New Schlenk quote: Value the player's tape over his workout

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

From C-Viv's article this am comes a single gem that gives us slightly more insight into the mind of the Colonel:

“I think, and teams have made big mistakes, when you disregard what you’ve seen from a player for four years in college and then he comes and has a great 45 minute workout and you change (your evaluation),” Schlenk said. “That would be a mistake.”

[kg01]

I love that. Hope he sticks to it.

Sadly, he's shown us that he's a liar before so ...

ETA: Another way to look at it is if a guy has a bad workout. They won't let that eliminate him when a guy has good game-tape.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I love that. Hope he sticks to it.

Sadly, he's shown us that he's a liar before so ...

And you're thinking of... which player?

ETA: Another way to look at it is if a guy has a bad workout. They won't let that eliminate him when a guy has good game-tape.

True.

I'm wondering though if that's not new reason to wonder if all the suggestion that we're hot for Reddish is unmerited, ie, if one only takes the body of work at Duke and concludes he underperformed.

[kg01]

I love that. Hope he sticks to it.

Sadly, he's shown us that he's a liar before so ...

And you're thinking of... which player?

ETA: Another way to look at it is if a guy has a bad workout. They won't let that eliminate him when a guy has good game-tape.

True.

I'm wondering though if that's not new reason to wonder if all the suggestion that we're hot for Reddish is unmerited, ie, if one only takes the body of work at Duke and concludes he underperformed.

a. He just lies in general, not necessarily in relation to one particular player. It's sorta par for the course for his job but he wears it well. Ex. him saying we absolutely, positively do not want any more FRP's (when we only had 8/10)

b. we've been tied to each of the wangs so I doubt there's a need to justify one over the other.

[MaceCase]

I don't know, I could picture Schlenk being perfectly placed on the other side of the table in an East German interrogation room so I'm here for all the subterfuge.

[jayu70]

Liar....Schlenk isn't watching 4 years of college players - 1 maybe 2 years.

[peoriabird]

From C-Viv's article this am comes a single gem that gives us slightly more insight into the mind of the Colonel:

“I think, and teams have made big mistakes, when you disregard what you’ve seen from a player for four years in college and then he comes and has a great 45 minute workout and you change (your evaluation),” Schlenk said. “That would be a mistake.”

Cam Reddish is in trouble then!

[Ball4life32]

From C-Viv's article this am comes a single gem that gives us slightly more insight into the mind of the Colonel:

“I think, and teams have made big mistakes, when you disregard what you’ve seen from a player for four years in college and then he comes and has a great 45 minute workout and you change (your evaluation),” Schlenk said. “That would be a mistake.”

Cam Reddish is in trouble then!

Reddish played 4 years??

[jayu70]

Can someone post relevant snippets.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[High 5]

a. He just lies in general, not necessarily in relation to one particular player. It's sorta par for the course for his job but he wears it well. Ex. him saying we absolutely, positively do not want any more FRP's (when we only had 8/10)

b. we've been tied to each of the wangs so I doubt there's a need to justify one over the other.

I know he's talked about our surplus of 2019 draft picks, but did he actually say that? I can't remember his exact words.

Either way, I doubt this (not overvaluing workouts) is something he'd be dishonest about. Seems like common sense for a good GM.

[jayu70]

a. He just lies in general, not necessarily in relation to one particular player. It's sorta par for the course for his job but he wears it well. Ex. him saying we absolutely, positively do not want any more FRP's (when we only had 8/10)

b. we've been tied to each of the wangs so I doubt there's a need to justify one over the other.

I know he's talked about our surplus of 2019 draft picks, but did he actually say that? I can't remember his exact words.

Either way, I doubt this (not overvaluing workouts) is something he'd be dishonest about. Seems like common sense for a good GM.

He started the year excited about 3 lottery picks including the Cavs pick before it upped and vanished like a fart in the wind.

At the trade deadline said he wasn't looking for additional 2019 1st but was looking for future 1sts - I guessed nothing panned out trade wise.

I think he, like most fans thought was we'd end up higher than 8 and 10 after the lottery, we didn't, so I'm guessing getting an additional 1st in 2019 (#17) would now help to move up if needed and he also got the future 1st he was looking for. He may have also liked someone he saw as the workouts progressed for #17 if we don't move up.

That's why you take what GMs say with a grain of salt, things change like the landscape.

[kg01]

a. He just lies in general, not necessarily in relation to one particular player. It's sorta par for the course for his job but he wears it well. Ex. him saying we absolutely, positively do not want any more FRP's (when we only had 8/10)

b. we've been tied to each of the wangs so I doubt there's a need to justify one over the other.

I know he's talked about our surplus of 2019 draft picks, but did he actually say that? I can't remember his exact words.

Either way, I doubt this (not overvaluing workouts) is something he'd be dishonest about. Seems like common sense for a good GM.

Yeah, the part about not overvaluing workouts, I buy that. Funny though, CLP was interviewed and said a couple guys are off the board based off the vibe he got during their workout (re. coachability).

A few weeks ago, Schlenk strongly hinted that they did not want more '19 FRPs. I don't remember his exact words either but I'm sure they're out there on the interwebs somewhere just like proof of aliens and the route to Atlantis.

[Jamaaliver]

Can someone post relevant snippets.

There’s also a lot of confidence surrounding the organization having so much draft capital because of how well it has drafted in Schlenk’s first two drafts as the general manager. Atlanta found two starters and two players who are part of the core foundation in John Collins and Kevin Huerter at No. 19 and traded for Trae Young plus the No. 10 pick, which might help them move up Thursday night.

The Hawks’ analytics staff assigns a value to each of the picks in the draft and decides whether it’s worth it for the team to trade up or down.

Trades aren’t snap decisions made in the tense moments leading up to the start of the draft.

By the time the players arrive in Atlanta, the organization knows most everything about them. That’s why head coach Lloyd Pierce looks at those workouts as an elimination tool more than anything.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

a. He just lies in general, not necessarily in relation to one particular player. It's sorta par for the course for his job but he wears it well. Ex. him saying we absolutely, positively do not want any more FRP's (when we only had 8/10)

b. we've been tied to each of the wangs so I doubt there's a need to justify one over the other.

I know he's talked about our surplus of 2019 draft picks, but did he actually say that? I can't remember his exact words.

Either way, I doubt this (not overvaluing workouts) is something he'd be dishonest about. Seems like common sense for a good GM.

He started the year excited about 3 lottery picks including the Cavs pick before it upped and vanished like a fart in the wind.

At the trade deadline said he wasn't looking for additional 2019 1st but was looking for future 1sts - I guessed nothing panned out trade wise.

I think he, like most fans thought was we'd end up higher than 8 and 10 after the lottery, we didn't, so I'm guessing getting an additional 1st in 2019 (#17) would now help to move up if needed and he also got the future 1st he was looking for. He may have also liked someone he saw as the workouts progressed for #17 if we don't move up.

That's why you take what GMs say with a grain of salt, things change like the landscape.

Agree with everything here, with the caveat that there's a difference between changes in terms of roster-building philosophy and roster-building details. To his credit, our current GM is one of those who, once he outed himself and admitted his real roster-building philosophy following the DH trade, has been consistent in words and actions with regard to his philosophy. But the details like this one... ie, how many 1sts he actually prefers to have in a given draft, or how many rookies he thinks it wise to take to camp... are more fluid based on circumstances that present themselves.