Schlenk: 2018 was top heavy, 2019 is a deep draft

[High 5]

1) The point about exceeding expectations was to say Schlenk has no reason to feel worse about his selection. So if he believed in Trae a year ago (enough to trade away Doncic) then he would obviously still believe in him after an excellent rookie season. I'm almost certain you have more sense than to miss the point that badly.

You're confounding two very different things as-if they're the same, my friend.

Just because he believed in Trae enough to trade Doncic does not mean he projected either one of them to be cornerstone players. Not at all. That's an open question.

He's been silent on his original expectations, and not that anyone should have anticipated he would have expressed openly either way.

To your point... Had it been the case that Schlenk ever said, "We consider Doncic to be an elite talent," that at least gets us really close to the conclusion that he also considered Trae that way, and then, yes, as you suggest, if Trae then is applauded as having exceeded expectations in his rookie season, you're right that no one, not even me as ridiculously simple as I am, would have missed that.

We know Schlenk was tanking for a cornerstone player. We know he consistently talked about how stacked the top of the draft was. We know he had an opportunity to get one of those players with the 3rd pick. We know how good Luka and Trae were as rookies. We know Schlenk has talked about putting talent around Trae and his role as a player who gets everyone involved and then can take over down the stretch. We know Trae has already had an effect on FA based on what Schlenk said about Len wanting to sign here to play with him.

All signs point towards Trae being a cornerstone player and Schlenk believing it. If you need Schlenk to spell it out for you then you may be waiting forever no matter what happens.

As for your 2nd post, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. But look at any thread you've discussed this in. How many Hawks fans have agreed with you? To be clear, it's fine to have a different opinion and being in the minority doesn't make you wrong. But at least be honest about the situation.

[Geaux_Hawks]

1) The point about exceeding expectations was to say Schlenk has no reason to feel worse about his selection. So if he believed in Trae a year ago (enough to trade away Doncic) then he would obviously still believe in him after an excellent rookie season. I'm almost certain you have more sense than to miss the point that badly.

You're confounding two very different things as-if they're the same, my friend.

Just because he believed in Trae enough to trade Doncic does not mean he projected either one of them to be cornerstone players. Not at all. That's an open question.

He's been silent on his original expectations, and not that anyone should have anticipated he would have expressed openly either way.

To your point... Had it been the case that Schlenk ever said, "We consider Doncic to be an elite talent," that at least gets us really close to the conclusion that he also considered Trae that way, and then, yes, as you suggest, if Trae then is applauded as having exceeded expectations in his rookie season, you're right that no one, not even me as ridiculously simple as I am, would have missed that.

We know Schlenk was tanking for a cornerstone player. We know he consistently talked about how stacked the top of the draft was. We know he had an opportunity to get one of those players with the 3rd pick. We know how good Luka and Trae were as rookies. We know Schlenk has talked about putting talent around Trae and his role as a player who gets everyone involved and then can take over down the stretch. We know Trae has already had an effect on FA based on what Schlenk said about Len wanting to sign here to play with him.

All signs point towards Trae being a cornerstone player and Schlenk believing it. If you need Schlenk to spell it out for you then you may be waiting forever no matter what happens.

As for your 2nd post, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. But look at any thread you've discussed this in. How many Hawks fans have agreed with you? To be clear, it's fine to have a different opinion and being in the minority doesn't make you wrong. But at least be honest about the situation.

Considering all the hype surrounding Luka, I think he believed he was getting a cornerstone in Trae. I'm curious to know if he would have taken Trae at 3 if we stayed there. Dallas may have been jumping Memphis for the right to select Luka instead of allowing Memphis to have him if that was the case.

[Buzzard]

1) The point about exceeding expectations was to say Schlenk has no reason to feel worse about his selection. So if he believed in Trae a year ago (enough to trade away Doncic) then he would obviously still believe in him after an excellent rookie season. I'm almost certain you have more sense than to miss the point that badly.

You're confounding two very different things as-if they're the same, my friend.

Just because he believed in Trae enough to trade Doncic does not mean he projected either one of them to be cornerstone players. Not at all. That's an open question.

He's been silent on his original expectations, and not that anyone should have anticipated he would have expressed openly either way.

