Atlanta Hawks Official Trade Ideas Thread (Part 2)

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Collins and Trae are on their way to tier 1. Kevin is on his way to star role player. We got a core. This ain't the usual normal Hawks bull like usual

I think most of us think Collins and Young are going to be All-Stars during their careers. Really good. Good enough to keep us competitive in the playoffs.

I do NOT think most of us believe Collins and Young are going to be so good that either one, and certainly not both, are going to be considered elite, perennial 1st or 2nd team All-NBA... first tier players... taking us to the NBA finals.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but aside from a couple of sunshine pumpers, I don't see that kind of optimism.

And/so, if you do have that kind of optimism, at least I understand why you'd act so content to just draft whoever.

It's all the rest of us who don't have that level of optimism, actually, who aren't making a lot of sense to be content like that.

[King Ken]

Collins and Trae are on their way to tier 1. Kevin is on his way to star role player. We got a core. This ain't the usual normal Hawks bull like usual

I think most of us think Collins and Young are going to be All-Stars during their careers. Really good. Good enough to keep us competitive in the playoffs.

I do NOT think most of us believe Collins and Young are going to be so good that either one, and certainly not both, are going to be considered elite, perennial 1st or 2nd team All-NBA... first tier players... taking us to the NBA finals.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but aside from a couple of sunshine pumpers, I don't see that kind of optimism.

And/so, if you do have that kind of optimism, at least I understand why you'd act so content to just draft whoever.

It's all the rest of us who don't have that level of optimism, actually, who aren't making a lot of sense to be content like that.

I strongly believe both can be superstars with continued development especially Trae

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Superstars = 1st or 2nd All-NBA?

Trae for sure?

Maybe Collins too?

Might have to bookmark this thread now.

[Spud2nique]

Hypothetical trade, totally hypothetical just trying to gage player tiers vs assets known and unknown. Would you do either of the following trades if you are Schlenk?(personally I don’t want to ever deal with Boston hence the totally hypothetical part lol).

Hawks receive: Jason Tatum + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive : Taurean Prince + 2019 Hawks 1st pick (let’s say it lands at #2-5 pick)+ cap

Or:


Hawks receive: Jaylen Brown + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive: Taurean Prince + Mavs pick (say it lands 8-12)


This would free up space for the Celts to maybe TRY and go after the superstars on the market i.e. Davis/Durant/etc.

For us:

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf-Tatum
Pf-Collins
C- Free Agent/Mavs pick 8-12

Or

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf- Brown
Pf-Collins
C-Free Agent/Hawks pick (5th currently)

Just wondering where Hawks fans stand with these two trades. Am I overvaluing our guys? Their guys? Thoughts?

[King Ken]

Hypothetical trade, totally hypothetical just trying to gage player tiers vs assets known and unknown. Would you do either of the following trades if you are Schlenk?(personally I don’t want to ever deal with Boston hence the totally hypothetical part lol).

Hawks receive: Jason Tatum + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive : Taurean Prince + 2019 Hawks 1st pick (let’s say it lands at #2-5 pick)+ cap

Or:


Hawks receive: Jaylen Brown + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive: Taurean Prince + Mavs pick (say it lands 8-12)


This would free up space for the Celts to maybe TRY and go after the superstars on the market i.e. Davis/Durant/etc.

For us:

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf-Tatum
Pf-Collins
C- Free Agent/Mavs pick 8-12

Or

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf- Brown
Pf-Collins
C-Free Agent/Hawks pick (5th currently)

Just wondering where Hawks fans stand with these two trades. Am I overvaluing our guys? Their guys? Thoughts?

They will trade Tatum for Zion and AD, not anyone else.

I am not high on Brown as much as many. That said, Rozier makes this a no brainer and makes Boston say no instantly but that's neither here or there as Rozier is a RFA and not worth it anymore for us.

[MaceCase]

I'm going to look at it this way: if you set the trend that you're just going to release vets after failing to find a trade for them 2 years in a row, it only weakens your bargaining position in the future.

Peel that onion back a layer, okay?

