Hawks-76ers discussing deal

[jayu70]

Because they overate Noel and undervalue Teague.
Philly needs balance and leadership.
I forgot where I saw this "You can have as many talented bigs as you want, but if you don't have a quality point guard getting them the ball and putting them in the right position to succeed, you are wasting their talent' So very true.

Agreed. Some of these Teague shots are extremely disrespectful, he was one of the best players on our team. He's very good. You would think he was George Hill the way these guys talk about him.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

youve seen how far this team can go with this current lineup. Teague is expendable. Hes reached his peak, and youre going to lose him for nothing in a year.

I don't think he's debating the trade and moving on from Teague in general - it's Teague's value and impact he's arguing about.

[PandaKidd]

Its hard to get value for a guy who is:
A) A rental
B) Inconsistent
C) going to garner double that salary he makes now as he hits 29

Noel I think would be a top get for Teague. Has nothing to do with Jeffs talent/ how i feel about Jeff.

[King Ken]

Its hard to get value for a guy who is:
A) A rental
B) Inconsistent
C) going to garner double that salary he makes now as he hits 29

Noel I think would be a top get for Teague. Has nothing to do with Jeffs talent/ how i feel about Jeff.

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Jamaaliver]

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

How is he NOT a rental?

His contract expires in less than 12 months. He could easily leave Philadelphia for 0 compensation next summer.

[PandaKidd]

Its hard to get value for a guy who is:
A) A rental
B) Inconsistent
C) going to garner double that salary he makes now as he hits 29

Noel I think would be a top get for Teague. Has nothing to do with Jeffs talent/ how i feel about Jeff.

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

A) Hes a rental to anyone who trades for him now, not sure how you dont understand that. Any team trading for him is not guaranteed he will resign with them.
B) Hes inconsistent. Hes a good player, but we have seen his ceiling.
C) That may be true, i dont begrudge anyone getting their money, but I dont want to pay him and im sure 99% of the fanbase agrees with that. Money doesnt grow on trees. Teague isnt a game changer, and when you have to be thrifty with your cap, paying an inconsistent aging PG double the money (while reupping on 30+ front court) is not smart.

Look, your loyal to Teague, I get it. Hes been serviceable. But ignore all the heart and loyalty crap and look at the facts. Hes aging, he could leave you for NOTHING, and the Hawks wont resign him anyway. Why would you not trade him?

Once you accept that , you look at how getting a 1st round pick like Noel (with a big upside) who would be under contract for a few more years and is a big position of need would be a great move by this front office.

[PandaKidd]

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

How is he NOT a rental?

His contract expires in less than 12 months. He could easily leave Philadelphia for 0 compensation next summer.

Exactly. Anyone trading for him is betting they can convince him to stay. If we got Noel it would be big becuase Noel is RFA next season. Teague is UFA next season.

Noel seems like a high value for an expiring rental in teague

[NekiEcko]

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

How is he NOT a rental?

His contract expires in less than 12 months. He could easily leave Philadelphia for 0 compensation next summer.

Exactly. Anyone trading for him is betting they can convince him to stay. If we got Noel it would be big becuase Noel is RFA next season. Teague is UFA next season.

Noel seems like a high value for an expiring rental in teague

But Noel is a rental as well as a RFA but I wonder if you just want your C's to get him for the 3th pick? But there isn't too many other options when it comes down to trading Teague or Dennis but this is a good start.

[Jamaaliver]

But Noel is a rental as well as a RFA but I wonder if you just want your C's to get him for the 3th pick? But there isn't too many other options when it comes down to trading Teague or Dennis but this is a good start.

A VERY good point...

if slightly inaccurate.

As long as Noel's team extends the Qualifying Offer to him this Fall (an absolute certainty), he'd be under team control for an additional year. At least. (We've discussed QOs for 2013 draftees HERE.)

So at worst, we get twice the years, at lower salary, of a higher upside player in exchange for a guy Philly could just wait on next summer.


HawksHoop echoes the uneven nature of the trade chatter:

Firstly, this will not be a straight up swap deal, as Shams also noted “a trade centered around Jeff Teague and Nerlens Noel”. Centered. Jeff Teague is a good point guard and all, but Noel has much higher upside — as a big man having just turned 22 this year — and, as such, the Hawks are going to have to add a little more to make this deal happen.

You’d imagine a first round pick would be involved... Here

[King Ken]

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

How is he NOT a rental?

His contract expires in less than 12 months. He could easily leave Philadelphia for 0 compensation next summer.