To your point... Had it been the case that Schlenk ever said, "We consider Doncic to be an elite talent," that at least gets us really close to the conclusion that he also considered Trae that way, and then, yes, as you suggest, if Trae then is applauded as having exceeded expectations in his rookie season, you're right that no one, not even me as ridiculously simple as I am, would have missed that.

We know Schlenk was tanking for a cornerstone player. We know he consistently talked about how stacked the top of the draft was. We know he had an opportunity to get one of those players with the 3rd pick. We know how good Luka and Trae were as rookies. We know Schlenk has talked about putting talent around Trae and his role as a player who gets everyone involved and then can take over down the stretch. We know Trae has already had an effect on FA based on what Schlenk said about Len wanting to sign here to play with him.

All signs point towards Trae being a cornerstone player and Schlenk believing it. If you need Schlenk to spell it out for you then you may be waiting forever no matter what happens.

As for your 2nd post, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. But look at any thread you've discussed this in. How many Hawks fans have agreed with you? To be clear, it's fine to have a different opinion and being in the minority doesn't make you wrong. But at least be honest about the situation.

Sturt does not get this when it comes to Schlenk. No GM in their right mind is going to come out and declare a rookie player the next MVP or cornerstone ( that would be Dominique Wilkins like for us, yes it has been that long ). I do not recall that being said about anyone ever drafted by a GM. Just being a top five pick is enough pressure; now add the pressure of being traded for a top three pick.

Trae had enough pressure just from fans and media. He sure as hell does not need anymore coming internally from his coach on up.

[High 5]

Considering all the hype surrounding Luka, I think he believed he was getting a cornerstone in Trae. I'm curious to know if he would have taken Trae at 3 if we stayed there. Dallas may have been jumping Memphis for the right to select Luka instead of allowing Memphis to have him if that was the case.

Schlenk has said he would have drafted Luka if we stayed at 3.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1) The point about exceeding expectations was to say Schlenk has no reason to feel worse about his selection. So if he believed in Trae a year ago (enough to trade away Doncic) then he would obviously still believe in him after an excellent rookie season. I'm almost certain you have more sense than to miss the point that badly.

You're confounding two very different things as-if they're the same, my friend.

Just because he believed in Trae enough to trade Doncic does not mean he projected either one of them to be cornerstone players. Not at all. That's an open question.

He's been silent on his original expectations, and not that anyone should have anticipated he would have expressed openly either way.

To your point... Had it been the case that Schlenk ever said, "We consider Doncic to be an elite talent," that at least gets us really close to the conclusion that he also considered Trae that way, and then, yes, as you suggest, if Trae then is applauded as having exceeded expectations in his rookie season, you're right that no one, not even me as ridiculously simple as I am, would have missed that.

We know Schlenk was tanking for a cornerstone player. We know he consistently talked about how stacked the top of the draft was. We know he had an opportunity to get one of those players with the 3rd pick. We know how good Luka and Trae were as rookies. We know Schlenk has talked about putting talent around Trae and his role as a player who gets everyone involved and then can take over down the stretch. We know Trae has already had an effect on FA based on what Schlenk said about Len wanting to sign here to play with him.

All signs point towards Trae being a cornerstone player and Schlenk believing it. If you need Schlenk to spell it out for you then you may be waiting forever no matter what happens.

As for your 2nd post, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. But look at any thread you've discussed this in. How many Hawks fans have agreed with you? To be clear, it's fine to have a different opinion and being in the minority doesn't make you wrong. But at least be honest about the situation.

Same answer to both points you raised...

If one is a trained researcher, non-response is a special problem because, as a researcher you're attempting to approach whatever you're researching objectively and with as little bias as possible.

As such, the trained researcher knows it's not for any researcher to say that s/he knows what those people who chose not to say anything in response to a given survey question, or to a question in a focus group, or to a question in an interview would have said.

That's if the question is directly posed, s/he can't presume him/herself to know.

How much more is that the case when the question itself hasn't been posed.

I approach these things like I do research.

Some people don't. They consider themselves omniscient.

Soooooo.... really? "At least be honest about the situation?" Which of us is being honest about the situation...

The one who says he knows what people who are silent think? The one who says "everyone" agrees with him, and thus, no one is on the fence about Trae's future? The one who, when asked to be more specific about who "everyone" is, blatantly avoids being specific?

