Hawks shop #1

[Xman]

Read the article.
Says CLE seeking major trade and "CLE trying to get into the lottery" - so not sure where.

Seems like there are groupings:
In top 5 - Risacher, Sarr
In top 8 - Clingan, Sheppard
In top 10 - Castle, Dillingham, Buzelis
Rounds out the top12: Saluan, Topic, Knecht, Holland, CWilliams
Maybe pops up: JWalter, DCarter, McCain
So, if CLE could get to 12, then they could probably get whichever sf fell the most out of Saluan/Knecht/CWill/Holland. So, CLE probably trying to package #20 with five seconds and a backup to get to 11-13 range. Otherwise, dealing Garland which can get them up to #3 (doubt ATL wants another g - WAS is rebuilding so picks mean more than win now).

[esvl]

Lauri+

[Whole Truth]

Spurs receive: #1 overall pick, Dejounte Murray

Hawks Receive: #4 pick, #8 pick, Keldon Johnson, Hawks 2027 Draft Pick, Removal of pick swap in 2026

Read on Twitter

[/quote]

[Whole Truth]

I want to believe the Cavs & Spurs rumors are connecting but it's possible Spurs could be trading up for Risarcher.

[Bornstellar]

Spurs receive: #1 overall pick, Dejounte Murray

Hawks Receive: #4 pick, #8 pick, Keldon Johnson, Hawks 2027 Draft Pick, Removal of pick swap in 2026

Read on Twitter

Gross...I take all these reports with a grain of salt because Spurs don't leak much but I really hope this is not a deal that's actually being discussed. Maybe for 4 and 8 plus KJ but if I'm SA there is no way I am giving up their 2026/2027 picks for that deal

[Whole Truth]

Spurs receive: #1 overall pick, Dejounte Murray

Hawks Receive: #4 pick, #8 pick, Keldon Johnson, Hawks 2027 Draft Pick, Removal of pick swap in 2026

Read on Twitter

Gross...I take all these reports with a grain of salt because Spurs don't leak much but I really hope this is not a deal that's actually being discussed. Maybe for 4 and 8 plus KJ but if I'm SA there is no way I am giving up their 2026/2027 picks for that deal

According to French sources, the Spurs would put together a package that would include their 4th and 8th pick in order to choose first instead of the Hawks during the 2004 NBA Draft ceremony in two weeks.

[Catchall]

As a Jazz fan, the players in this draft who really intrigue me are Cody Williams, Reed Sheppard and Nikola Topic. One of them, at least, should be available at 10, and two of them (if not all three) should be available at 5.

Hence, I'll offer Detroit #10 + #29 + Clarkson. I'm not pursuing the #1 pick, and I'm sure as **** not trading Lauri for it.

[Whole Truth]

Spurs have only worked out Salaun French PF. projected around 8 & Risarcher French SF projected #1.

Grey on the Spurs board gave me information that Sarr's camp was at odds with Wemby's camp over his opinion that he thought Risarcher was the best french prospect in the draft. Other comments appears they don't want him fighting with Wemby for minutes (My interpretation). They want him starting.

One of 3 reasons to package Salaun with #4 to move up to #1. Salaun underwhelmed, Risarcher overwhelmed or Wemby has preference to Risarcher as indicated by his statement.

[Chinook]

I was working with their opinions to yours now. Either way Cavs or not the Spurs #4 is connected to BI, so whether the interest is BI or Garland that's on the Spurs end.

If Hawks prefer the Lakers picks to their rights back that's a preference as I have the Lakers pick with better lotto odds, seeing Atlanta now have the value of the #1 pick to get better while Lakers don't have much of an avenue. Taking into consideration they have been relatively healthy as an old (Lerbon) & injury prone (Davis) duo .. last 2 seasons to finish no better than play in, relatively healthy. Now they need a new head coach & adjustment period for what he wants to implement.

Grey likes Knecht at 8 to, which is not included in trade so Spurs come out with

- (Garland, Lakers 25, #8 Knecht) giving up (Keldon, Collins, #4 Clingan, Hawks 25)

The Hawks don't get to demand their pick from the Spurs when they aren't trading with the Spurs. It doesn't really matter what they want. The question is if they're comfortable moving down to 4 for the package they're being offered, and the Pelicans are the ones who have to build that package. I'd contend that 4 and future picks from New Orleans should be enough in the scenario where the Hawks want to move down. What's their threat, that they'll just take Clingan at 1? If so, just move on to dealing with the Wizards, who don't have the same kind of pain point.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't the Spurs to trade the fourth pick at all. My actual input is to look at Houston or Detroit for a centerpiece pick, since those teams actually do want to move off their spots from what we've heard. But the Spurs literally started a waiver-wire pickup at the three most of the season. It's definitely a bigger need for them, and while the draft has a number of forwards, they all lack something to rely on them as starters. I want them to bring in some kind of vet, though I wouldn't trade either pick this year to do that.

