The Atlanta Hawks and Tanking

[mahcus smaht]

Im not sure if this thread is in the right place but here goes.

Obviously there has been a lot of discussion about tanking so Ill look at the Atlanta Hawks as an interesting scenario.

In 2004 they selected Josh Smith with the 17th pick out of high school. the next year they selcted Marvin Williams with the #2 pick. In the 2006-2007 2 stars emerges with Joe Johnson averaging 25 ppg and Smith grabbing 16 points, 9 boards, and 3 blocks. This was the year of Oden/Durant. So they sucked and had the 4th worst record. This seems to the letter what the tanker army would like no?

They had Ok lotto luck and selected Al Horford #3.

They then filled in the missing pieces via trade by trading for Mike Bibby.

A few 2nd round exits later and they became feared not on the court but as a model. The Hawks had four years ago been a collection of supertalented players like Joe Johnson and Josh Smith and top 3 picks but now they were doomed to years of 1st round or second round exits. Never bad enough to get an impact guy, never real contenders.

They then rebuilt again. This time they said goodbye to Marvin Williams, Joe Johnson and Josh Smith. Instead they built around Horford and some good draft choices. They added solid players all over. Carroll, Korver, Millsapp, Teague. They got a good coach and without so much as scraping the lottery the Hawks are the #1 seed in the Eastern conference.

I mean its not the rule but another thread someone brought up Horfords draft position and I looked back at that Hawks team and thought it served a nice lesson that sometimes the mediocrity many of the posters fear can be brought about by tanking just as easily as not tanking

tl;dr
 Rebuild 1: 2 top 3 pick 2 rising stars --> never better than 3 seed a couple trips to the second round and a reputation as a model of what not to be in the NBA, never real contenders

Rebuild 2: 1 very good player, several solid draft choices late in rd 1, some wise FA's--> #1 seed in East, better than the entire previous rebuild assuming they last to game 6 in rd 2 theyll have out done 5-6 years of the tank oriented rebuild

[Ilikesports17]

You could also look at the Spurs and say they tanked for Timmy and have been the best franchise in the league for the past 15 years

[D.o.s.]

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

[mahcus smaht]

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

Only after the Melo and then Melo/AI versions of Denver failed to get out of the first round.

[mahcus smaht]

I guess the point is that tanking guarantees nothing just like any other form of rebuild. If you execute well there are many ways to return to prominence in the NBA. None are easy, and none are surefire or failsafe.

[PhoSita]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

[chambers]

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

Only after the Melo and then Melo/AI versions of Denver failed to get out of the first round.

FYI,
They actually made the Western Conference finals and lost to the Lakers (it was the year KG was injured for us).
The Lakers beat them 4-2 and then went on to embarrass the Magic 4-1.

But I get what you're saying.
Ultimately to win an NBA championship you've got to get lucky in the draft, or you've got to get lucky in free agency.

Both require insane luck.

[PhoSita]

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

Only after the Melo and then Melo/AI versions of Denver failed to get out of the first round.

FYI,
They actually made the Western Conference finals and lost to the Lakers (it was the year KG was injured for us).
The Lakers beat them 4-2 and then went on to embarrass the Magic 4-1.

But I get what you're saying.
Ultimately to win an NBA championship you've got to get lucky in the draft, or you've got to get lucky in free agency.

Both require insane luck.

Luck is required to win a championship, sure.

I don't agree that insane luck is required to get a superstar.

Very good drafting and player development and / or making a great pitch in free agency is required.  Miami didn't put the Thrice together because of luck.  That was a good draft pick in Wade plus Riley making a great pitch to Bron.  Plus ... South Beach.

[chambers]

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

Only after the Melo and then Melo/AI versions of Denver failed to get out of the first round.

FYI,
They actually made the Western Conference finals and lost to the Lakers (it was the year KG was injured for us).
The Lakers beat them 4-2 and then went on to embarrass the Magic 4-1.

But I get what you're saying.
Ultimately to win an NBA championship you've got to get lucky in the draft, or you've got to get lucky in free agency.

Both require insane luck.

Luck is required to win a championship, sure.

I don't agree that insane luck is required to get a superstar.

Very good drafting and player development and / or making a great pitch in free agency is required.  Miami didn't put the Thrice together because of luck.  That was a good draft pick in Wade plus Riley making a great pitch to Bron.  Plus ... South Beach.

