Lurker

Atlanta has a laser on Pero Antic with the 6th pick because he provides ELITE floor spacing value.

No surprise. I hope for the best for him because I'm also a Georgia fan.

I'm fine haha. It's been a fatiguing year but I will try to be more engaged when the new season starts, and may come by again tomorrow at some point when the draft is going on. I'm honestly not sure I watched more than about an hour or so of the restart combined but there was just sports overload then because I was watching baseball and football. Nothing has really happened to me that's that bad (2019 was arguably worse for me and my family) but so much has happened in general for this year that it's difficult to process everything. It's like we packed a decade into one year. Sooo...Gordon Hayward. I popped in when I saw that smoke. Is there a chance that this happens?

Based off the things I've seen, this team was likely pretty firmly #2 behind the Dodgers in the NL without all the injuries and with the way the pitching was set up this time, without the Soroka injury, I'd have been going into the playoffs as confident as ever to actually take at least one normal NLDS. 3 starters would be the preference, but going with 2 and then bullpenning one of the games is something I'd be very comfortable with. But instead that injury happened and the Braves have a rotation in turmoil behind Fried. The Braves are going to make the playoffs, but now it's definitely uncertain they win the 3 game series even if Acuna/Albies can come back. At some point we have to have an Atlanta/GA sports team have better luck in the big 3 sports. Hopefully, Soroka can come back and continue to do well.

I'm not going to read this whole argument but Toppin won't be there at #6 anyway so what everyone is arguing about will be a moot point.

My justification… 1. Braves: The top young talent of the rebuild (it is not at a rebuild stage anymore, as until the COVID mess threw everything into a tizzy, I would have still favored the Braves to win another division slightly…not that a division matters as we’ve seen) is already there and performing at a high level for their age, Freeman remains a stalwart, Soroka and Fried (even if his record was inflated, he looked really good at times in 2019 and I think is a mid-rotation starter) fully emerged in 2019, the bullpen was bolstered had we not seen a bullpen kablam (there’s no telling with bullpen arms), and there is still upside that can come from improvement from the youth and from the farm. The only major question for 2020 before MLB was put on hold was probably if you could see Fried take another step or somebody else emerge for that #2 spot but it is because I’m semi-bullish on Soroka and his future. No Donaldson is a downgrade, but it really is not one that bothers me a whole lot. 2. Hawks: I am bullish on Trae Young’s offensive abilities continuing to hold up but after you go beyond him, I honestly still need more information. I think Cam Reddish is a major key like Ronald Acuna was for the Braves. If he is able to build off his last 27 games and flash major breakout potential, then I think this team is in good shape going forward IF the front office shows that they can bring outside help. Honestly, this team could make a jump into the 6th-8th seed ballpark in 20/21 (which I thought was possible before 19/20 but I think is a lot, a LOT cloudier now), but I would still think there was quite a way to go. 3. Falcons: There is a better than decent chance that their shot was blown in all honesty. The 2016 season had all the makings of a “get red hot then win a championship” type deal. Until the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. The upside is still there I guess, but I am not feeling it. This stuff sometimes feels as if it was a lifetime ago, but with my football fandom, I have been horribly unlucky recently. Honestly, both the Falcons AND Georgia had the kind of seasons (maybe more like stretch with the 2016 Falcons because they were up and down and timed the second hot streak that went into the playoffs) that are ended with winning it all by 98 out of 100 teams in back to back years. The only 2 teams that did not were the Falcons and Georgia. I think the 2019 Braves story ended up being somewhat similar to 2010. Wonderful stretch in the middle of the year after a slow start (not sure if 2010 was similar on the slow start off the top of my head) but was too injured by the time the playoffs rolled around. It can be viewed as an excuse, but Freeman has said that he would have likely not been able to play in the NLCS. Of course, it helps that this was several months ago, because if it was very fresh (like if it were November with the Hawks looking awful as well), I would be feeling a little morose about both.