And ew on Knecht. Getting a guy with small-wing size to play the three doesn't excite me at all. I would not be a fan of Garland, and Knecht over Keldon, 4 and 8, without even getting into not preferring LAL25 to ATL25. A Garland (or Mitchell, Young, Ingram or Markkanen) trade is basically the opposite of what I want the Spurs to do, so there's no value compromise for me. My answer will be no. Who cares, though, because I'm just a guy with one opinion. But I don't think the opposing opinion is well supported.

[Chinook]

Spurs receive: #1 overall pick, Dejounte Murray

Hawks Receive: #4 pick, #8 pick, Keldon Johnson, Hawks 2027 Draft Pick, Removal of pick swap in 2026

Read on Twitter

Who the eff is that guy? This idea is too obvious to not speculate about since it fills two holes for the Spurs and gives the Hawks back some control. But I think it's too much and not close to something the Spurs want. Closer would be Johnson, 4 and the picks returned for Murray, 1 and SAC25. I wouldn't trade 4 or 8 to turn Johnson into Murray, and I wouldn't trade 4 and 8 for 1. If Risacher were Brandon Miller or even Jabari Smith, that would be different. As it is, it seems better for the Spurs to just stick to their picks and look at acquiring Murray for less in the summer.

[tmorgan]

Trading up to draft Risacher #1 seems like a really dumb, non-Spurs thing to do. Maybe if ZR was childhood best friends with Wemby or something, but that’s about it. He’s a good enough projectable 3&D wing with size, good enough to go back of the lottery in a non-atrocious draft, but paying that guy #1 pick money AND giving up good assets to do it is sketchy as hell.

This is a rare draft, in that if you could turn #1 into say 4+8+future first you jump all over it. The Hawks know that, but I’m pretty sure the Spurs do, too.

[Xman]

Atl getting future picks back doesn’t help next year. So, their 2025 first has good lottery chance. Along with their own starting rookies.
I would keep the 2025 picks. Get ZR. Roll with Murray ZR Wemby Vassell Sochan. Would try to keep 8 for Topic also.

[wemby]

"French sources" is probably 2 guys speculating on a French Podcast on trade scenarios, then a completely unknown social media guy picks up on it via google translate and pretends it's information. Like the Trae Young, Darius Garland things, some guy throws around that it'd make sense for this and that, and gets echoed over and over to the point it becomes "news".

[CallMeKahn]

According to a report from NBA reporter Kevin O'Connor, Cleveland is looking to trade up in the NBA Draft. The report was shared on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Evan Sidery.

https://www.si.com/nba/cavaliers/news/cleveland-cavaliers-attempting-major-trade-before-nba-draft

Interesting. My first two reactions were:

1) they must know what's going on with Spida, for better or worse, if they're planning big moves like this
2) I wonder who they're targeting. Risaccher would be a great fit but it's hard to see them jumping from #20 into the top 2. Knecht?

Actions speak louder than words.

The talk was Mitchell didn't want JB, I don't think they fire him without knowing Mitchell's intent. Would seem like an unnecessary course of action or at the very least a rushed decision.

There's a part of me that, as a Jazz fan, doesn't miss all the rumored drama with Spida. Hopefully he found a home in Cleveland though. Dude was nothing but a baller in Utah.

[Whole Truth]

The Hawks don't get to demand their pick from the Spurs when they aren't trading with the Spurs. It doesn't really matter what they want. The question is if they're comfortable moving down to 4 for the package they're being offered, and the Pelicans are the ones who have to build that package.

The Pelicans are the ones building the package.

Hawks are not demanding their pick from the Spurs, their demanding their pick from NO's. This is where I say they have choice of their rights or NO's 25.

If Spurs think the Hawks 25 will be better than the Lakers then the point is moot. However I have the Lakers with better lotto projection than the Hawks unless Hawks actively want to make a decision to tank the year & blow things up. Where I have the value of their pick being, controlled value. They can opt at the deadline to blow it up etc.

In order to do this Pelicans have to offer the Spurs something to replace this value. Lakers are having trouble finding a coach more less improving on being a play in team relatively healthy. While the Hawks just lucked into the #1 pick & can make significant roster improvements also as a play in team. It would come down to how you value the projection of these 2 picks.