He can be extended and he has his full bird rights.

Now if this was the trade deadline, well, he is a rental

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[King Ken]

Its hard to get value for a guy who is:
A) A rental
B) Inconsistent
C) going to garner double that salary he makes now as he hits 29

Noel I think would be a top get for Teague. Has nothing to do with Jeffs talent/ how i feel about Jeff.

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

A) Hes a rental to anyone who trades for him now, not sure how you dont understand that. Any team trading for him is not guaranteed he will resign with them.
B) Hes inconsistent. Hes a good player, but we have seen his ceiling.
C) That may be true, i dont begrudge anyone getting their money, but I dont want to pay him and im sure 99% of the fanbase agrees with that. Money doesnt grow on trees. Teague isnt a game changer, and when you have to be thrifty with your cap, paying an inconsistent aging PG double the money (while reupping on 30+ front court) is not smart.

Look, your loyal to Teague, I get it. Hes been serviceable. But ignore all the heart and loyalty crap and look at the facts. Hes aging, he could leave you for NOTHING, and the Hawks wont resign him anyway. Why would you not trade him?

Once you accept that , you look at how getting a 1st round pick like Noel (with a big upside) who would be under contract for a few more years and is a big position of need would be a great move by this front office.

I am loyal to no player. Everyone can be had if the price is right as long as you aren't LeBron, Curry or Towns

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Jamaaliver]

He can be extended and he has his full bird rights.

Now if this was the trade deadline, well, he is a rental

He's a rental because the team has no control over anything he does next summer.

11 months (or less) of controllable interest = rental.

[King Ken]

Its hard to get value for a guy who is:
A) A rental
B) Inconsistent
C) going to garner double that salary he makes now as he hits 29

Noel I think would be a top get for Teague. Has nothing to do with Jeffs talent/ how i feel about Jeff.

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

A) Hes a rental to anyone who trades for him now, not sure how you dont understand that. Any team trading for him is not guaranteed he will resign with them.
B) Hes inconsistent. Hes a good player, but we have seen his ceiling.
C) That may be true, i dont begrudge anyone getting their money, but I dont want to pay him and im sure 99% of the fanbase agrees with that. Money doesnt grow on trees. Teague isnt a game changer, and when you have to be thrifty with your cap, paying an inconsistent aging PG double the money (while reupping on 30+ front court) is not smart.

Look, your loyal to Teague, I get it. Hes been serviceable. But ignore all the heart and loyalty crap and look at the facts. Hes aging, he could leave you for NOTHING, and the Hawks wont resign him anyway. Why would you not trade him?

Once you accept that , you look at how getting a 1st round pick like Noel (with a big upside) who would be under contract for a few more years and is a big position of need would be a great move by this front office.

A. He can be extended, therefore, not a rental
B. We haven't seen his ceiling.
C. Once you said it maybe true, nothing else really matters.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[King Ken]

He can be extended and he has his full bird rights.

Now if this was the trade deadline, well, he is a rental

He's a rental because the team has no control over anything he does next summer.

11 months (or less) of controllable interest = rental.

Your opinion, opinion. Mines, the truth. If you can be extended, you are not a rental.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[MaceCase]

Firstly I'd like to say that RFA and UFA are the same exact issue. You are at the same disadvantage if you are a team refusing to pay either. That "team control" only extends as far as you are willing to pay him so just as easily as you'd say you don't want to pay a player in their prime like Teague twice their salary you'd also not want to pay your 5th big like Noel triple and quadruple his salary.

So that leads to my second point, the NBA does not exist in a vacuum. There is no static value system, if you're a team with 5 big men drafted in the lottery you're at a disadvantage having one hit free agency. This is the scenario that is worse than losing a player for nothing, the scenario where that player actually costs you.

[Jamaaliver]

Your opinion, opinion. Mines, the truth. If you can be extended, you are not a rental.

What documented guidance is this definition provided in?

Serious question. I'd love to read the definitive regulation on what all GMs must use when defining a 'rental'.

[PandaKidd]

A) He's not a rental and we have his rights.
B) Inconsistent is true if you are looking for superstar production but he's as consistent as any other very good player.
C) He deserves it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

A) Hes a rental to anyone who trades for him now, not sure how you dont understand that. Any team trading for him is not guaranteed he will resign with them.
B) Hes inconsistent. Hes a good player, but we have seen his ceiling.
C) That may be true, i dont begrudge anyone getting their money, but I dont want to pay him and im sure 99% of the fanbase agrees with that. Money doesnt grow on trees. Teague isnt a game changer, and when you have to be thrifty with your cap, paying an inconsistent aging PG double the money (while reupping on 30+ front court) is not smart.

