Hawks re-sign Mike Scott

[ATL Boy]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... With-Hawks

3 years/$10 mil. Good to have him back.

[azuresou1]

Good deal, about what I was expecting

[FCNATL85]

For how long though. Some rumors of that being part of upcoming trade?

[Jamaaliver]

Trying to stay positive. Officially disappointed by this off-season.

This isn't a bad signing. I was simply hoping for greater roster improvement.

[Hawk Eye]

Is there a player or team option on his contract?

[Jamaaliver]

Is there a player or team option on his contract?

The Hawks agreed to a three-year, $10 million contract with the restricted free agent forward Friday night. The deal is for two years guaranteed plus a team option.

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/basketball/hawks-re-sign-scott/ngsh4/

[Hawk Eye]

Okay, just wandering. Thanks ^

[theatlfan]

I think this was done as a knee jerk reaction to Scott considering an overseas offer and will prove to be an absolutely terrible deal. We're overpaying by ~$1M for an end of the bench player which, as a roster slot, is arguable if you should even have someone who isn't a 1st or 2nd year player on the mini. Scott was no more than a 4th big last season and that was after Horford went down. Now that we've drafted Payne (who is taller, more athletic, and possibly a better shooter) and seen Muscala's improvement in the SL (bigger, a better shooter, and arguably more athletic), I'm not sure that I'd project him that high and his times that we spotted him at SF proved to be a terrible.

Again, I really have to question what Ferry's path is here - a deal that could be defensible in a vacuum but, when taken in context, is a real head scratcher. If we're a team that can compete for championships or is capped out, then this wouldn't be a bad move. I can respect having a known quantity at the end of the bench in these cases. But for a team that is probably a 4-5 seed at best and has the cap room to make a room at a M Gasol (or whoever) next offseason, then this is the type of deal that we'll be paying another team someone like Wily Tavares in order to get this deal off our books.

[Renmazuo]

Good to have him back. I guess since the Hawks can't get anyone to come play here. Next best option they got is to improve the depth.

[ATLHawksfan21]

I think this was done as a knee jerk reaction to Scott considering an overseas offer and will prove to be an absolutely terrible deal. We're overpaying by ~$1M for an end of the bench player which, as a roster slot, is arguable if you should even have someone who isn't a 1st or 2nd year player on the mini. Scott was no more than a 4th big last season and that was after Horford went down. Now that we've drafted Payne (who is taller, more athletic, and possibly a better shooter) and seen Muscala's improvement in the SL (bigger, a better shooter, and arguably more athletic), I'm not sure that I'd project him that high and his times that we spotted him at SF proved to be a terrible.

Again, I really have to question what Ferry's path is here - a deal that could be defensible in a vacuum but, when taken in context, is a real head scratcher. If we're a team that can compete for championships or is capped out, then this wouldn't be a bad move. I can respect having a known quantity at the end of the bench in these cases. But for a team that is probably a 4-5 seed at best and has the cap room to make a room at a M Gasol (or whoever) next offseason, then this is the type of deal that we'll be paying another team someone like Wily Tavares in order to get this deal off our books.

Overreact much?

Its a 3 yr 10 mil deal with a team option on the third year so its really more like a 2 yr 6-6.5 mil deal. The yearly payouts could look something like 2.75, 3.25, 4.0. We will have no problem moving scott if we need to next season when the deal will be 1year 3.25 mil. Teams will be willing to take a chance on a mid 20's year old stretch 4 with that deal.

Its a low risk deal with possible upside in my opinion. Last year was Scotts first year shooting 3's and getting regular PT. I see no reason why he cant improve some from last year. Improve his team D and get that 3% up to 35-37% while continuing to do the things that he did well last year and I will be happy with the deal.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Jamaaliver]

I think this was done as a knee jerk reaction...Again, I really have to question what Ferry's path is here...a real head scratcher. I can respect having a known quantity at the end of the bench in these cases. But for a team that is probably a 4-5 seed at best...this is the type of deal that we'll be paying another team someone like Wily Tavares in order to get this deal off our books.

