Watchman

8 hours ago, givemesome1ce1 said:

We are 18-26 as of right now and never been this bad in the Trae young since 2020. We had a better record without Dejounte before he came here, we had top 5 offenses without Dejounte, we had better defenses without Dejounte. We will be fine. Trade Dejounte, get picks and a player back, make Jalen the true second option, and move on. At least hawks will finally actually choose a direction for once with this trade. 
 

 

Kelly Olynk please and thank you Landry.

 

I assume this is a joke.  Otherwise it's the worst trade proposal I've ever heard.

2 hours ago, bird_dirt said:

Bucks paying Doc $40m, PLUS Griffin, PLUS Bud! 
I had no idea there was that much money up in Wisconsin!

Sounds a little cheesy to me. 

2 hours ago, bird_dirt said:

That’s not a good deal. The 2029 pick (five years down the road) is the only real added asset. The swap has little to no added value, since we wouldn’t be gaining an additional pick. 
D Lo is a negative asset and the Lakers should attach 1rp or multiple 2rps for taking him. 

No more second rounders.

8 hours ago, macdaddy said:

Bucks firing Griffin only reinforces that Quin ain't going nowhere.  You have a MVP, a chip, and are top 3 in the league you can do stuff like this.   When you're where we are what would we move on to?   Other coaches freaked out when we fired Lloyd F Pierce.   You think we fire Quin 6 months in that any seasoned coach would come anywhere near this franchise?

As long as we don't bring Nate back.

I don't understand the KAT fascination.  He scores 62, but they lose to a lesser team.  He aint that great.

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

I said this the other day and it’s pretty clear the lakers are the leaders. Only hold up is who is taking d lo (who I think teams are personally viewing poorly since he’s been pretty good this year). But as more trades go down and teams show which direction they’re taking more and more teams can be that facilitator. I haven’t heard recently any new suitors or new packages. Favorites are lakers and Knicks 

The Hawks should tell LA that with offers like this, they can sit and rot.

31 minutes ago, GameTime said:

Can't wait to trade Trae to San Antonio so we can start our 10 year rebuild wit' The Resslers

 

I think Ressler has not thought this through.  If he wanted Trae to be around to generate ticket sales, then he seems to have shot himself in the foot.

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

IF you feel that way... then why not just have a rotation of who gets what pick.   I'm sure that there's a fair rotation that can be made. 

Here's the thing.. and this is why the Draft lottery is rigged:

Above everything else, the commish has to make sure that every team puts a good product on the floor.  i.e. No market can die.  If a Market dies, the commish shares part of the blame.   

To overcome that, the commish has to make sure that every team has an opportunity to get good players.   That's why there is a draft in the first place.   Usually, the draft takes the worst team from the previous season and gives them the chance to get the best player out of college.   Since Basketball is a 5 man team on the court at one time, 1 great player can make a team go from worst to first.  Unlike other sports.  So tanking is a real thing. 

The point of the Lottery was to keep teams from tanking.. but it doesn't.  I mean, if I purposely lose games, the worst I can get is 4th.  However, what has happened is that 14 teams get to be handpicked by the commish to receive one of 3 picks every year.  In doing so, the commish can guarantee that a team stays competitive, he can work out diplomatic solutions for players, he can pay off debts owed to teams.   

Having a rotation of picks will take away the commish's power to change the landscape of teams. 

 

The Commish shouldn't have that kind of power anyway.  It allows him to favor the biggest market teams to keep on being good, and everyone else is a perennial doormat, like our illustrious Hawks.

3 hours ago, AHF said:

You made it clear - I just read too quickly as you suggested.  I don't think there is a chance in the world that the NBA will only allow some teams to offer an ownership interest but bar the biggest markets from doing so.  From the league's perspective, I don't think there is a problem if more big stars end up in New York and LA because those markets get more attention, higher ratings, and more money in the long-term than would be the case if LeBron passed on LA to go to Oklahoma or something.  

Add that to my other reasons why the league wouldn't want former players coming in as minority owners without the league vetting and blessing that arrangement as they did with Jordan, Hill, etc. 

If that's the case, why have a league outside of NY and LA?  The league should not favor any team.  

On 1/22/2024 at 5:51 PM, Diesel said:

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

Is Detroit is losing on purpose by making bad decisions? I hate tanking.  It means some lazy GM or owner or both, is throwing games as far as I am concerned.

2 minutes ago, StonedDogs said:

Hawks have nothing to offer. No one wants anything the Hawks has. Its time to rebuild. Trae is not getting a ring in Atlanta. 