This didn't go as you thought it would, but even with Trae showing optimism, until it's shown on the court, I would put the Braves ahead in most likely to win another. I would need to see a big leap as well and honestly probably 2 seasons similar to what the Braves have put out recently, not just 1. I might actually say that while de Boer is manager at Atlanta United, even when Josef comes back that the Braves for now slightly edge out Atlanta United too. I'm not sure that de Boer's style is all that great. Doesn't mean that things can't change quickly as in the last 5-6 years or so it has gone from Hawks, to Falcons (28-3, bruuhhh), to Braves in that same time period with the big 3 in the US. I might have just let on with a big reason of how there has been no big 3 title since 1995 in Atlanta though, whoops... It helps for me that it's been several months since October however, with a lot that has gone on since then. Honestly, the cheating bust for the Astros has made that incredibly stupid 1st inning and the Nationals World Series win fade to the back of my mind. Congrats sturt, but sorry, that title and frankly most of those playoffs are the last thing that would come to my mind right now in evaluating. The Astros deserved to lose.

I think this can go through personally unless too many players remain openly against playing, even if they're withheld pay after the date that the agreement they came to expires. It's going to be weird, different (I think you have to carry expanded rosters, or have teams nearby on standby with players playing to be ready for potentially positively tested players), but it's possible.

I think there's no way that you can't test everyone before you restart the NBA. The idea of the NBA playing is even sketchier than MLB/American Football for now because of the NBA only having 15 player teams. Not that it's unlikely that they don't try, but in the case of sports with bigger teams, it makes more sense because you can isolate players with a positive test and play other players available. Only difficulty would be if you get teams that have half their players positive, then you'd have major problems.

I would not be able to produce a link off the top of my head. Sorry. I just remember seeing how one of the major leaders in California said that they are "probably not going to allow sports or concerts until 2021 in our state". It might have been sports with fans though. There might be some weight to that instead of just probably and threatening as a possibility because of what I'm reading from college football people too. From the way it sounds, some college conferences might not want to return to sports in the fall. Honestly, although I know that's not great, my mind immediately hopped to Pac 12 and what might go on in California with their 3 schools. Edit: Okay it might have just been the Los Angeles mayor, but even still that includes multiple major sports... https://www.kron4.com/news/california/los-angeles-mayor-says-no-concerts-or-sporting-events-until-2021/

California and New York teams will all likely have to relocate to different facilities if the NBA is going to be able to get ready to complete the regular season anytime soon (and by anytime soon, restarting the regular season in the next 6 weeks or so). Seems silly given that California's early dramatic measures have helped I think relatively, but from the way it sounded, Cali doesn't even want to do sports without fans and at least as of now they want to ban it until 2021.

I really doubt that you're ever going to see a true much lower usage Trae Young. A realistic target might be somewhere in between what he put up in his last 55 as a rookie and 19/20 with more assists. I do think that he probably knows that the team will be better off without him having to be as high usage as he was but he felt, especially with the things that were going on, that he had no choice at times for 19/20. Averaging 24 and 10 sounds better to me than near 30 with less than 10 assists. That could translate to a closer to 30% usage instead of about 35.

In the case of my area some places are having to reopen on the date they can because they failed to get unemployment or small business loans. Places that can will stay closed if they want, and I bet a lot of Atlanta places do but in my area, there seems to be 9-10 examples that have no choice in the matter but to open and implement strict guidelines.

There is no such thing as a "COVID-2". When I look that name up on google, this is the first webpage I get... https://loinc.org/sars-coronavirus-2/ When you see "SARS-Cov-2", the Cov in the middle does NOT stand for COVID, it stands for the c, o, and v that is in coronavirus. This virus is another version that comes out of the SARS family, I'm not sure how hard it is to understand that. Frankly, we're lucky that this version isn't a more contagious early 2000's version. This world would be in total, deep **** if that was what happened. It is fair to be asking for better antibody testing, but....1, the idea that this is a different version of SARS isn't a lie, and....2, part of the reason for antibody testing is for the ones that may have had mild viral symptoms or maybe even just chest tightness and because of what's going on, there's no idea if what they had is normal or what. It's a legit reason.