We're definitely on the same page, TAF. I don't think any move made this summer truly makes us a better team. This definitely eats into next year's cap space as well.

Pros:
They are essentially expiring deals this time next summer.
We have assets to use in trade, if Ferry can actually bring IN talent.


Cons:
Our entire roster is comprised of players with low ceilings.

[Jamaaliver]

Did D Ferry just get 'gamed' by Mike Scott's agent?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IAmDPick/status/495654920305917952[/tweet]

[theatlfan]

Overreact much?

Its a 3 yr 10 mil deal with a team option on the third year so its really more like a 2 yr 6-6.5 mil deal. The yearly payouts could look something like 2.75, 3.25, 4.0. We will have no problem moving scott if we need to next season when the deal will be 1year 3.25 mil. Teams will be willing to take a chance on a mid 20's year old stretch 4 with that deal.

Its a low risk deal with possible upside in my opinion. Last year was Scotts first year shooting 3's and getting regular PT. I see no reason why he cant improve some from last year. Improve his team D and get that 3% up to 35-37% while continuing to do the things that he did well last year and I will be happy with the deal.

Apologies for missing this. I saw Jamaal's quoting me below, but for some reason, this one didn't pop up in my notifications...

Honestly, I think I'm just being a realist here. 2 years ago, I was ecstatic about the contract that Lou signed. Clear path to the court, 20 PER guy and a 6MotY contender. Sure, there were a different set of circumstances for him versus what I realistically see for Scott, but the result would be the same: someone who could be useful but ends up buried on the bench here. The fact is that Scott could continue to develop and we'd still have to pay someone to take him off our hands. As we've seen with Lou, a player with an expiring contract and who is a mildly positive player but is buried on our team still takes assets to get off our hands.

I comp the two because I see their situation as remarkably similar: a light it up bench player who is undersized for his position and in his late-ish 20's (Lou will play next season at 28; Scott will play the year after next at 27) with a low-ish salary on an expiring contract (~$5.5M for Lou; $3.25M for Scott, but Lou had a much longer track record of better success). It still took an OK C prospect to dump Lou and I'd argue that his pay was more in line with what he had produced, so I can't see why we'd think it'd take less to get out from Scott. The ~$2.25M contract difference is a drop in the bucket compared to the realistic expectation for on-court production. Lou has a track record of being a high level rotation player and was recovering from an ACL injury last year yet still was a mildly positive player.

Now, sure, we can always pull the experience card in calling Scott a prospect, but the fact is that Scott played last season at 25 and even players without quite the experience of other players of similar age don't see the kind of improvement of younger players especially after the players' 2nd year in the league. Maybe Scott can tighten up some of parts of his game (which are typically seen as numbers where we don't hurt the team - such as TOs and get a little better on D for instance), but the track record of similar players says that he'll never be much more than what he is right now - a end of the rotation guy that can occasionally get hot. Considering that we have not just 1 but 2 young players who could conceivable pass him on the DC this season, I just can't see the salary as anything but a potential pitfall that we're just hoping doesn't swallow us. I agree the hole isn't large, but neither was Lou's really...

[ATLHawksfan21]

Overreact much?

Its a 3 yr 10 mil deal with a team option on the third year so its really more like a 2 yr 6-6.5 mil deal. The yearly payouts could look something like 2.75, 3.25, 4.0. We will have no problem moving scott if we need to next season when the deal will be 1year 3.25 mil. Teams will be willing to take a chance on a mid 20's year old stretch 4 with that deal.

Its a low risk deal with possible upside in my opinion. Last year was Scotts first year shooting 3's and getting regular PT. I see no reason why he cant improve some from last year. Improve his team D and get that 3% up to 35-37% while continuing to do the things that he did well last year and I will be happy with the deal.

Apologies for missing this. I saw Jamaal's quoting me below, but for some reason, this one didn't pop up in my notifications...