If my team has limitations on what I can sign a free agent for... and that's a lot of teams... then if I want your player, it doesn't matter if you might buy-out after the deadline, because ***I can't get him anyway.***

And.

Even if my team *does* have salary cap capacity to sign your player... by *not* trading for that player, I put myself in a position that I may have to *compete in an auction market* for that player.

So, no.

Actually, to the contrary, Schlenk forces teams in the future to give him their legitimate best offers, and not presume he'll just fold and trade at the deadline for whatever. If they really like the player (and his contract), they're not taking the risk that someone else can swoop in and sign him instead... and again, that's even only in the event that the team seeking our player *can* sign him, given their sal cap situation.

Not sure that I follow. Salary cap implications are negated given that players such as Dedmon and Lin will be looking to sign for vet minimums for the remainder of the season, an unlimited exception provided to every team. This is particularly so given Schlenk's other track record of letting players (and coaches) walk with the most minimal of buyouts, if any.

So say playoff team (or hopeful) X has a legitimate interest in Lin but to acquire his ~13 million salary they'd have to part with valuable rotation depth and or picks to satisfy both trade rules plus Schlenk's demands. There is a lesser risk and greater confidence that they can acquire Lin due to the attractiveness of their positioning in the standings without impacting their current or future success by just waiting Schlenk out.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Not sure that I follow. Salary cap implications are negated given that players such as Dedmon and Lin will be looking to sign for vet minimums for the remainder of the season, an unlimited exception provided to every team. This is particularly so given Schlenk's other track record of letting players (and coaches) walk with the most minimal of buyouts, if any.

Reconcile that with this, please... I had to go double-check myself, but I was pretty sure I wasn't just imagining this...




https://www.sbnation.com/2018/2/9/16994790/nba-free-agency-nba-buyout-market-explained-how-do-contract-buyouts-work

[Spud2nique]

Hypothetical trade, totally hypothetical just trying to gage player tiers vs assets known and unknown. Would you do either of the following trades if you are Schlenk?(personally I don’t want to ever deal with Boston hence the totally hypothetical part lol).

Hawks receive: Jason Tatum + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive : Taurean Prince + 2019 Hawks 1st pick (let’s say it lands at #2-5 pick)+ cap

Or:


Hawks receive: Jaylen Brown + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive: Taurean Prince + Mavs pick (say it lands 8-12)


This would free up space for the Celts to maybe TRY and go after the superstars on the market i.e. Davis/Durant/etc.

For us:

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf-Tatum
Pf-Collins
C- Free Agent/Mavs pick 8-12

Or

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf- Brown
Pf-Collins
C-Free Agent/Hawks pick (5th currently)

Just wondering where Hawks fans stand with these two trades. Am I overvaluing our guys? Their guys? Thoughts?

They will trade Tatum for Zion and AD, not anyone else.

I am not high on Brown as much as many. That said, Rozier makes this a no brainer and makes Boston say no instantly but that's neither here or there as Rozier is a RFA and not worth it anymore for us.

I can’t seem to get a good gage on Tatum. I mean I’ve seen him and he’s good but people are saying he is Kobe-ish? What am I missing here?

They would only trade Tatum for AD or Zion? Good luck with that Ainge I don’t think that’s happening. I’m not even sure why the Pelicans would want the Celtics package over the Lakers. To me, a package of Ball, Ingram, Kuzma is better than what anything the Celts can put together.

[High 5]

Not sure that I follow. Salary cap implications are negated given that players such as Dedmon and Lin will be looking to sign for vet minimums for the remainder of the season, an unlimited exception provided to every team. This is particularly so given Schlenk's other track record of letting players (and coaches) walk with the most minimal of buyouts, if any.

Reconcile that with this, please... I had to go double-check myself, but I was pretty sure I wasn't just imagining this...




https://www.sbnation.com/2018/2/9/16994790/nba-free-agency-nba-buyout-market-explained-how-do-contract-buyouts-work

Maybe I'm just tired and misunderstanding the conversation, but it really seems like you've been inadvertently supporting Mace's argument in your last two replies. Or at least not actually countering his point.