Look, your loyal to Teague, I get it. Hes been serviceable. But ignore all the heart and loyalty crap and look at the facts. Hes aging, he could leave you for NOTHING, and the Hawks wont resign him anyway. Why would you not trade him?

Once you accept that , you look at how getting a 1st round pick like Noel (with a big upside) who would be under contract for a few more years and is a big position of need would be a great move by this front office.

A. He can be extended, therefore, not a rental
B. We haven't seen his ceiling.
C. Once you said it maybe true, nothing else really matters.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Not really going to go round and round over this again for the 10th time.

A) Jeff Teague will hit FA, it would be dumb of him not to. He will be available for his last big contract in a year with the biggest cap in history. He could fully decide to leave Philly next summer and go anywhere else. Philly would have that extra year (MASE?) but if Jeff thinks the situation is **** in Philly he can leave.

B) He regressed this year in every category but 3pt%. He wasnt as good defensively this year either. So , if you want to believe in him becoming an elite PG at age 30 , thats your "opinion". The facts are he was worse this year than the year before.

C) Context. You said he "deserved it". I am not arguing who deserves what, I think he is WORTH a big pay day because players like him are making prob 4-5 million more per year, especially with the cap. I dont players who DESERVE anything, I pay players that will make me better. Teague is not that guy.

[Jamaaliver]

Firstly I'd like to say that RFA and UFA are the same exact issue. You are at the same disadvantage if you are a team refusing to pay either.

This seems like somewhat of a reversal from a couple of years back...during the debates over Kyrie's Restricted Free Agency:

It's increasingly rare that players give up long term security to accept their 1 year qualifying offers in order to get out of a destination so if we want to be realistic, the Cavs control Kyrie for the next 5 years. Lebron, Deron, Dwight, Carmelo etc. are all poor examples because they all left or were traded at the end of their 2nd contracts not their rookie deals. That's 6+ years that they spent with their teams, it's a tad premature considering moving Kyrie before he's even completed his 3rd.

There is no "last minute" apocalypse approaching for the Cavs considering that Kyrie is still over a season away from Restricted free agency.

Your whole argument is in line with an UNrestricted free agent not a restricted one...The rules just so happen to favor teams more than players at this stage of their careers.

The line of thinking was that a player approaching Restricted Free Agency had little control over his situation. But the narrative now is that both Restricted and Unrestricted are equal?

[PandaKidd]

Firstly I'd like to say that RFA and UFA are the same exact issue. You are at the same disadvantage if you are a team refusing to pay either. That "team control" only extends as far as you are willing to pay him so just as easily as you'd say you don't want to pay a player in their prime like Teague twice their salary you'd also not want to pay your 5th big like Noel triple and quadruple his salary.

So that leads to my second point, the NBA does not exist in a vacuum. There is no static value system, if you're a team with 5 big men drafted in the lottery you're at a disadvantage having one hit free agency. This is the scenario that is worse than losing a player for nothing, the scenario where that player actually costs you.

UFA with rights means you can offer 1 more year than anyone else usually, right? So the team has some leverage there. But what if you dont want to pay him?

RFA means you at least have the right of first refusal. and usually teams have to OVERPAY to get that RFA anyway........right?

if on July 1 Teague is offered a 4 yaer 60 million dollar deal we dont have to "match" , he can sign it without ever talking to us, correct?

RFA we have the right to match whatever offer is put out there.

How is that the same situation? Is anyone going to Offer Noel a big contract to pry him away? I mean it rarely happens like that, last one i can think of is maybe hayward/Parsons few years ago?

Noel isnt going to be on the bench 4-5 deep. Hes going to be in the rotation within a year. They dont do this deal IMO unless they have faith he can be a contributor in the next 12 months.

[PandaKidd]

I always thought the ploy of RFA was if someone threw out big dollars and tried to get you to overpay for your own player.

Point being is you have control over him because he cant just up and leave, you have can keep him no matter what all you have to do is pay. Sure, Parsons left Houston because Dallas offered him a huge deal, but Houston was in control, they could have kept him if they wanted.

In UFA , it doesnt matter about dollars, the player can leave if he wants to (ala Dwight)

[Geaux_Hawks]

Can't remember, but if we did trade Teague to the Sixers, would they be able to get his bird rights? I think that incentive for Teague would go a long way in wanting to re-sign in Philly.