Honestly, I think I'm just being a realist here. 2 years ago, I was ecstatic about the contract that Lou signed. Clear path to the court, 20 PER guy and a 6MotY contender. Sure, there were a different set of circumstances for him versus what I realistically see for Scott, but the result would be the same: someone who could be useful but ends up buried on the bench here. The fact is that Scott could continue to develop and we'd still have to pay someone to take him off our hands. As we've seen with Lou, a player with an expiring contract and who is a mildly positive player but is buried on our team still takes assets to get off our hands.

I comp the two because I see their situation as remarkably similar: a light it up bench player who is undersized for his position and in his late-ish 20's (Lou will play next season at 28; Scott will play the year after next at 27) with a low-ish salary on an expiring contract (~$5.5M for Lou; $3.25M for Scott, but Lou had a much longer track record of better success). It still took an OK C prospect to dump Lou and I'd argue that his pay was more in line with what he had produced, so I can't see why we'd think it'd take less to get out from Scott. The ~$2.25M contract difference is a drop in the bucket compared to the realistic expectation for on-court production. Lou has a track record of being a high level rotation player and was recovering from an ACL injury last year yet still was a mildly positive player.

Now, sure, we can always pull the experience card in calling Scott a prospect, but the fact is that Scott played last season at 25 and even players without quite the experience of other players of similar age don't see the kind of improvement of younger players especially after the players' 2nd year in the league. Maybe Scott can tighten up some of parts of his game (which are typically seen as numbers where we don't hurt the team - such as TOs and get a little better on D for instance), but the track record of similar players says that he'll never be much more than what he is right now - a end of the rotation guy that can occasionally get hot. Considering that we have not just 1 but 2 young players who could conceivable pass him on the DC this season, I just can't see the salary as anything but a potential pitfall that we're just hoping doesn't swallow us. I agree the hole isn't large, but neither was Lou's really...

I see where you are coming from with the Lou/Scott comparison. I would like to add a few things that should make some difference between the two.

-Being undersized is bad, but Scott is still a bigger player than Lou and there is a growing market for stretch bigs in this league.
-Lou was coming off of an ACL tear and looked pretty terrible for most of last year.
-We traded Lou for Salmons contract which was seen as a valuable commodity at the time. Maybe we could have kept Bebe while trading Lou if we went for a different package in return?
-2.2 million is a big difference when trying to move a contract.


After last season, I'm not buying this angle that players cannot improve after they hit 25+. I watched Korver, Carroll, Scott and Millsap have the best seasons of their pro careers last year and they all added new dimensions to their game. Korver is 33, Carroll 28, Millsap 29. It was Scott's first year with regular PT. He's obviously not going to take a leap in to all-star contention, but I see no reason as to why he cannot improve his 3 pt shooting to the upper 30's and improve his team defense. He was asked to have a bigger role than expected for a lot of last year and I thought he rose to the occasion pretty well. Hopefully, his consistency increases as his role becomes more steady and he doesn't have to over extend himself. We lack scoring off the bench without Scott and I'm happy to have him back for another year or two to see if he can continue to progress in to a steady role player off the bench.

[theatlfan]

I see where you are coming from with the Lou/Scott comparison. I would like to add a few things that should make some difference between the two.

-Being undersized is bad, but Scott is still a bigger player than Lou and there is a growing market for stretch bigs in this league.
-Lou was coming off of an ACL tear and looked pretty terrible for most of last year.
-We traded Lou for Salmons contract which was seen as a valuable commodity at the time. Maybe we could have kept Bebe while trading Lou if we went for a different package in return?
-2.2 million is a big difference when trying to move a contract.

I'm not arguing that Scott isn't worth the $$ right now - just as Lou was worth his contract when he signed. The point is that if he's the 5th, 6th, or even 7th big on the team, then a) he's overpaid for his role and b) we'll have to pay someone to take him if that $$ becomes important. After Muscala's and Payne's SL and the rumors of still wanting to resign Brand, Scott could end up as the 7th big before the end of camp.