[King Ken]

Hypothetical trade, totally hypothetical just trying to gage player tiers vs assets known and unknown. Would you do either of the following trades if you are Schlenk?(personally I don’t want to ever deal with Boston hence the totally hypothetical part lol).

Hawks receive: Jason Tatum + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive : Taurean Prince + 2019 Hawks 1st pick (let’s say it lands at #2-5 pick)+ cap

Or:


Hawks receive: Jaylen Brown + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive: Taurean Prince + Mavs pick (say it lands 8-12)


This would free up space for the Celts to maybe TRY and go after the superstars on the market i.e. Davis/Durant/etc.

For us:

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf-Tatum
Pf-Collins
C- Free Agent/Mavs pick 8-12

Or

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf- Brown
Pf-Collins
C-Free Agent/Hawks pick (5th currently)

Just wondering where Hawks fans stand with these two trades. Am I overvaluing our guys? Their guys? Thoughts?

They will trade Tatum for Zion and AD, not anyone else.

I am not high on Brown as much as many. That said, Rozier makes this a no brainer and makes Boston say no instantly but that's neither here or there as Rozier is a RFA and not worth it anymore for us.

I can’t seem to get a good gage on Tatum. I mean I’ve seen him and he’s good but people are saying he is Kobe-ish? What am I missing here?

They would only trade Tatum for AD or Zion? Good luck with that Ainge I don’t think that’s happening. I’m not even sure why the Pelicans would want the Celtics package over the Lakers. To me, a package of Ball, Ingram, Kuzma is better than what anything the Celts can put together.

He's not Kobe. I think he can be his own guy. He shoots it so well. He will be an All Star for along time and could be a superstar with a major breakthrough.

It will happen if offer. NO values Tatum.

I don't see it and I am a Bron stan. You get me Smart, Tatum, salary fillers and picks. That will win out.

[MaceCase]

Not sure that I follow. Salary cap implications are negated given that players such as Dedmon and Lin will be looking to sign for vet minimums for the remainder of the season, an unlimited exception provided to every team. This is particularly so given Schlenk's other track record of letting players (and coaches) walk with the most minimal of buyouts, if any.

Reconcile that with this, please... I had to go double-check myself, but I was pretty sure I wasn't just imagining this...




https://www.sbnation.com/2018/2/9/16994790/nba-free-agency-nba-buyout-market-explained-how-do-contract-buyouts-work

Read the second paragraph of your screenshot, particularly the first sentence:

A team has to be able to sign a player with its own cap space or whatever exceptions they have available

That's the vet min or, more technically, minimum player salary exception. Perhaps you're confusing your blurb with the previous section on that site about a team claiming a player off the waiver wire? A possibility, sure, but so unlikely as to be rendered moot in a discussion.

Need a real world example? Ersan and Marco last season. Schlenk negotiated with the Sixers for a trade up until the deadline but nothing materialized. Schlenk later bought Ersan and Marco out and they both still ended up on the Sixers despite the Sixers being over the cap and thus not having the prorated amount of ~12 million to "afford" either. How/why? The vet min.

[Spud2nique]

They will trade Tatum for Zion and AD, not anyone else.

I am not high on Brown as much as many. That said, Rozier makes this a no brainer and makes Boston say no instantly but that's neither here or there as Rozier is a RFA and not worth it anymore for us.

I can’t seem to get a good gage on Tatum. I mean I’ve seen him and he’s good but people are saying he is Kobe-ish? What am I missing here?

They would only trade Tatum for AD or Zion? Good luck with that Ainge I don’t think that’s happening. I’m not even sure why the Pelicans would want the Celtics package over the Lakers. To me, a package of Ball, Ingram, Kuzma is better than what anything the Celts can put together.

He's not Kobe. I think he can be his own guy. He shoots it so well. He will be an All Star for along time and could be a superstar with a major breakthrough.

It will happen if offer. NO values Tatum.

I don't see it and I am a Bron stan. You get me Smart, Tatum, salary fillers and picks. That will win out.

