RealGM

I am 100% of the opinion that the Hawks should tank given the roster, cap and competition. Could those of you that want the Hawks to remain competitive present some plausible senarios that demonstrate that as a good strategy?

I think to do this we have to have a team vision over at least a three year window. So, the competition over that time will likely be CLEV / GS if you're talking about winning. You may also want to see where the Hawks would be after this three year period as that is approxomately the time that CLEV should start to fade and open up the next window opportunity; unless one of your senarios has us winning the East before then.

tbhawksfan1 wrote:I am 100% of the opinion that the Hawks should tank given the roster, cap and competition. Could those of you that want the Hawks to remain competitive present some plausible senarios that demonstrate that as a good strategy?

I think to do this we have to have a team vision over at least a three year window. So, the competition over that time will likely be CLEV / GS if you're talking about winning. You may also want to see where the Hawks would be after this three year period as that is approxomately the time that CLEV should start to fade and open up the next window opportunity; unless one of your senarios has us winning the East before then.

I don't think anyone here is against tanking. The problem is Resseler though. I myself is just embracing the fact that if Resseler wants to compete, then what do we need to do to make things more interesting. Unfortunately we overpaid guys last year, and now have to deal with Sap/THJ. If we can move Baze for something more useful, we could probably swallow giving Sap and THJ their money, and hope for some internal improvements.

Since I can't talk some sense into Ressler, I'm asking people who agree with his position. I think there are a lot that are even fundamentally against tanking.

I also would like to see specific signings (especially our own FA) and how they would complete the roster going forward.

Noone will take Baze without a bad contract coming back.

Simple:

Tanking doesn't work.



Now my question: can you suggest a plan for contending through tanking?


Can you even define tanking?


Cite data that backs up your position?


Provide relevant examples?

MaceCase wrote:Simple:

Tanking doesn't work.



Now my question: can you suggest a plan for contending through tanking?


Can you even define tanking?


Cite data that backs up your position?


Provide relevant examples?

I wouldn't say tanking doesn't work. OKC hit gold in the lottery. The pre-injury Blazers were well on their way to success. The Wolves of late seem to be finally getting things right. Cleveland did a good job in the draft, and later made the requisite trades and signings(Lebron and Love) to be where they are now.

I guess the plan would be to start with dumping everything except DS, Prince, and Bembry. Then suck enough to draft high in the lottery next year.

The good thing about tanking is that the new draft picks will not have the pressure of being the "Guy" for us while they develop since DS is pretty much here and doing that already.

The main targets would be Porter Jr, Ayton, and Bomba. I like Ayton's physical profile and offensive potential, while Porter Jr. could be a KD clone. Bomba is interesting defensively.

2018 looks like a good year to have some salary to sign a big name as well. We don't have to go that route, but I would assume with Dennis, very talented 2018 pick, Prince improving, and plenty of cap, we could add a FA that makes sense.

Say we opt to continue building through the draft. We could possibly be a high lottery team still. 2019 could be another great draft to be have a high pick in. We take one last big name prospect, and look forward to the free agent period. That year seems to have a lot of quality veterans being available, and we should have a boatload of money. Grab the right guys, and compete for a playoff spot.

Dennis will be entering his prime years, Ayton/Porter Jr. should be showing studness, Prince will be a quality glue guy, and whoever we draft will be along for the ride. Essentially, it's the way OKC came to power. Of course it's also the best case scenario, and anything can go wrong in between(injuries, bad signings, regression. change in philosophy, etc..). Eerily enough, it could be similar to how we built our team in the mid 00's, but hopefully better since we were poorly managed back then.

Geaux_Hawks wrote:

MaceCase wrote:Simple:

Tanking doesn't work.



Now my question: can you suggest a plan for contending through tanking?


Can you even define tanking?


Cite data that backs up your position?


Provide relevant examples?

I wouldn't say tanking doesn't work. OKC hit gold in the lottery. The pre-injury Blazers were well on their way to success. The Wolves of late seem to be finally getting things right. Cleveland did a good job in the draft, and later made the requisite trades and signings(Lebron and Love) to be where they are now.

This is exactly my point.

People can't even properly define tank because A) those examples didn't tank or B) didn't become contenders yet alone make the playoffs.