The NBA, moreso than other sports, has an "out of sight, out of mind" mantra to players and if someone is buried at the end of the bench on his current team, then he's an end of the bench player - especially for someone who is already a 26/27 yo. It's different if someone wants a player who is in someone else's short rotation to be a starter, but the end of the bench is the end of the bench - no one pays for someone at the end of your bench, they only ask for value to eat the contract and $3+M is a lot of $$ for end of the bench. When we were dumping Lou, at least TOR knew that he'd get minutes on their team since they saw what he was doing with us at the through most of the season; Scott could literally be buried and just a garbage time player in a few months.

(One last note here: the numbers for the salary you have ($2.75M, $3.25M, $4M TO) don't add up - raises are limited in the CBA. If I have this right, we technically only held Scott's Early Bird Rights so if he started at $2.75M then his salary can only go up or down by about $125K in any season. Even if we had his full Bird, then the figure only jumps to ~$200K. This doesn't change any part of the conversation, but it's something to point out.)

After last season, I'm not buying this angle that players cannot improve after they hit 25+. I watched Korver, Carroll, Scott and Millsap have the best seasons of their pro careers last year and they all added new dimensions to their game. Korver is 33, Carroll 28, Millsap 29. It was Scott's first year with regular PT. He's obviously not going to take a leap in to all-star contention, but I see no reason as to why he cannot improve his 3 pt shooting to the upper 30's and improve his team defense. He was asked to have a bigger role than expected for a lot of last year and I thought he rose to the occasion pretty well. Hopefully, his consistency increases as his role becomes more steady and he doesn't have to over extend himself. We lack scoring off the bench without Scott and I'm happy to have him back for another year or two to see if he can continue to progress in to a steady role player off the bench.

Not sure where you're going here. Are you suggesting that if Scott had the same season he did last season except as a 20/21 yo, then this place (or any Hawks' board) wouldn't be blowing up? People would be calling for Coach Bud's head because Scott played "only" 19 minutes per game. Further, I'd suspect that the decision to draft Payne, a kid who many project as a(nother) stretch 4, would have been met with much greater consternation about Scott's role.

I don't think that Scott (or anyone) can't get better - just that the distance between current production and ceiling for older players is smaller than someone who is younger. I mean, I sincerely hope that Mike Scott proves me wrong and forceably takes the starting PF becomes away from Millsap but I think even Mike Scott's mom doesn't see that happening (although I'm sure she thinks it should have already happened). If Scott proves to be the exception and not the rule, then obviously this deal will be gold within the season, but the overwhelming evidence says that he won't be and I'd assume that if/when Muscala and Payne pass him by, we'll be paying someone ~$3M to be a h3ll of a clubhouse guy. As far as the Lou comp, Lou was a h3ll of a clubhouse guy and did actually play...

[azuresou1]

$2.5M is an extremely reasonable price to pay for a proven shooting forward who still has some potential left and who can be a spot starter. If you look around the league I think you'll see it's a pretty decent deal.

Who else are you planning on signing for that amount?

[ATLHawksfan21]

I see where you are coming from with the Lou/Scott comparison. I would like to add a few things that should make some difference between the two.

-Being undersized is bad, but Scott is still a bigger player than Lou and there is a growing market for stretch bigs in this league.
-Lou was coming off of an ACL tear and looked pretty terrible for most of last year.
-We traded Lou for Salmons contract which was seen as a valuable commodity at the time. Maybe we could have kept Bebe while trading Lou if we went for a different package in return?
-2.2 million is a big difference when trying to move a contract.

I'm not arguing that Scott isn't worth the $$ right now - just as Lou was worth his contract when he signed. The point is that if he's the 5th, 6th, or even 7th big on the team, then a) he's overpaid for his role and b) we'll have to pay someone to take him if that $$ becomes important. After Muscala's and Payne's SL and the rumors of still wanting to resign Brand, Scott could end up as the 7th big before the end of camp.