I don’t think they would include Smart just because of his team friendly contract for the next 3 years after this one. Plus he is their heart and soul as far as being Mr. Hustle and momentum changer as well as defensive stopper.

I don’t know Supes, I still like the combo package the Lakers could put together. Then again if Tatum is far superior to Ball+Kuzma+ Hart or Ball+Ingram+Hart then I see why Pels wait.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Read the second paragraph of your screenshot, particularly the first sentence:

A team has to be able to sign a player with its own cap space or whatever exceptions they have available

That's the vet min or, more technically, minimum player salary exception. Perhaps you're confusing your blurb with the previous section on that site about a team claiming a player off the waiver wire? A possibility, sure, but so unlikely as to be rendered moot in a discussion.

Need a real world example? Ersan and Marco last season. Schlenk negotiated with the Sixers for a trade up until the deadline but nothing materialized. Schlenk later bought Ersan and Marco out and they both still ended up on the Sixers despite the Sixers being over the cap and thus not having the prorated amount of ~12 million to "afford" either. How/why? The vet min.

It's ONLY THE VET MINIMUM ***if*** a given team doesn't have cap room or exceptions.

That's my point.

And there ARE routinely teams that have cap room and exceptions.

This is what has KEPT US from acquiring buy out players in the past... usually someone has had an exception that we didn't.

Are we on the same page now?

So, circling back, that's why it's not all hunky-dorry to let a Hawks player you want get bought-out... (1) there's no guarantee that another team with cap space or exceptions won't get him instead of you, and (2) even if that's not an issue, regardless, you still have the potential for other teams to be interested, and to fail to win the competition for his services.

[MaceCase]

Read the second paragraph of your screenshot, particularly the first sentence:

A team has to be able to sign a player with its own cap space or whatever exceptions they have available

That's the vet min or, more technically, minimum player salary exception. Perhaps you're confusing your blurb with the previous section on that site about a team claiming a player off the waiver wire? A possibility, sure, but so unlikely as to be rendered moot in a discussion.

Need a real world example? Ersan and Marco last season. Schlenk negotiated with the Sixers for a trade up until the deadline but nothing materialized. Schlenk later bought Ersan and Marco out and they both still ended up on the Sixers despite the Sixers being over the cap and thus not having the prorated amount of ~12 million to "afford" either. How/why? The vet min.

It's ONLY THE VET MINIMUM ***if*** a given team doesn't have cap room or exceptions.

That's my point.

And there ARE routinely teams that have cap room and exceptions.

This is what has KEPT US from acquiring buy out players in the past... usually someone has had an exception that we didn't.

Are we on the same page now?

So, circling back, that's why it's not all hunky-dorry to let a Hawks player you want get bought-out... (1) there's no guarantee that another team with cap space or exceptions won't get him instead of you, and (2) even if that's not an issue, regardless, you still have the potential for other teams to be interested, and to fail to win the competition for his services.

This seems like making an argument for argument's sake.

1) A player walking away with ~13 million in their pocket already isn't necessarily looking for the most money on the open market to the point that they are valuing the difference of a prorated amount of 1-3 million, particularly over showcasing themselves in the best light for a contract potentially worth in the tens of millions during the summer.

2) Given that and the fact that teams weren't exactly tripping over themselves to get a trade done considering that Schlenk notably didn't have lofty trade demands to begin with, I'd stand confidently behind the assertion that no team is necessarily looking at Lin and/or Dedmon as the difference between fizzling out early and a significant playoff run.

3) This is while also considering that there were and likely to be other comparable players available on the trade and buyout markets.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

So, I'm satisfied that, at least now, we're on the same page about the potential auction that can occur post-buyout.

But, um.

And yet, we don't see players make decisions based on more money?

To the contrary, I think we do.. and especially when they perceive that, if it's not the Warriors (or whoever is that year's foregone conclusion champ), then one playoff team is as good as the next one in terms of a landing spot.

I'll grant this much... the opportunity to participate in the playoffs is absolutely a big deal (obviously)... but I didn't say it wasn't, of course, and since that's 16 teams, that's a conceivably sizeable number of potential options for Joe Buyout.