From your list you have SEATTLE and that's it.....a team that pared down their roster to facilitate a relocation to OKC. That's certainly a good argument for the Hawks to tank, correct? So Seattle, St. Louis, Louisville or wherever can enjoy their brand new team?

That's the problem with "tank", it's this nebulous thing that people define as whatever fits their narrative:

60 win team loses their star to injury and they end up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
50 win team loses their star to free agency and they end up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
40 win team misses playoff ends up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
30 win team hands out 100 mil in salaries and trades for vets and still ends up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
20 win team ends up in the lotto again? THEY TANKED!

Do you get the gist? People who argue for "tanking" use inapplicable examples and best-case-scenario wishful thinking as a "plan" but then want to challenge "anti-tankers" to formulate a concrete blueprint that will stand up to dissertation level peer review.

Just listen to Chernoff for his reason why we shouldn't tank. Their big argument is that you tank, get youth, and then they leave before they reach their prime.

MaceCase wrote:This is exactly my point.

People can't even properly define tank because A) those examples didn't tank or B) didn't become contenders yet alone make the playoffs.

From your list you have SEATTLE and that's it.....a team that pared down their roster to facilitate a relocation to OKC. That's certainly a good argument for the Hawks to tank, correct? So Seattle, St. Louis, Louisville or wherever can enjoy their brand new team?

That's the problem with "tank", it's this nebulous thing that people define as whatever fits their narrative:

60 win team loses their star to injury and they end up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
50 win team loses their star to free agency and they end up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
40 win team misses playoff ends up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
30 win team hands out 100 mil in salaries and trades for vets and still ends up in the lotto? THEY TANKED!
20 win team ends up in the lotto again? THEY TANKED!

Do you get the gist? People who argue for "tanking" use inapplicable examples and best-case-scenario wishful thinking as a "plan" but then want to challenge "anti-tankers" to formulate a concrete blueprint that will stand up to dissertation level peer review.

Hmmm.. Well I would generally define tanking as, a team not having any other possible way of getting significantly better unless they offload assets now, to regain traction for the future. Best case scenario's are plausible in any situation. Ideally that's your reasoning behind doing almost anything and everything you do. When you sign Kent Bazemore to a yearly salary of 15 mill per, you're hoping he lives up to that contract.

Take the Atlanta Braves for instance. Not to long, they won 96 games. They had a down year the next year, and blew it up because they couldn't afford to get any TOR pitchers via free agency or trade. So what better way for them to get better than to trade what they thought wasn't going to be around for the future and start rebuilding.

That's pretty much what OKC/Seattle and Minnesota did in the same year. Portland certainly did it in 2006 when they were sitting players. Cleveland had to do it after they missed out on everyone. Is it better to just say rebuild?

tanking is a short-term part of rebuilding. Tanking is simply trading valuable players to get younger and invest in potential over present. Hawks should have tanked at trade deadline to start off a rebuild.

I should have used the term rebuild to be more clear. Hawks could still set up a rebuild by tanking this season, but last deadline woulda been much better by trading Sap.

Trading Sap and D Howard at the deadline could have brought in a some nice picks and/or younger players. It also would have tanked the rest of the season getting us down to a #10-12 pick. Also could have done it the previous season by moving Horf / Sap.

I don't think two very mediocre seasons were a justification for keeping it together and maxing the cap

Geaux_Hawks wrote:Hmmm.. Well I would generally define tanking as, a team not having any other possible way of getting significantly better unless they offload assets now, to regain traction for the future.

tbhawksfan1 wrote:tanking is a short-term part of rebuilding. Tanking is simply trading valuable players to get younger and invest in potential over present.

Looks like more wishful thinking definitions avoiding the nitty-gritty of what the act of tanking really is and the high rate of failure that surrounds it. There's no need to romanticize it by presenting it as some last-ditch effort or just some temporary discomfort.

MaceCase wrote:

Geaux_Hawks wrote:Hmmm.. Well I would generally define tanking as, a team not having any other possible way of getting significantly better unless they offload assets now, to regain traction for the future.

tbhawksfan1 wrote:tanking is a short-term part of rebuilding. Tanking is simply trading valuable players to get younger and invest in potential over present.