The NBA, moreso than other sports, has an "out of sight, out of mind" mantra to players and if someone is buried at the end of the bench on his current team, then he's an end of the bench player - especially for someone who is already a 26/27 yo. It's different if someone wants a player who is in someone else's short rotation to be a starter, but the end of the bench is the end of the bench - no one pays for someone at the end of your bench, they only ask for value to eat the contract and $3+M is a lot of $$ for end of the bench. When we were dumping Lou, at least TOR knew that he'd get minutes on their team since they saw what he was doing with us at the through most of the season; Scott could literally be buried and just a garbage time player in a few months.

(One last note here: the numbers for the salary you have ($2.75M, $3.25M, $4M TO) don't add up - raises are limited in the CBA. If I have this right, we technically only held Scott's Early Bird Rights so if he started at $2.75M then his salary can only go up or down by about $125K in any season. Even if we had his full Bird, then the figure only jumps to ~$200K. This doesn't change any part of the conversation, but it's something to point out.)

After last season, I'm not buying this angle that players cannot improve after they hit 25+. I watched Korver, Carroll, Scott and Millsap have the best seasons of their pro careers last year and they all added new dimensions to their game. Korver is 33, Carroll 28, Millsap 29. It was Scott's first year with regular PT. He's obviously not going to take a leap in to all-star contention, but I see no reason as to why he cannot improve his 3 pt shooting to the upper 30's and improve his team defense. He was asked to have a bigger role than expected for a lot of last year and I thought he rose to the occasion pretty well. Hopefully, his consistency increases as his role becomes more steady and he doesn't have to over extend himself. We lack scoring off the bench without Scott and I'm happy to have him back for another year or two to see if he can continue to progress in to a steady role player off the bench.

Not sure where you're going here. Are you suggesting that if Scott had the same season he did last season except as a 20/21 yo, then this place (or any Hawks' board) wouldn't be blowing up? People would be calling for Coach Bud's head because Scott played "only" 19 minutes per game. Further, I'd suspect that the decision to draft Payne, a kid who many project as a(nother) stretch 4, would have been met with much greater consternation about Scott's role.

I don't think that Scott (or anyone) can't get better - just that the distance between current production and ceiling for older players is smaller than someone who is younger. I mean, I sincerely hope that Mike Scott proves me wrong and forceably takes the starting PF becomes away from Millsap but I think even Mike Scott's mom doesn't see that happening (although I'm sure she thinks it should have already happened). If Scott proves to be the exception and not the rule, then obviously this deal will be gold within the season, but the overwhelming evidence says that he won't be and I'd assume that if/when Muscala and Payne pass him by, we'll be paying someone ~$3M to be a h3ll of a clubhouse guy. As far as the Lou comp, Lou was a h3ll of a clubhouse guy and did actually play...

You are really reaching with this thought that Scott will fall all the way to the 7th or 8th big in the rotation. You are using Muscala and Payne's summer league performances as more weight than Scott's performance throughout January and February of last year. I see Scott as being the 4th-5th big at worst. Our second unit will be in need of scoring and Scott fills that role. Our starters don't play 35-38 minutes per game like they do for other teams. This opens up more minutes for the bench guys and Scott will still get his 15 minutes per game.

I figured there would be some type of limits on the salary increase from year to year but just through out some numbers. Like you said, it doesn't make much of a difference either way.

I'm not understanding the second part of your response at all. My statement seems pretty clear to me. I also mention that Scott obviously isn't going to take some huge step up to being an all-star and then you go on a tangent about him taking Millsap's spot.

I will just say that 6.5 mil for 2 years of a second year player who played as well as Scott did, in long spurts, last season is not some deal that is going to kill us like you are trying to portray. If he provides the same production as last year, the deal isn't bad. If he improves his game in certain areas, i.e. team defense and hitting 3's at a higher rate, the deal becomes another steal for Ferry. We all saw what injuries did to this team last year. I'm not sure how any one could argue against accumulating depth after the season we had last year.

Let's not forget how Scott produced in the two months where he saw the most playing time.