Okay. Right.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Considering all the hype surrounding Luka, I think he believed he was getting a cornerstone in Trae. I'm curious to know if he would have taken Trae at 3 if we stayed there. Dallas may have been jumping Memphis for the right to select Luka instead of allowing Memphis to have him if that was the case.

So, let's get this straight... on the basis of the hype, you believe Schlenk believed the hype??? and thus believed he was getting a cornerstone??? and thus believed Trae would finish multiple times in the MVP top 5 voting???

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Sturt does not get this when it comes to Schlenk. No GM in their right mind is going to come out and declare a rookie player the next MVP or cornerstone ( that would be Dominique Wilkins like for us, yes it has been that long ). I do not recall that being said about anyone ever drafted by a GM. Just being a top five pick is enough pressure; now add the pressure of being traded for a top three pick.

Trae had enough pressure just from fans and media. He sure as hell does not need anymore coming internally from his coach on up.

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

Some people seem bothered by that notion for whatever reason. Some are bothered even by the notion, evidently, that other people might possibly not be unanimous in their belief that Player X will evolve into a multiple-season top 5 MVP finisher.



Ultimately, we'll learn his draft philosophy with better certainty... amazingly enough... on draft night, of course. And with that, we'll also learn with more certainty how he thinks about Trae.

[REHawksFan]

Considering all the hype surrounding Luka, I think he believed he was getting a cornerstone in Trae. I'm curious to know if he would have taken Trae at 3 if we stayed there. Dallas may have been jumping Memphis for the right to select Luka instead of allowing Memphis to have him if that was the case.

So, let's get this straight... on the basis of the hype, you believe Schlenk believed the hype??? and thus believed he was getting a cornerstone??? and thus believed Trae would finish multiple times in the MVP top 5 voting???

We could just take his word for it when he literally said "the players project to be superstars (all stars)"

The all stars is in parentheses because I've seen it quoted with super star and all star. Either way, however, the intent is clear. I dont see why you are insistent on parsing it out. As others have said, if you are determined to have hom say specifically, " Trae is our cornerstone" then you are going to be waiting a long while.

Also, it's not my argument, but it seems patently unfair if not completely absurd to assert Travis holds to your personal standard of "multiple top 5 mvp finishes". To use that in your argument with other posters is fairly presumptuous.

[REHawksFan]

Sturt does not get this when it comes to Schlenk. No GM in their right mind is going to come out and declare a rookie player the next MVP or cornerstone ( that would be Dominique Wilkins like for us, yes it has been that long ). I do not recall that being said about anyone ever drafted by a GM. Just being a top five pick is enough pressure; now add the pressure of being traded for a top three pick.

Trae had enough pressure just from fans and media. He sure as hell does not need anymore coming internally from his coach on up.

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

Some people seem bothered by that notion for whatever reason. Some are bothered even by the notion, evidently, that other people might possibly not be unanimous in their belief that Player X will evolve into a multiple-season top 5 MVP finisher.



Ultimately, we'll learn his draft philosophy with better certainty... amazingly enough... on draft night, of course. And with that, we'll also learn with more certainty how he thinks about Trae.

I doubt you will find anyone upset with the generic concept of one belief = one draft strategy and a different belief = a different draft strategy.

That's obvious. The contention is that it seems fairly obvious to nearly everyone other than you how Schlenk feels about Trae. That - in conjunction with your repeated questioning of the concept- is what causes the constant contention.

[Buzzard]

Sturt does not get this when it comes to Schlenk. No GM in their right mind is going to come out and declare a rookie player the next MVP or cornerstone ( that would be Dominique Wilkins like for us, yes it has been that long ). I do not recall that being said about anyone ever drafted by a GM. Just being a top five pick is enough pressure; now add the pressure of being traded for a top three pick.

Trae had enough pressure just from fans and media. He sure as hell does not need anymore coming internally from his coach on up.

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

No it does not point in some one direction.

OKC drafted Durant. Then drafted Westbrook, Harden; later drafted Adams and brought on George.
Houston traded for Harden. Then signed D12 and later traded for CP3 and drafted Capela.
Lakers drafted Kobe. Brought on Shaq. Then brought on D12. Cannot count the number of picks, trades, and FA signings while Kobe was in his prime.
Miami drafted Wade. Brought on Shaq and then LeBron and Bosh.
Boston drafted Pierce. Then drafted Jefferson and Rondo and then brought on Garnet and Allen.
GSW drafted Curry. Then drafted Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, then brought on Durant.