Looks like more wishful thinking definitions avoiding the nitty-gritty of what the act of tanking really is and the high rate of failure that surrounds it. There's no need to romanticize it by presenting it as some last-ditch effort or just some temporary discomfort.

good one man, made me laugh

MaceCase wrote:

Geaux_Hawks wrote:Hmmm.. Well I would generally define tanking as, a team not having any other possible way of getting significantly better unless they offload assets now, to regain traction for the future.

tbhawksfan1 wrote:tanking is a short-term part of rebuilding. Tanking is simply trading valuable players to get younger and invest in potential over present.

Looks like more wishful thinking definitions avoiding the nitty-gritty of what the act of tanking really is and the high rate of failure that surrounds it. There's no need to romanticize it by presenting it as some last-ditch effort or just some temporary discomfort.

I mean what's the difference between being a treadmill team and "tanking"?

Geaux_Hawks wrote:

MaceCase wrote:

Geaux_Hawks wrote:Hmmm.. Well I would generally define tanking as, a team not having any other possible way of getting significantly better unless they offload assets now, to regain traction for the future.

tbhawksfan1 wrote:tanking is a short-term part of rebuilding. Tanking is simply trading valuable players to get younger and invest in potential over present.

Looks like more wishful thinking definitions avoiding the nitty-gritty of what the act of tanking really is and the high rate of failure that surrounds it. There's no need to romanticize it by presenting it as some last-ditch effort or just some temporary discomfort.

I mean what's the difference between being a treadmill team and "tanking"?

Unwatchable basketball that I'm not wasting my hard earned entertainment dollars on, plus parking and food.

If losing is you're entertainment.... as a Hawks fan I won't rest until we win the championship every year. That's winning and very entertaining.

The fans follow for entertainment
The FO plays for revenue
The players play to take care of their family (salary)
The owner is in it for revenue and ego

I'm in it for the sport and in sports you've got to do the best you can do. Nothing but a winning plan, even if it fails. At least you try.

The Hawks haven't been trying. Did they go into the lux tax after the 60 win season? Have they put together a contender since then?

Atlanta Hawks GM Travis Schlenk: ‘I’m Not A Proponent Of Blowing It Up’

Schlenk said staying competitive while continuing to develop young assets was at the forefront of what he wanted to do with the Hawks. He also said accumulating more young assets was of the utmost importance.

“I’m not a proponent of blowing it up,” said Schlenk in regard to a complete rebuild option for the Hawks.

This is a relief. The best of both worlds. A 'rebootooling'. Getting younger while still fielding a competitive team.

Keep that cap sheet clean, Trav.

Jamaaliver wrote:Atlanta Hawks GM Travis Schlenk: ‘I’m Not A Proponent Of Blowing It Up’

Schlenk said staying competitive while continuing to develop young assets was at the forefront of what he wanted to do with the Hawks. He also said accumulating more young assets was of the utmost importance.

“I’m not a proponent of blowing it up,” said Schlenk in regard to a complete rebuild option for the Hawks.

This is a relief. The best of both worlds. A 'rebootooling'. Getting younger while still fielding a competitive team.

Keep that cap sheet clean, Trav.

The issue is this only works if you get lucky and can draft a steal later in the draft, or convince a player, or players, to sign here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

dms269 wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:This is a relief. The best of both worlds. A 'rebootooling'. Getting younger while still fielding a competitive team.

Keep that cap sheet clean, Trav.

The issue is this only works if you get lucky and can draft a steal later in the draft, or convince a player, or players, to sign here.

In an interview on 92.9, he specifically cites the James Harden situation as one to be prepared for. Field a solid team, but have enough assets to make a play for a star.

We've seen top players get traded in the last decade. Our issue, we never had the ammo to pursue a trade.

Pau Gasol, CP3, Melo, Garnett, Ray Allen, James Harden, D12, Deron Williams, Shaq, Kevin Love, DeMarcus Cousins

All those guys were traded for youth, picks, prospects, etc. If we collect enough, we could be in the running when Cavs blow up their roster or when GSW has to part ways with Klay. Or when Porzingis forces his way from NY.

That seems like a solid approach. Fielding a decent team (like we have now) but accumulating assets instead of wasting them as we've done the past few years.