January - 21.5 minutes 13.4 pts 4 rebs 53% FG 36% 3

February - 23.3 minutes 11.5 pts 4.5 rebs 46% FG 48% 3

[theatlfan]

$2.5M is an extremely reasonable price to pay for a proven shooting forward who still has some potential left and who can be a spot starter. If you look around the league I think you'll see it's a pretty decent deal.

Who else are you planning on signing for that amount?

You make it seem like all we have is an exception that we have to fit someone into - this is a mistake. We have plenty of cap room - we're tight on roster slots. I much would have rather taken all the available $$ we had and thrown it at one player than signed someone for $2.5M.

Still, the facts are that Scott got antsy after Mack signed and bluffed an offer in Russia (apparently) so we gave him a sweetheart deal. Considering the big man depth that we're amassing, the preferable scenario would have been to let him play out RFA and get an offer, then see if we could hammer out an SNT - something along the lines of Scott for an unwanted expiring plus a pick (value of pick obviously dependent on how unwanted the contract is) would have been ideal. Granted, we would have done that weeks ago and we didn't get any bites, but considering that Monroe and Bledsoe are still on the market, I can't think we've truly hit the RFA season either so forth allowed everyone to start filling out their bench.

As I have stated (multiple times), I have no issue with the deal in a vacuum. Scott at $3.3M (or thereabouts) isn't a horrible deal. The problem comes in when we judge our situation versus making expenditures on players like Scott. 1st, our big man depth would be the envy of many teams. It's doubtful that Scott will ever be more than a 4th big in the next 2 seasons unless we're tanking in which case a D-Leaguer could have adequately filled the role. 2nd, if we want to make a run at a max level FA next off-season, then every penny counts - 2x so now that we've dealt Lou and will eventually work our way back to the salary floor. The $3+M isn't killer in this quest but it shouldn't be completely discounted either - 2 years ago many (including myself) weren't too concerned about a $5.5M expiring on Lou and that didn't turn out well. I guess the counter here is "well, we don't know what our cap would be next season" to which the obvious answer is "then why commit so much to a low risk/low reward player instead of understanding that 1st?" We already know that Ferry has jumped the gun at least once this off-season with the Lou deal - I think he did it again here.

You are really reaching with this thought that Scott will fall all the way to the 7th or 8th big in the rotation. You are using Muscala and Payne's summer league performances as more weight than Scott's performance throughout January and February of last year. I see Scott as being the 4th-5th big at worst. Our second unit will be in need of scoring and Scott fills that role. Our starters don't play 35-38 minutes per game like they do for other teams. This opens up more minutes for the bench guys and Scott will still get his 15 minutes per game.

Never said that he'd be 8th - just said that he's overpaid if he's the 5th big and being the 7th big isn't out of the question. Horford, Millsap, and Antic (if for no other reason than he can play C) are obviously ahead of him; Brand would be if he does come back (and rumor mill has said that both sides were interested); Payne (moreso because he's a 1st rounder than his SL time) is probably ahead of him. I wouldn't call it a certainty by any stretch, but the realistic scenario has Scott battling with Muscala for the 6/7 big role. Even if he beats out Muscala and we don't resign Brand, he's no better than 5th. None of this is a reach IMHO.

I'm not understanding the second part of your response at all. My statement seems pretty clear to me. I also mention that Scott obviously isn't going to take some huge step up to being an all-star and then you go on a tangent about him taking Millsap's spot.

I will just say that 6.5 mil for 2 years of a second year player who played as well as Scott did, in long spurts, last season is not some deal that is going to kill us like you are trying to portray. If he provides the same production as last year, the deal isn't bad. If he improves his game in certain areas, i.e. team defense and hitting 3's at a higher rate, the deal becomes another steal for Ferry. We all saw what injuries did to this team last year. I'm not sure how any one could argue against accumulating depth after the season we had last year.

Let's not forget how Scott produced in the two months where he saw the most playing time.