Many ways to do this, many directions to go with the draft, trades, and free agency as the above examples prove. The direction has to be fluid; which is what the above examples show.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

We could just take his word for it when he literally said "the players project to be superstars (all stars)"

The all stars is in parentheses because I've seen it quoted with super star and all star. Either way, however, the intent is clear. I dont see why you are insistent on parsing it out.

One of us can acknowledge that there are two ways to legitimately interpret that quote, and has said as much on more than one occasion.

One of us doesn't. (Not can't, but doesn't.)

As others have said, if you are determined to have hom say specifically, " Trae is our cornerstone" then you are going to be waiting a long while.

Ignoring that I just addressed that. If you're wanting me to respond, you'll have to respond to what I just said. If your point is to just avoid the discussion, then sure, go ahead and repeat the same thing.

Also, it's not my argument, but it seems patently unfair if not completely absurd to assert Travis holds to your personal standard of "multiple top 5 mvp finishes". To use that in your argument with other posters is fairly presumptuous.

Again. Ignoring that I addressed that already, too...



"MY OWN mulitple top 5 MVP finishes thing" is one measure. If you'd like to engineer your own other measure, you're welcome to that.

There is reason for establishing some explicit yardstick, though, if we're serious. Because "elite" and "cornerstone" obviously are merely words, not different from "star" or "superstar" or "generational talent".... until we put some specific objective quantitative definition to a term, people have too much room to disagree, and no productive conversation can come from that.

So, chide me to your heart's content, but as with most things it seems with you, you're just exercising your derision muscles.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

The contention is that it seems fairly obvious to nearly everyone other than you how Schlenk feels about Trae. That - in conjunction with your repeated questioning of the concept- is what causes the constant contention.

I've addressed that... too.

If you want a productive conversation, you have to engage what was said and offer some kind of counterpoint...



Your problem on that assertion is, you can't get anyone to say EITHER WAY.

And I tried. In your case, iirc, you excused yourself from putting a vote out there because it somehow would be playing into some devious trick... hehe... and given that the voting is all anonymous, it was all the more amusing that you didn't want to go on record.

Indeed, only 3 people even voted after about 50 views. How many posters do we have here?

Pardon the inconvenient observation, but the more reasonable working theory was that people were honest enough that they knew their answer would NOT be "2+"... so, they just avoided voting altogether rather than vote in a way that might play into the devious trick.




If one is a trained researcher, non-response is a special problem because, as a researcher you're attempting to approach whatever you're researching objectively and with as little bias as possible.

As such, the trained researcher knows it's not for any researcher to say that s/he knows what those people who chose not to say anything in response to a given survey question, or to a question in a focus group, or to a question in an interview would have said.

That's if the question is directly posed, s/he can't presume him/herself to know.

How much more is that the case when the question itself hasn't been posed.

I approach these things like I do research.

Some people don't. They consider themselves omniscient.

Soooooo.... really? "At least be honest about the situation?" Which of us is being honest about the situation...

The one who says he knows what people who are silent think? The one who says "everyone" agrees with him, and thus, no one is on the fence about Trae's future? The one who, when asked to be more specific about who "everyone" is, blatantly avoids being specific?

Okay. Right.

[REHawksFan]

We could just take his word for it when he literally said "the players project to be superstars (all stars)"

The all stars is in parentheses because I've seen it quoted with super star and all star. Either way, however, the intent is clear. I dont see why you are insistent on parsing it out.

One of us can acknowledge that there are two ways to legitimately interpret that quote, and has said as much on more than one occasion.

One of us doesn't. (Not can't, but doesn't.)

As others have said, if you are determined to have hom say specifically, " Trae is our cornerstone" then you are going to be waiting a long while.

Ignoring that I just addressed that. If you're wanting me to respond, you'll have to respond to what I just said. If your point is to just avoid the discussion, then sure, go ahead and repeat the same thing.

Also, it's not my argument, but it seems patently unfair if not completely absurd to assert Travis holds to your personal standard of "multiple top 5 mvp finishes". To use that in your argument with other posters is fairly presumptuous.