I don’t think you can definitively rule out the idea of the coronavirus circulating in some areas of the US before it was confirmed (maybe it hasn’t since November as claimed by some, but maybe for a month before it was confirmed) or there being a lot more asymptomatic people than what’s been reported. It just needs a lot more research and it might be a couple years before a conclusion is come to. Does it seem a little crazy if it’s true given what we know for sure right now? Yeah it does, I’ll admit that, but there’s some circumstantial stuff I’ve seen that most certainly doesn’t rule it out, even including a death. A rise in negative flu tests with this flu season that hasn’t been explained (that include more negatives for other problems), NBA players testing positive for the coronavirus and not really being affected all that badly, prisons recently massively testing some prisoners and getting hundreds of positives with most of them being asymptomatic, Brazil reexamining a death that occurred about a month before they identified their first coronavirus patient and changing the cause of death from pneumonia to coronavirus (you would hope they had a DANG good reason to, like maybe they retested some things, because if their doctors are correct, there’s no telling who and how many down there that don’t know), and finally, these antibody studies that are just now beginning. If the idea is true it was going around a bit earlier than confirmed, yes, it’s quite likely that we saw deaths that were classified as pneumonia deaths that were actually coronavirus deaths early in 2020. We may never know for sure there because some of the samples from those patients might have already been disposed. I have also seen it theorized that we MIGHT have seen a milder version circulate that mutated sometime earlier this year, but with that theory it would have been here earlier than what my theory is (it was circulating a month before confirmed). But something that I would be curious about here would be has there been a rise in pneumonia deaths along with those unexplained negative flu tests (*oops).

I very seriously doubt that Young's going to ever be better than slightly below average to regular below average defensively. He can get better at efforting, but there's some issues here that hurt him defensively that aren't going to magically get up, walk out the door, and leave town if you change coaches. I don't think he can be your #1 player on a future playoff team that has a real shot. Maybe your #2, but it might be touchy and this is something you might not see until you see a playoff series.

Phoebe Putney announced over 1200 recoveries today. For a smaller SW GA hospital that's had it's issues that's a good sign. That's the kind of hospital that you'd expect to take it worse. They still have a lot of work to do but based off what they said, it's going well so far.

I'm really late to this but I think Trae Young's game has to include deep threes and I'm pretty sure I remember talking about this months ago. It doesn't need to be 5+ a game (maybe around 3ish per game would be better) like it may have seemed on occasion but if he just stops taking them, it'll allow defenders to back up some, and with his athleticism not being as good as it could be, he might not be able to get to the rim as much and then we go on and on with how the rest of his game is affected. You could consider it a flaw if this theory is true too, needing the low percentage three and having the rest of his game fill out around said low percentage three. In fact, although I haven't seen it with 19/20, I wonder if he's like 18/19 where his deep three percentage was better than the easier threes...which I do admit is odd.

Remember, it's a rumor that we're not high on Wiseman as a club (now if this is true, you can question if whether its because "muh we don't like big men enough"). That makes things tricky, nonetheless (I think it's also been said we're not high on Edwards either, which may erase him). All in all, it smells like a trade out if #1 or #2 is drawn and it lines up well for a trade.

That bleacher report "offer" must be a joke, must be. I'd be willing to trade a pick for Beal, maybe a player too but 3 wings plus the pick is laughable.

I think it was said recently that we're not very high on Wiseman. Could easily see a trade out if we draw #1 this year. Problem is, for who...

I was meaning a 2/3 and not necessarily a free agent, but those guys with the qualifications I named...if they exist, are going to obviously be hard to acquire.

I actually like Donovan Mitchell and his game but I don't think trying to fit him and Trae would work because of Trae's limitations and Donovan's size, even if he's a good defender. Your ideal case would probably be to acquire a young veteran that can play good defense, is 6'5"-6'6", shoots the 3 well, and can cut off ball/dribble drive at least a little... Now who fits this...I don't know. I'd like to see Reddish grow some more, but it doesn't hurt to add another wing.

Yeah, I don't think that the idea of playing small should be discarded entirely but it's something that should be a matchup by matchup basis. Against centers that are excellent boarders and aren't a liability if you pull them out, play big, against centers that are a liability if you pull them out, play small in stretches to exploit that.

There's no question he's wrong there. I think he's a combo forward in which the work should focus on transitioning him to mainly being a 3. I think he's a 4 in small lineups for matchup purposes, not full time, but a lot of this forum will fully disagree with ANY 4 time, so it's not really worth a serious discussion, period. I don't think he's a 2, and the argument I've seen about playing him at the 2 earlier this year is silly. He's a 3/4 and I've even seen others describe him as the same.