January - 21.5 minutes 13.4 pts 4 rebs 53% FG 36% 3

February - 23.3 minutes 11.5 pts 4.5 rebs 46% FG 48% 3

1st, I said that older players have a less upside than younger players and you countered with saying that you didn't buy that citing several Hawks from less season. Hence, the tangent...

Again, I'm not extreme as you're making me out to be. In a vacuum, the deal makes sense, but the senior leadership should be setting a clear vision toward the goal of an NBA title and I have to say the vision is a bit cloudy right now. On the one hand, we argue "flexibility" at every opportunity and want values across the board to the point were we're losing out on our top FA picks; on the other, we're spending comparatively lavishly on an end of the bench role player. On the one hand, we're continuing to invest heavily in big men spending our 2 draft picks on NBA big men (we have to trade for L-Pat) even though we're sitting on 2 AS starters; on the other, we giving Scott more $$ than Mack when his path to the court is much more muddled. On the one hand, we've spent $$ on Defense in FA with the belief that we can make shooters out of those who didn't do well there last season; on the other, we're handing a comparatively large-ish contract to a undersized, little D, stretch 4.

As I've said, I'd have 0 problem with the deal if we had a Tim Duncan on the team or even if we were a capped out 2nd round out team. But we don't and we're not. Is the goal to win a title or be content to run the treadmill? If the goal is to win a ring, then where is the commitment to bringing in the type of star level talent that is needed to achieve this goal? Why are we doing the things that can clog up cap before the market is ready? Did we not learn from the lessons that Lou and his situation taught us? OTOH, if the goal is to run the treadmill, then I vote we just fire Ferry now and let's move on to someone committed to winning a ring.

[ATLHawksfan21]

I think ranking Scott by bigs is not the most efficient way to do it. Brand and Antic will both get all of their minutes at C so I don't see the point in including them. Scott will get most of his minutes at PF and he could end up getting a good bit at SF, depending on the matchup, if he shows improvement in the areas that are needed for that position. Scott will probably be the first PF off the bench to start the season.

SF: Demarre, Thabo?, Scott
PF: Millsap, Scott, Payne, Horford

I'm not sure if Muscala gets the majority of his minutes at PF or C. I forget what our rotations looked like when he played last year and they should look different with a healthy roster.


How exactly has the signing of guys like Scott and Mack affected our ability to land bigger names? I'm assuming that's what you are saying with this line. "we argue "flexibility" at every opportunity and want values across the board to the point were we're losing out on our top FA picks"

We lost out on our top FA picks because Horford went down last season along with several other injuries. Players see a 38 win season and think we're the same old Hawks team of old. We have to start consistently winning and finishing in the top 4 of the East while making noise in the playoffs before we start turning heads on the FA front. The best way to do that is by trying to win now while remaining flexibility, which seems like exactly what Ferry is doing.

Spent money on defense on guys who didn't shoot well last season?? Bazemore shot 37% from 3 once he started receiving regular PT with the Lakers. Thabo had a slow start to the season in the first 7 games and he struggled to shoot at the end of the season when he was recovering from an injury. He shot over 37% from 3 in the 49 games of the middle portion of the season. This is after shooting over 40% for the prior two years.


and once again you won't attract stars unless you start winning. Ferry is trying to win, while remaining flexible, so he can jump at the right star when the moment comes. We have to start winning first and this team is good enough to get the job done. We just need to stay healthy!

[azuresou1]

Agree with ATLHawksfan in that we shouldn't be ranking Scott by bigs, but rather by likely minutes played at the forward positions. Furthermore, I think you can never have enough quality bigs or enough shooters, and Scott happens to fit both criteria at once.

I think Scott helps us win games, and it will be particularly evident in the playoffs when Scott can be the second big/forward off of the bench and playing effective minutes while other teams are bringing in guys like Kevin Seraphin or Bismack Biyombo.

I think we're very much looking to San Antonio for inspiration, and noticing how shooters like Patty Mills and Gary Neal have come off the bench in the playoffs and had huge impacts on games. I'd expect that we look for Mike Scott to have a similar role.