Again. Ignoring that I addressed that already, too...



"MY OWN mulitple top 5 MVP finishes thing" is one measure. If you'd like to engineer your own other measure, you're welcome to that.

There is reason for establishing some explicit yardstick, though, if we're serious. Because "elite" and "cornerstone" obviously are merely words, not different from "star" or "superstar" or "generational talent".... until we put some specific objective quantitative definition to a term, people have too much room to disagree, and no productive conversation can come from that.

So, chide me to your heart's content, but as with most things it seems with you, you're just exercising your derision muscles.

Except there aren't 2 ways to interpret the quote unless you are determined to parse his words. He specifically said they are projected to be super stars / all stars. The only ambiguity is the difference in all star vs superstar but in the context of the quote, it is clear that they are building blocks of the franchise.

The only alternative is to say yes they are potential superstars but we want different superstars in which case it would be absurd for him to draft them in the first place. So that is illogical.

You want to paint this as me (and others) being unyielding to open discussion or alternative viewpoints but in reality you are just looking to parse words and hang on every detail rather than understanding the context of what was said.

Let's look at the evidence:

He drafted trae 5th overall
He has an opportunity cost of Luka who is likely the ROY
Trae finishes top 2 in rookie of the year (presumed)
Trae sets records for rookies on the NBA
Schlenk states "[trae] projects to be a superstar / all star"
Schlenk states other players are going to want to play with trae

How on earth does that point to any other conclusion than Trae is the focal point star that the franchise is building around???

[REHawksFan]

The contention is that it seems fairly obvious to nearly everyone other than you how Schlenk feels about Trae. That - in conjunction with your repeated questioning of the concept- is what causes the constant contention.

I've addressed that... too.

If you want a productive conversation, you have to engage what was said and offer some kind of counterpoint...



Your problem on that assertion is, you can't get anyone to say EITHER WAY.

And I tried. In your case, iirc, you excused yourself from putting a vote out there because it somehow would be playing into some devious trick... hehe... and given that the voting is all anonymous, it was all the more amusing that you didn't want to go on record.

Indeed, only 3 people even voted after about 50 views. How many posters do we have here?

Pardon the inconvenient observation, but the more reasonable working theory was that people were honest enough that they knew their answer would NOT be "2+"... so, they just avoided voting altogether rather than vote in a way that might play into the devious trick.




If one is a trained researcher, non-response is a special problem because, as a researcher you're attempting to approach whatever you're researching objectively and with as little bias as possible.

As such, the trained researcher knows it's not for any researcher to say that s/he knows what those people who chose not to say anything in response to a given survey question, or to a question in a focus group, or to a question in an interview would have said.

That's if the question is directly posed, s/he can't presume him/herself to know.

How much more is that the case when the question itself hasn't been posed.

I approach these things like I do research.

Some people don't. They consider themselves omniscient.

Soooooo.... really? "At least be honest about the situation?" Which of us is being honest about the situation...

The one who says he knows what people who are silent think? The one who says "everyone" agrees with him, and thus, no one is on the fence about Trae's future? The one who, when asked to be more specific about who "everyone" is, blatantly avoids being specific?

Okay. Right.

Do you even know who you are responding to? I said none of the above. That was a different poster.

[High 5]

Same answer to both points you raised...

If one is a trained researcher, non-response is a special problem because, as a researcher you're attempting to approach whatever you're researching objectively and with as little bias as possible.

As such, the trained researcher knows it's not for any researcher to say that s/he knows what those people who chose not to say anything in response to a given survey question, or to a question in a focus group, or to a question in an interview would have said.

That's if the question is directly posed, s/he can't presume him/herself to know.

How much more is that the case when the question itself hasn't been posed.

I approach these things like I do research.

Some people don't. They consider themselves omniscient.

Soooooo.... really? "At least be honest about the situation?" Which of us is being honest about the situation...

The one who says he knows what people who are silent think? The one who says "everyone" agrees with him, and thus, no one is on the fence about Trae's future? The one who, when asked to be more specific about who "everyone" is, blatantly avoids being specific?

Okay. Right.

You're quite the hypocrite. You've made a point on multiple occasions to assume where people stand based on them not participating in a poll. You've said as much in this very thread.