That is quite possibly true, but we've got to get a better return on our investments.  We give away good players for a Coke and a bag of chips.

7 hours ago, kg01 said:

*sigh*

Islanders, amirite? 

A 13/10 max player.  Got his money, now he's taking the easy life.

14 hours ago, Diesel said:

I propose a 2 team offense.  One lead by Trae and one lead by DJ. 

Team Trae = Trae, CC, Hunter, Bogi, and Bey.

Team DJ = DJ, OO, JJ, Garrison, and AJ. 

They alternate playing in 6 minute intervals.  Starting with Team DJ.   Team DJ sets a tone with Transition basketball.  This team attacks the basket and plays in the midrange. Occasionally, Garrison or DJ or AJ can line up a three.  But for the most part.. it's attacking the rim. 

Team Trae comes in with Halfcourt inside out game.  PNR...  Hunter Bogi and Bey are your shooters.   This team plays more of Quin style with movement around the perimeter and putting up shots. 

Of course, there can be a mixed squad to close out. 

What do you think??

A lot of money for part time players.  I wouldn't be opposed to the idea otherwise.

28 minutes ago, Threezus said:

Thats close to the same value we gave up  1 less pick  so it's not a god awful return because we got murray younger and less money owed.  So i can see the 1 less pick in value as somewhat fair.   I know ours was unprotected but depending on what team we trade with the new picks could be better picks than the ones we gave up unprotected if we get our crap together and start making it in the playoffs.    To do that though we probably need to take those picks we get and flip them for another star ASAP.

I will say im not as against picks as some people are because picks  ALWAYS = good trade value and easier to move than mid tier or worse players when it comes to trading for a star player.   I feel if we were to try to trade for KAT  and we were offering  2 1sts  or Bey + Griffin  the 2 1st's probably help us get KAT more than those 2.  As long as we can make up the cap needed with another player like Capela +Hunter  or something to reach a KAT value to make the trade work.

I wouldn't give up too much for late first round picks (essentially second round picks.). Why would another team jump at that "opportunity"?

13 hours ago, sturt said:

I'm with you. I think that's been a proposal that's been out there for awhile that makes a lot of sense. Apparently, though, there's some reason it's not caught on... dunno.

I don't, otoh, consider this newly-come-to-light concept "complicated." Its advantage over the 3-year aggregate is that it's so simple and especially that it's so clearly visible that, if scheduled to be implemented at whatever point X-number of seasons from now, it's almost certainly to my mind going to get immediate results... ie, that teams will begin phasing out of their mentality of total reliance on the draft at a down point in their cycle.

I'm open to the thought, once I have a chance to maybe put together, say, a 3 season chart to analyze it better.

In theory, the mere threat itself is a driver of behavior toward not relying so very heavily on the draft that you leave yourself open to the possibility--not only because of the actual ramifications to your draft slot, but because of how the natives (fans) will react to playing games in which winning comes with a price.

 

Backing up, having thought about it while driving today... might want to think about something to balance the equation since top tier players routinely will be more attracted to the highest visibility franchises. So, the thought being, if you're going to provide disincentive for teams being content to stock their rosters completely through drafting, wanting them to always attempt at minimum to be mediocre, give all the lesser-visibility franchises some mechanism for competing more aggressively in the market.

( @macdaddy that might be the "complicated" part. I've not given that enough thought to have an opinion.)

 

 

 

 

Or better yet, just make the entire draft random, and set a hard cap.

On 1/22/2024 at 5:51 PM, Diesel said:

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

Why reward bad management/ownership?

53 minutes ago, Diesel said:

OK... Cool.  I'm back.

For now that's not the deal.... I had to check my outsider's outsider source. 

Said that we're looking for 2 1sts and a Pick swap with an expiring for Murray.   Sounds just like rebuild.  Knicks fans want Murray.   But that's just the fans.   That Mavs pick is no good.   Their own pick is no good.  Why are we so freaking in love with Picks?

 

 

I have no idea.  Sounds like the FO wants a chance to screw up more drafts.  Giving away a very good player for junk.  It's becoming a trend.  Fans ought to boycott home games to let Ressler  know how sick of this kind of stuff we are.

This is so disgusting.  Just sell the whole team Ressler.  They're probably no better than the College Park team anyway.  Maybe the new owners will move the team out of Atlanta.  Someday maybe we can get some owners who will start a new franchise in Atlanta.  Ressler and his band of imbeciles have ruined this franchise.  