Jamaaliver wrote:

dms269 wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:This is a relief. The best of both worlds. A 'rebootooling'. Getting younger while still fielding a competitive team.

Keep that cap sheet clean, Trav.

The issue is this only works if you get lucky and can draft a steal later in the draft, or convince a player, or players, to sign here.

In an interview on 92.9, he specifically cites the James Harden situation as one to be prepared for. Field a solid team, but have enough assets to make a play for a star.

We've seen top players get traded in the last decade. Our issue, we never had the ammo to pursue a trade.

Pau Gasol, CP3, Melo, Garnett, Ray Allen, James Harden, D12, Deron Williams, Shaq, Kevin Love, DeMarcus Cousins

All those guys were traded for youth, picks, prospects, etc. If we collect enough, we could be in the running when Cavs blow up their roster or when GSW has to part ways with Klay. Or when Porzingis forces his way from NY.

That seems like a solid approach. Fielding a decent team (like we have now) but accumulating assets instead of wasting them as we've done the past few years.

Many of those players were traded for high draft picks or players from high draft picks. To me this idea sounds very similar to being another version of a treadmill team.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

dms269 wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:

dms269 wrote:The issue is this only works if you get lucky and can draft a steal later in the draft, or convince a player, or players, to sign here.

In an interview on 92.9, he specifically cites the James Harden situation as one to be prepared for. Field a solid team, but have enough assets to make a play for a star.

We've seen top players get traded in the last decade. Our issue, we never had the ammo to pursue a trade.

Pau Gasol, CP3, Melo, Garnett, Ray Allen, James Harden, D12, Deron Williams, Shaq, Kevin Love, DeMarcus Cousins

All those guys were traded for youth, picks, prospects, etc. If we collect enough, we could be in the running when Cavs blow up their roster or when GSW has to part ways with Klay. Or when Porzingis forces his way from NY.

That seems like a solid approach. Fielding a decent team (like we have now) but accumulating assets instead of wasting them as we've done the past few years.

Many of those players were traded for high draft picks or players from high draft picks. To me this idea sounds very similar to being another version of a treadmill team.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

This depends on what they do with Sap and Howard if we're to be considered a good or bad treadmill team. For the most part, any team in the lottery should be considered a treadmill team of some kind. If we move on from both of them, then we essentially become a healthy treadmill team.

What I mean by that is, we become what the GS Warriors once were. They never had top 3 picks, and were always somewhere in the middle of the lottery until they started progressing out of that state. I don't expect us to trade for the next big name we can find, but I do see us going back to the days of buying low, and doing better in the draft.

dms269 wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:

dms269 wrote:The issue is this only works if you get lucky and can draft a steal later in the draft, or convince a player, or players, to sign here.

In an interview on 92.9, he specifically cites the James Harden situation as one to be prepared for. Field a solid team, but have enough assets to make a play for a star.

We've seen top players get traded in the last decade. Our issue, we never had the ammo to pursue a trade.

Pau Gasol, CP3, Melo, Garnett, Ray Allen, James Harden, D12, Deron Williams, Shaq, Kevin Love, DeMarcus Cousins

All those guys were traded for youth, picks, prospects, etc. If we collect enough, we could be in the running when Cavs blow up their roster or when GSW has to part ways with Klay. Or when Porzingis forces his way from NY.

That seems like a solid approach. Fielding a decent team (like we have now) but accumulating assets instead of wasting them as we've done the past few years.

Many of those players were traded for high draft picks or players from high draft picks. To me this idea sounds very similar to being another version of a treadmill team.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using RealGM mobile app

This what basically Ferry tried to do. Remain a playoff team and while remaining flexible and sign bargain deals as "trade assets" to get a star. The issue with Ferry's approach was that those "trade assets" became liabilities because he couldn't negotiate those bargain deals to longer term contracts, and those players valued peaked during their contract year so he set the stage for them to get large bloated contracts (Millsap, Bazemore, Carroll etc..) which put us in the position we are in now.

A more expensive middling team.

Granted, he was let go before our situation has come to this but I doubt we would be in any much different of a position than we are now. We probably would have slightly different personnel.

I say you can't try to compete and be in 'asset gaining mode'. You end up doing virtually nothing.