When I said everyone I meant every Hawks fan I've seen comment on this cornerstone discussion. It has been the subject of at least a few threads at this point and it seemed like you were alone in all of them. Which, again, is fine. But "we" did not need to consider changing our stance on the topic. That was my original point before you went off the rails.

[REHawksFan]

And btw this idea that you keep asserting that because no one voted in your poll it somehow points to the board agreeing with your opinion is.....convenient. Not at all logical but certainly convenient for your talking points.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Sturt does not get this when it comes to Schlenk. No GM in their right mind is going to come out and declare a rookie player the next MVP or cornerstone ( that would be Dominique Wilkins like for us, yes it has been that long ). I do not recall that being said about anyone ever drafted by a GM. Just being a top five pick is enough pressure; now add the pressure of being traded for a top three pick.

Trae had enough pressure just from fans and media. He sure as hell does not need anymore coming internally from his coach on up.

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

No it does not point in some one direction.

OKC drafted Durant. Then drafted Westbrook, Harden; later drafted Adams and brought on George.
Houston traded for Harden. Then signed D12 and later traded for CP3 and drafted Capela.
Lakers drafted Kobe. Brought on Shaq. Then brought on D12. Cannot count the number of picks, trades, and FA signings while Kobe was in his prime.
Miami drafted Wade. Brought on Shaq and then LeBron and Bosh.
Boston drafted Pierce. Then drafted Jefferson and Rondo and then brought on Garnet and Allen.
GSW drafted Curry. Then drafted Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, then brought on Durant.

Many ways to do this, many directions to go with the draft, trades, and free agency as the above examples prove. The direction has to be fluid; which is what the above examples show.

Buzz, not sure where you think in all of that you think you, me and Schlenk disagree.

In every instance, there was an elite player obtained. Once that player was obtained, there were other ASG-level or better players added.



Let's see if we can come to some meeting of the minds this way, then...

1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

[REHawksFan]

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

No it does not point in some one direction.

OKC drafted Durant. Then drafted Westbrook, Harden; later drafted Adams and brought on George.
Houston traded for Harden. Then signed D12 and later traded for CP3 and drafted Capela.
Lakers drafted Kobe. Brought on Shaq. Then brought on D12. Cannot count the number of picks, trades, and FA signings while Kobe was in his prime.
Miami drafted Wade. Brought on Shaq and then LeBron and Bosh.
Boston drafted Pierce. Then drafted Jefferson and Rondo and then brought on Garnet and Allen.
GSW drafted Curry. Then drafted Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, then brought on Durant.

Many ways to do this, many directions to go with the draft, trades, and free agency as the above examples prove. The direction has to be fluid; which is what the above examples show.

Buzz, not sure where you think in all of that you think you, me and Schlenk disagree.

In every instance, there was an elite player obtained. Once that player was obtained, there were other ASG-level or better players added.



Let's see if we can come to some meeting of the minds this way, then...

1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

Interestingly by your own argument you've laid out, Schlenks first order of business is to draft a potentially elite player.

His first, post tank, draft pick is trae. So surely even you can agree that the pick was made with the intent that trae be the elite cornerstone player, right? For otherwise your argument that this is the chief priority goes out the window.

So if trae was drafted with the intent if being the cornerstone and then he goes out and exceeds expectations, how do you logically get to the point of questioning how Schlenk feels about trae?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

We could just take his word for it when he literally said "the players project to be superstars (all stars)"

The all stars is in parentheses because I've seen it quoted with super star and all star. Either way, however, the intent is clear. I dont see why you are insistent on parsing it out.

One of us can acknowledge that there are two ways to legitimately interpret that quote, and has said as much on more than one occasion.

One of us doesn't. (Not can't, but doesn't.)

As others have said, if you are determined to have hom say specifically, " Trae is our cornerstone" then you are going to be waiting a long while.

Ignoring that I just addressed that. If you're wanting me to respond, you'll have to respond to what I just said. If your point is to just avoid the discussion, then sure, go ahead and repeat the same thing.

Also, it's not my argument, but it seems patently unfair if not completely absurd to assert Travis holds to your personal standard of "multiple top 5 mvp finishes". To use that in your argument with other posters is fairly presumptuous.

Again. Ignoring that I addressed that already, too...