On 1/18/2024 at 2:07 PM, Diesel said:

p

This is his 2016-2017 team.  Won 51 games.   You say Ball movement to the dunk first and foremost.   Notice the type of assists numbers his bigs are getting (circled).   Then notice the 3Pattempts...

This in no way corresponds to this great passing for the dunk system that you describe.  It corresponds to the Keep shooting the three that everybody else describes. 

In 2018-2019.. we see a slight improvement in passing from Gobert.  Slight. 

 

Now for the part you dread... Let's look at us.

 

We're doing the exact same thing with even more 3 pt shooting. 

You say what about his last effort in Utah.. surely he was passing at every position by then..

I draw your attention to the 3PAs vs. the Assists from the Bigs.  It looks a lot like what we do now.

This is his coaching. 

 

I would draw your attention to the high volume 3 point shooters in the first spreadsheet (2016-17).  I'm looking at the players circled in red.   3 of them were over 40% from 3.  Another was just barely under 40% (39.8%). The lowest man on the list was 37.1%. if I had players who could shoot that well from 3 point range, I would certainly want to take advantage of it.

6 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I don't have a problem with keeping everything pat...  Even our Centers. 

I think Clint does a lot of good things but people only focus on the bunnies.   He leads the freaking lead in offensive rebounds and it's fools in here that says that he has no trade value.  THAT'S BS

Clint Rebounds.  He has a Motor.  He plays good defense.   He can score on the PNR..  AND next year is the last year on his contract.   CLINT HAS PLENTY OF VALUE.  When I hear that, I know there's a liar in our presence. 

OO can hit middy shots.   He is a shot blocker.  He has to improve his rebounding.  He has to improve his anticipation and defensive positioning.   At some point, he got to stop getting little boy'd out there ... And please stop jumping at three point shooters.

They both have their flaws.. but i am not against standing pat with them. I would play Bruno some... I would build up the big lineup when we play against big teams. 

We have been missing #12.  He's not a savior, but he's better than Matthews and he's bigger than Mathews.   People we're going crazy about the prospect of getting Middleton...  There is nothing that Middleton does better than #12.   When he comes back... if he's closer to 100%, we will be rolling.  We just have to stay healthy.

MAKE QUIN EARN HIS 8 Million this year.  Make him figure this shit out.  Stand pat...

Unless you can get Isaac for Patty and Bey.

 

 

 

I.like Patty, and would llike to keep him around.  I would play him more than we currently do.  

Do any of you remember the days when we had Tree Rollins and Steve Hawes?  Tree was a great defender, but he was always in foul trouble.  In comes Steve Hawes, a center with a jumpshot, but only a mediocre defender.  However, I think it would be worth considering a similar combo for now.  Capela is not in foul trouble all the time, but his health issues reduce his minutes.  We had Roundfield to help with rebounds and Hawes was a decent rebounder.

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

It was off an on.  I agree with AHF's assessment.   DJs dribble is loose.   Miami is a great team for him to be lead PG because they are a slow pace team and DJ is strengthened in the faster pace game.   So if you can allow DJ to play transition, he's a better player.   But we don't want to have DJ vs the Pacers or the Kings or the Jazz....we'll get kilt. 

Yeah, Trae pounding the ball near half court and getting a 24 second violation is better, huh?

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Couple quick thoughts:

1 - It is not easy to get back in the playoffs after bottoming out.  It is not guaranteed.  It can be many years.  Don’t treat that as a given.

2 - I agree with the idea of keeping Murray unless and until you can get real value for him.  We’ve seen it with Siakam, Harden and others.  Wait until the right time to sell when someone wants him and is willing to pay.

3 - I don’t like the idea of building around Murray.  The team consistently struggles when he is running the show.  He needs to be a complimentary piece not the best player on a team.  
 

4 - We need to take our shot at building around Trae.  If we suck in a few years and he leaves then we rebuild then when we have our picks again.  Right now it is a shorter path to retooling this team than it is to tanking without our picks or throwing away the most significant player we’ve had since Nique.

With regard to #3, it seems that no one got that memo to DJM tonight.  We play like a team when he runs the show.

4 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I personally am a fan of the returns and think they getting their best bang for their Buck in a djm deal. 

that being said I know a majority of fans want real production back and “win now” moves which aren’t gonna happen with these for this particular season

We've been through rebuild after rebuild after rebuild.  How did we go from conference championship series to another start from scratch rebuild in this short a time period?  This adds on to the legacy of disappointment that we have been plagued with for such a long time.  It's like management is going out of their way to fail.