IMO -
NO's 25 lakers > Hawks 25 for Spurs due to projection
Hawks 25 > Lakers 25 for Hawks due to control of their draft

Things go south, if they have their pick they can trade Young at the deadline before he opts out of his player option to leverage any trade.

[Chinook]

The Hawks don't get to demand their pick from the Spurs when they aren't trading with the Spurs. It doesn't really matter what they want. The question is if they're comfortable moving down to 4 for the package they're being offered, and the Pelicans are the ones who have to build that package.

The Pelicans are the ones building the package.

Hawks are not demanding their pick from the Spurs, their demanding their pick from NO's.

This is a distinction without a difference. They don't get to demand what NOP doesn't have and SA won't give. It's just a non-starter and would be bad faith on their part. It's too bad they traded away years of control in a separate deal, but they'll never get further deals done if they insist on trying to get third teams to reverse that decision. They need to deal with what's actually in front of them, and I think they will.

If Spurs think the Hawks 25 will be better than the Lakers then the point is moot. However I have the Lakers with better lotto projection than the Hawks unless Hawks actively want to make a decision to tank the year & blow things up. Where I have the value of their pick being, controlled value. They can opt at the deadline to blow it up etc.

In order to do this Pelicans have to offer the Spurs something to replace this value. Lakers are having trouble finding a coach more less improving on being a play in team relatively healthy. While the Hawks just lucked into the #1 pick & can make significant roster improvements also as a play in team. It would come down to how you value the projection of these 2 picks.

Having three straight years of control over another team's picks is very powerful. ATL can decide to try to not tank next season, but each year going forward is going to be more tenuous, especially with Young getting older, more expensive and potentially more impatient. There's a good chance them not having their 2025 pick increases the value of the 2026 swap, and if they hold on another year, the value of the 2027 first. I don't see giving the Hawks a second crack at the lottery and a season to reset their roster as desirable.

Look at how LAC and PHX keep driving themselves into asset hell because they can't justify taking a step back to refresh their roster. The Hawks have the first pick, and somehow instead of just using it and beginning the retooling of the roster, they're considering trading it away to try to win now. That's the effect them not having their picks forces. I think the league should restrict these types of trades much more than they have been so far, and the Spurs stand to benefit from the very reasons why I think that.

[Whole Truth]

This is a distinction without a difference. They don't get to demand what NOP doesn't have and SA won't give. It's just a non-starter and would be bad faith on their part. It's too bad they traded away years of control in a separate deal, but they'll never get further deals done if they insist on trying to get third teams to reverse that decision. They need to deal with what's actually in front of them, and I think they will.

Having three straight years of control over another team's picks is very powerful. ATL can decide to try to not tank next season, but each year going forward is going to be more tenuous, especially with Young getting older, more expensive and potentially more impatient. There's a good chance them not having their 2025 pick increases the value of the 2026 swap, and if they hold on another year, the value of the 2027 first. I don't see giving the Hawks a second crack at the lottery and a season to reset their roster as desirable.

Look at how LAC and PHX keep driving themselves into asset hell because they can't justify taking a step back to refresh their roster. The Hawks have the first pick, and somehow instead of just using it and beginning the retooling of the roster, they're considering trading it away to try to win now. That's the effect them not having their picks forces. I think the league should restrict these types of trades much more than they have been so far, and the Spurs stand to benefit from the very reasons why I think that.

IMO this draft doesn't have much separation 1-5. Nothing is clear at the top of this draft. If Hawks trade down, it's for a player they're considering at 1, they think will be available at the spot they trade down to in order to maximize value & reduce risk.

Maybe you are unaware but NO's had the right to swap years with Lakers 24/25 pick. They recently gave up their 19th pick in this 24 draft to defer to an unprotected 25. Which NO's do now own.

I agree with you on the Spurs wanting to control the Hawks draft, I mean luck just landed the #1 pick for them. I think the Lakers 25 has better projection than the Hawks 25 but if the Spurs don't want it, Hawks would have to settle for NO's 25 projection over their draft control, which in 25, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Young teams have taken over the West with a couple more on the cusp. Lakers have barely made play in with relative health & they are changing coaches again, which takes time to implement & adjust to.

Hawks having lucked into the #1 value, have an avenue to considerably improve.

[jayu70]

The Hawks don't get to demand their pick from the Spurs when they aren't trading with the Spurs. It doesn't really matter what they want. The question is if they're comfortable moving down to 4 for the package they're being offered, and the Pelicans are the ones who have to build that package.

The Pelicans are the ones building the package.

Hawks are not demanding their pick from the Spurs, their demanding their pick from NO's.

