall)

Houston Rockets 2x - 2 straight years in the lottery (averaged 20 wins per season) before winning their championship (drafted their best player #1 overall)

Lakers AD/Lebron 1x - 5 straight years in the lottery before using their lottery assets to trade for AD which paved the way to sign LeBron

Heat Shaq/Wade 1x - 2 straight years in the lottery before using their lottery assets to trade for Shaq and add to #5 overall pick Dwyane Wade

Boston Celtics Big 3 1x - 8 years out of 12 in the lottery led to lottery pick Paul Pierce and assets used to trade for KG and Allen (use of the lottery assets in trade allowed for jump from 24 wins to 66 wins)

Dallas Mavericks 1x - 10 years in the lottery led to acquisition of Dirk Nowitzki who was built around over time to win ring

Cavaliers 1x - 4 years in the lottery led to #1 Kyrie Irving, #1 Anthony Bennett (traded) and #1 Andrew Wiggins (traded) which attracted LeBron back to pair with Irving and Love (acquired in the Wiggins trade)

Golden State 4x - 17 lottery appearances out of 18 years led to drafting of lottery picks Steph Curry and Klay Thompson which in combination with second round pick Draymond Green (and role players acquired through trading former lottery picks like Bogut and Iggy)

 

 

Without multiple years in the lottery prior to acquiring key piece:

San Antonio Spurs 4x - Leaned into injuries for a strategic tank 20 win season and drafted their best player with the #1 overall pick

Lakers Shaq/Kobe 5x - Signed Shaq as a FA and traded for lottery pick Kobe Bryant

Miami Heat LeBron/Wade/Bosh 2x - Lottery drafted Wade was the attraction for a superteam built through FA with James and Bosh added

Toronto Raptors 1x - Key piece was a trade of DeMar Derozan (Toronto lottery pick) for Kawhi but I feel this is not like Cleveland or LA where it is the direct build up from sucking in the lottery to this ring

Denver Nuggets 1x - 5 straight lottery seasons got the Nuggets lottery picks Jamal Murray and MPJ but unlike Steph Curry neither one is Denver's best player.  Jokic was taken in the second round during this stretch of lottery misery and could have been a championship winning pick for any team in the league.  Denver's lottery run wasn't truly relevant to his acquisition even if Murray and MPJ were important supporting pieces.  So I would say that the run in the lottery did nothing to derail the Nuggets from a ring but the key move was getting Jokic which wasn't lottery connected even if they were a lottery team when they got him.

 

 

There are multiple paths to winning rings in the NBA but having a run of lottery picks is clearly one of them.

[BangHolman]

4 minutes ago, Afro said:

Lol that team never had a shot. Because they didn't have a star. Which is why trading our star for a package of role players is just recreating the same thing. 

With continued development, JJ and Sarr could both be Stars.

[Afro]

8 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Well I suppose you don't stop with trading Trae.  Maybe that's all you do in the first year. But then you develop the young players you drafted this year, use the acquired future picks, and existing vets to improve the roster.  

I'm really confused by your strategy.  You think we should do what exactly?  Trade Trae for other picks, and then build through the draft?  That's exactly what you are criticizing.  So what's the plan if Trae wants to be traded?  

I am solely talking about this thing that the Spurs path is the best path. 

If what you guys keep advocating for is the best path forward....Trade Trae for Herb/Ingram/Dyson/LA pick. Ingrams just there for salary filler, Id reroute him for more, but for the sake of this I'll just leave him there. 

You get 2 good starting role players and an unprotected first which at least gives you a *chance* at a superstar in a much better lottery than the Spurs picks. 

If y'all wanna be good now, then lets be good now. 

Edited May 15 by Afro

[Peoriabird]

You guys just kill me!  LOL!  Y'all keep thinking Trae is the key to success on this team and the notion of trading him is essentially tanking. This notion was ridiculously debunked just last year.  The team played better without Trae not with him

[theheroatl]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Warriors - Didn't tank.  They were bad for 100 years before they lucked into Steph Curry with the 8th pick.

Spurs - Didn't tank.  Star players were hurt, and they lost because of that.  They added Duncan to Robinson, Elliot...etc when they returned from injury.  

Are we really going to rehash an argument I've already won?

Tanking is just as risky as anything else.. I actually hate it.