I gotta agree to disagree to an extent.
Championships over the last 25 years have been dominated by a handful of players but in general there has always been a superstar player in place before free agents or other stars make their way to other teams.
Miami managed to draft Wade with the 5th pick when he'd go #1 in a lot of drafts.
They then got Shaq because of Wade. Shaq said it himself that the reason he came to Miami was Wade.

It depends on what your idea of 'luck' is.
Most superstars don't leave the team that drafted them. I think less 'luck' is required if you're in South Beach or Hollywood or NYC, but that doesn't really help our cause in Bawston.

Even to get KG here, we needed Paul Pierce here already and we somehow got him with the 10th pick. We needed the Sonics to accept the #5 pick for Ray Allen. We then needed KG to change his mind about coming here and leaving the Wolves after all those years after flat out refusing. I think his agent said something like 'no chance in hell' in comes to Boston lol.

Perhaps the biggest amount of luck you need is that in acquiring that first cornerstone player to set the franchise tone, like Wade being in Miami and attracting Shaq, and then Lebron+Bosh. Or Pierce attracting KG and Ray etc..

Even the Cavs getting Love and beating 2% lottery odds to get Wiggins and do that trade...****?
lol

[get_banners]

The Cavs getting the #1 pick to trade to the Wolves wasn't luck, it was the league making sure LeBron came back to Cleveland. 

[MBunge]

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Very, very few teams ever win a title with at least one big time contributor they drafted or acquired via a pick in the top 10, if not top 5. 

Mike

[LGC88]

I don't believe in a big 3 anymore. NBA rules has changed (cap space) and that create a serious hole in the ability to make a decent bench to go with your big 3. (OKC and LAC still hasn't win anything)
Team play with scoring threat at each position is the key to success, at the condition that your players know how to defend.
Read and react offense or organised system like the spurs is the solution. Iso play is only good at clutch time against a too good defensive team.
When I look at lebron iso play, standing 10 seconds in front of his opponents doing fakes and dribbles, that's so wrong. It's not as efficient and your teammates are just doing nothing and they get out of rythm in the game.
A serious threat in the paint and a PG that can penetrate in the paint is the only 2 above average players you need for success. You can fill up your roster with good 3pts shooter and solid D.
That sounds like the spurs, hawks and even GS.
What do you think guys?
 

[SHAQATTACK]

I don't believe in a big 3 anymore. NBA rules has changed (cap space) and that create a serious hole in the ability to make a decent bench to go with your big 3. (OKC and LAC still hasn't win anything)
Team play with scoring threat at each position is the key to success, at the condition that your players know how to defend.
Read and react offense or organised system like the spurs is the solution. Iso play is only good at clutch time against a too good defensive team.
When I look at lebron iso play, standing 10 seconds in front of his opponents doing fakes and dribbles, that's so wrong. It's not as efficient and your teammates are just doing nothing and they get out of rythm in the game.
A serious threat in the paint and a PG that can penetrate in the paint is the only 2 above average players you need for success. You can fill up your roster with good 3pts shooter and solid D.
That sounds like the spurs, hawks and even GS.
What do you think guys?

I think teams want the best odds of scoring the most points .

That's putting five guys on the court at all times shooting three's and defending the three on Defense.

Basically making a player like Hibbert a dinosaur .

[GreenWarrior]

I'd like to know why Atlanta gets used as an example of how and why to build through the draft? they haven't won anything.

[IDreamCeltics]

You could also look at the Spurs and say they tanked for Timmy and have been the best franchise in the league for the past 15 years

Ummm... You know who else also tanked that year?  The Celtics, they had two lottery picks and the highest odds (36%) of getting the first overall pick.  They ended up picking Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer and trading them both within two years.

You know who ELSE tanked that year?  The 76'ers, Nuggets, Grizzlies, Warriors and Nets. For their efforts they were rewarded with Keith Van Horn, Tony Battie, Antonio Daniels, Adonal Foyle, and Tim Thomas respectively. 

The Expansion Toronto Raptors who DIDN'T tank and just sucked on their own merits picked 9th in that draft and selected Tracy McGrady

From a player acquisition perspective this draft is a good example of the odds involved in tanking.  Seven teams tanked for high picks, one team lucked out and picked a franchise cornerstone while six other teams got jags, busts, or Chauncey Billups who over the course of his career was considered a bust, just another guy, and then a franchise cornerstone, before once again becoming just another guy.