Circling back (again) to the larger point (and I was only making a larger point)... there is still good reason for a team to prefer to make a deal rather than hope the buy out thing works in their favor, especially if in fact they consider that player to be a critical piece.

[Ball4life32]

Hypothetical trade, totally hypothetical just trying to gage player tiers vs assets known and unknown. Would you do either of the following trades if you are Schlenk?(personally I don’t want to ever deal with Boston hence the totally hypothetical part lol).

Hawks receive: Jason Tatum + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive : Taurean Prince + 2019 Hawks 1st pick (let’s say it lands at #2-5 pick)+ cap

Or:


Hawks receive: Jaylen Brown + Terry Rozier

Celtics receive: Taurean Prince + Mavs pick (say it lands 8-12)


This would free up space for the Celts to maybe TRY and go after the superstars on the market i.e. Davis/Durant/etc.

For us:

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf-Tatum
Pf-Collins
C- Free Agent/Mavs pick 8-12

Or

Pg- Trae/Rozier
Sg- Huerter
Sf- Brown
Pf-Collins
C-Free Agent/Hawks pick (5th currently)

Just wondering where Hawks fans stand with these two trades. Am I overvaluing our guys? Their guys? Thoughts?

#1 I might do but I have no interest in Rozier. He is an inefficient PG that’s about to be a RFA and wants to be a starter (and get paid like one). He doesn’t really have any value...would love Tatum but really depends on on how Schlneck values Barrett/Reddish/Culver.

Second trade I would reject quickly.

[MaceCase]

So, I'm satisfied that, at least now, we're on the same page about the potential auction that can occur post-buyout.

But, um.

And yet, we don't see players make decisions based on more money?

To the contrary, I think we do.. and especially when they perceive that, if it's not the Warriors (or whoever is that year's foregone conclusion champ), then one playoff team is as good as the next one in terms of a landing spot.

I'll grant this much... the opportunity to participate in the playoffs is absolutely a big deal (obviously)... but I didn't say it wasn't, of course, and since that's 16 teams, that's a conceivably sizeable number of potential options for Joe Buyout.

Circling back (again) to the larger point (and I was only making a larger point)... there is still good reason for a team to prefer to make a deal rather than hope the buy out thing works in their favor, especially if in fact they consider that player to be a critical piece.

My larger point was Schlenk is running a store with items for sale. If customers feel that the same items on the racks or shelves will be available in a week at 75%+ discount then there's a high likelihood that they'll balk at paying the full price now. That may be because the customers don't have the ability to afford the items or they just consider themselves to be shrewd and refuse to pay full price now.

There is a possibility that the items may be sold out in a week but that does not outweigh the customer's desire not to pay full price.

Continuing my larger point, Schlenk may have decided that he's running a couture store now, the items are never going on sale. This has the intended effect that if customers have an interest in his items they'll pay the full price now or watch the garments get sent back to the factory to be destroyed.

Going "full circle" it seems that you've been in agreeance with me from the very beginning yet still decided to argue for argument's sake.

[Spud2nique]

Mace and Sturt ...

Watch on YouTube

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Going "full circle" it seems that you've been in agreeance with me from the very beginning yet still decided to argue for argument's sake.

Um. Here's your original statement on the topic, followed by my counter.



And every post you've made has been to reassert your point, and every post I've made has been to reassert the second layer below the surface... ie, that if the buyer thinks he might have more competition that would keep him from acquiring the asset he really truly wants to acquire, he's got a legitimate hard decision to make, and not this "I'll just wait until the After Christmas sale" attitude you allege would be taken.

(My position changes only in that instance that we find that the other buyer isn't actually that sold on the asset on the store shelf, and is just trying to get an After Christmas (aka, trade deadline) sale bargain before Christmas (aka trade deadline). In which case, the fool is the one who actually settles.)

So explain to me again how I've been "in agreeance" (hehe) with you from the very beginning??? You made that up. I have no idea how you got that. Absurd.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

... and there she goes...






(hehe... thanks Spud... that was fun.)