Somebody should have threw a bag at Sam Presti years ago.. 

 

So many teams tank and don't end up with championships.. nobody wants to talk about those teams

 

 

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

That's fine. The point is we aren't aiming to use them in the lottery. If we end up with the 20th pick and draft someone, fine. I don't have an issue with that.  The intent of the picks, to me, would be as an asset to make the team better.  Not as a lottery ticket to try and get the number 1 pick in the draft. 

Agree.  

[KB21]

5 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You guys just kill me!  LOL!  Y'all keep thinking Trae is the key to success on this team and the notion of trading him is essentially tanking. This notion was ridiculously debunked just last year.  The team played better without Trae not with him

We in fact did not play better without Trae.  Offense was far worse.  Defense was only better because of who we were playing when he was out.  

[macdaddy]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You guys just kill me!  LOL!  Y'all keep thinking Trae is the key to success on this team and the notion of trading him is essentially tanking. This notion was ridiculously debunked just last year.  The team played better without Trae not with him

They didn't though.  They played .500 ball with a lot of wins over tanking and depleted teams.  yeah beating an uninterested celtics twice was nice but this is small sample size with a huge asterisk

[REHawksFan]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You guys just kill me!  LOL!  Y'all keep thinking Trae is the key to success on this team and the notion of trading him is essentially tanking. This notion was ridiculously debunked just last year.  The team played better without Trae not with him

The Hawks aren't better without Trae than with him.  Just stop with that nonsense.  They were better with DJM as PG than they were with DJM as SG and Trae as PG.  But they are FAR better with Trae as PG and anyone else as SG than they are with DJM as PG.  Trae is the far better player.  

[Sothron]

I will offer this:

We have one of the best coaches in the NBA and a great G league coaching staff as well. This staff at both levels have shown they can develop players. I feel very confident if the team decided to go a rebuild/retool approach that the coaching staffs would be an incredible benefit.

 

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

We in fact did not play better without Trae.  Offense was far worse.  Defense was only better because of who we were playing when he was out.  

Celtics twice, clippers and the bull who blew the Hawks out with him in the playin?. 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

So many teams tank and don't end up with championships.. nobody wants to talk about those teams

FWIW:

46 minutes ago, AHF said:

This isn't a true defense of tanking.  In fact, I'm here to tell you that tanking can fail horribly and frankly it usually fails.  Why?  Because there are a limited number of franchise changing talents and you are relying on luck to get them at the end of the day.  Often tanking involves deliberately constructing a non-competitive roster and that type of team takes a lot of work to become a contender and often is unmotivated with players exhibiting and reinforcing bad habits (like chucking or not playing good defense).   But being bad in order to get more talent doesn't always fail and plenty of championship teams came out of getting Michael Jordan or LeBron, etc. after sucking it up hard and deliberately. 

I'm neither going to pretend like living in the lottery dooms you to eternal failure nor will I pretend like it isn't a recipe for more time in the lottery for most teams.  Getting those franchise changing players requires true luck and skill - 1 having a pick high enough to take them (nobody gets Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. drafting with the #8 overall pick), 2 that player being available in the draft at all (drafting #1 overall in 2000 wasn't going to get you anything more than a plus starter even with the benefit of hindsight) , and 3 not making the mistake of taking another player because the draft is not an exact science by any means (Sam Bowie before Jordan; Hasheem Thabeet, Ricky Rubio and others before Steph Curry, etc.)

 

[Afro]

6 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

I don't disagree with this at all.  But you keep ignoring the $40M issue.  This whole discussion is based on the underlying premise that Trae is traded.  So what do you trade him for?  If history is any indication, it's picks and the best role players you can find.  It's very rare that you trade a star player for another star player.  

It's picks. And good picks. To me this is arguing to trade Trae for worse picks than we traded to get DJM(even though theyre the same lol).

The Spurs got unprotected picks with the chance that the Hawks might suck. The Hawks are taking those same picks back, in this scenario, KNOWING they wont be(at least as far as the whole "were not gonna be bad, theyll be 15-25 picks" point)

It's convoluted because they're *our* picks, and this isnt something that really ever happens. 

 

But when Boston traded away the big 3 or the Nets traded KD, they got picks that at least had some chance at being a lottery ticket. Trading with the Spurs and continuing to be good is the opposite of that.