This is a distinction without a difference. They don't get to demand what NOP doesn't have and SA won't give. It's just a non-starter and would be bad faith on their part. It's too bad they traded away years of control in a separate deal, but they'll never get further deals done if they insist on trying to get third teams to reverse that decision. They need to deal with what's actually in front of them, and I think they will.

If Spurs think the Hawks 25 will be better than the Lakers then the point is moot. However I have the Lakers with better lotto projection than the Hawks unless Hawks actively want to make a decision to tank the year & blow things up. Where I have the value of their pick being, controlled value. They can opt at the deadline to blow it up etc.

In order to do this Pelicans have to offer the Spurs something to replace this value. Lakers are having trouble finding a coach more less improving on being a play in team relatively healthy. While the Hawks just lucked into the #1 pick & can make significant roster improvements also as a play in team. It would come down to how you value the projection of these 2 picks.

Having three straight years of control over another team's picks is very powerful. ATL can decide to try to not tank next season, but each year going forward is going to be more tenuous, especially with Young getting older, more expensive and potentially more impatient. There's a good chance them not having their 2025 pick increases the value of the 2026 swap, and if they hold on another year, the value of the 2027 first. I don't see giving the Hawks a second crack at the lottery and a season to reset their roster as desirable.

Look at how LAC and PHX keep driving themselves into asset hell because they can't justify taking a step back to refresh their roster. The Hawks have the first pick, and somehow instead of just using it and beginning the retooling of the roster, they're considering trading it away to try to win now. That's the effect them not having their picks forces. I think the league should restrict these types of trades much more than they have been so far, and the Spurs stand to benefit from the very reasons why I think that.

Most Hawks fans just want to take Sarr at #1 and move unto the next thing.
Most Hawks fans aren't discussing 'picks' back.
No trading down to 4 hoping Clingan is there, or having to then trade back up to 3 to get Clingan.
The Hawks were expected to pick at #10 so they lucked into 1 instead - just look at it as unexpected increase in talent to mold.
Since the offseason ended, we have said the success of the Hawks next season will be determined by how they retool the roster around Trae and JJ (size, defense, speed and athleticism) and the ability of the owner to stop being meddlesome and let the front office do the job he hired them to do.

[Ball4life32]

The Hawks don't get to demand their pick from the Spurs when they aren't trading with the Spurs. It doesn't really matter what they want. The question is if they're comfortable moving down to 4 for the package they're being offered, and the Pelicans are the ones who have to build that package.

The Pelicans are the ones building the package.

Hawks are not demanding their pick from the Spurs, their demanding their pick from NO's.

This is a distinction without a difference. They don't get to demand what NOP doesn't have and SA won't give. It's just a non-starter and would be bad faith on their part. It's too bad they traded away years of control in a separate deal, but they'll never get further deals done if they insist on trying to get third teams to reverse that decision. They need to deal with what's actually in front of them, and I think they will.

If Spurs think the Hawks 25 will be better than the Lakers then the point is moot. However I have the Lakers with better lotto projection than the Hawks unless Hawks actively want to make a decision to tank the year & blow things up. Where I have the value of their pick being, controlled value. They can opt at the deadline to blow it up etc.

In order to do this Pelicans have to offer the Spurs something to replace this value. Lakers are having trouble finding a coach more less improving on being a play in team relatively healthy. While the Hawks just lucked into the #1 pick & can make significant roster improvements also as a play in team. It would come down to how you value the projection of these 2 picks.

Having three straight years of control over another team's picks is very powerful. ATL can decide to try to not tank next season, but each year going forward is going to be more tenuous, especially with Young getting older, more expensive and potentially more impatient. There's a good chance them not having their 2025 pick increases the value of the 2026 swap, and if they hold on another year, the value of the 2027 first. I don't see giving the Hawks a second crack at the lottery and a season to reset their roster as desirable.

Look at how LAC and PHX keep driving themselves into asset hell because they can't justify taking a step back to refresh their roster. The Hawks have the first pick, and somehow instead of just using it and beginning the retooling of the roster, they're considering trading it away to try to win now. That's the effect them not having their picks forces. I think the league should restrict these types of trades much more than they have been so far, and the Spurs stand to benefit from the very reasons why I think that.

Where does it say hawks are considering trading the 1st pick for a win now player? Also please remember hawks potentially have the Kings pick next year (top 12 protected in 25, top 10 protected in 26) so they may only be down one pick in the 27 draft. LAC and PHX have older teams than the Hawks. Trae is only 25 and should be just entering his prime.

[Whole Truth]

Read on Twitter