"MY OWN mulitple top 5 MVP finishes thing" is one measure. If you'd like to engineer your own other measure, you're welcome to that.

There is reason for establishing some explicit yardstick, though, if we're serious. Because "elite" and "cornerstone" obviously are merely words, not different from "star" or "superstar" or "generational talent".... until we put some specific objective quantitative definition to a term, people have too much room to disagree, and no productive conversation can come from that.

So, chide me to your heart's content, but as with most things it seems with you, you're just exercising your derision muscles.

Except there aren't 2 ways to interpret the quote unless you are determined to parse his words. He specifically said they are projected to be super stars / all stars. The only ambiguity is the difference in all star vs superstar but in the context of the quote, it is clear that they are building blocks of the franchise.

The only alternative is to say yes they are potential superstars but we want different superstars in which case it would be absurd for him to draft them in the first place. So that is illogical.

You want to paint this as me (and others) being unyielding to open discussion or alternative viewpoints but in reality you are just looking to parse words and hang on every detail rather than understanding the context of what was said.

Let's look at the evidence:

He drafted trae 5th overall
He has an opportunity cost of Luka who is likely the ROY
Trae finishes top 2 in rookie of the year (presumed)
Trae sets records for rookies on the NBA
Schlenk states "[trae] projects to be a superstar / all star"
Schlenk states other players are going to want to play with trae

How on earth does that point to any other conclusion than Trae is the focal point star that the franchise is building around???

There are two ways to interpret the words in the quote.

You desperately want to malign the idea of parsing. It doesn't appear to serve your purposes.

But unfortunately, sometimes people assign more specific meaning to terms, and sometimes they assign more broad meaning to terms. That's just the nature of things. And if you don't get the chance to ask the person for more information to fill-out how s/he actually meant a given term, then why are you so insistent that you can divine that meaning on your own?

Example... who's to say what an "elite" talent is? If we just use that word, then one person may suggest Zion Williamson has "elite" talent and, if asked, might legitimately explain that what s/he means by that is that his talent is above the average NBA player... but may back away from suggesting that his talent is enough to stamp him as HoF bound.... whereas another person may use the same "elite" term, and by that, mean strictly a talent that is HoF bound.

This isn't anything you don't already know. But for whatever reason, this is very important to you to obfuscate what you know, and what we all know, to get to a conclusion that is really, really important to you to establish as being 100% certain.

Now, you want to relitigate the discussion we've already had as-if there's some new angle you can take that might give your position some oxygen.

Good luck with that. I'm satisfied I've said everything on that that I need to say.

[Buzzard]

That's inaccurate.

I do understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make such a statement. Of course.

It bears adding... I also understand how unlikely it is that a GM would make the OPPOSITE statement if he really felt THAT way.



So if I understand that, then why raise the question at all--ie, what the GM actually believes about Player X?

You fail to understand, evidently. Let me remind where this whole thing began... it's because I'm trying to deduce his draft philosophy for 2019.

If one believes Schlenk believes has his elite cornerstone player, then that points one direction; if not, it points another.

No it does not point in some one direction.

OKC drafted Durant. Then drafted Westbrook, Harden; later drafted Adams and brought on George.
Houston traded for Harden. Then signed D12 and later traded for CP3 and drafted Capela.
Lakers drafted Kobe. Brought on Shaq. Then brought on D12. Cannot count the number of picks, trades, and FA signings while Kobe was in his prime.
Miami drafted Wade. Brought on Shaq and then LeBron and Bosh.
Boston drafted Pierce. Then drafted Jefferson and Rondo and then brought on Garnet and Allen.
GSW drafted Curry. Then drafted Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, then brought on Durant.

Many ways to do this, many directions to go with the draft, trades, and free agency as the above examples prove. The direction has to be fluid; which is what the above examples show.

Buzz, not sure where you think in all of that you think you, me and Schlenk disagree.

In every instance, there was an elite player obtained. Once that player was obtained, there were other ASG-level or better players added.



Let's see if we can come to some meeting of the minds this way, then...

1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

You are losing me Sturt. I would argue that the goal is always to obtain elite level talent. Whether you already have just one ( Pierce, Wade, Kobe ), two ( Westbrook, George), or three ( Warriors ), or none like pre Harden Rockets.