Bankingitbig

13 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We could have just benched Howard for 2 years and gotten better returns than what we took... That's the bottom line. 

 

Got it. So you want to be the GM that tells players to just sit on the bench and that they're never going to play. So we would have two roster spots (Crawford and Dwight Howard) taken by guys that would literally just not even partake in drills or anything. Do you honestly expect to sign anyone in free agency doing that? Good luck getting meetings with agents.

21 minutes ago, Diesel said:

 

So... now.. let's put some critical thinking to this.  You want us to believe that we traded for a guy just to buy him out?  For a GM who doesn't want to get bad contracts.. .do you think he would stupidly trade for a late first round pick at the price of taking on Crawford's bad contract?

So how it really went down is that Denver said that they were going to sign Millsap.  We would have lost him for absolutely nothing.  Hell, we never made Sap an offer.  Then Denver came back to us and said, we're trying to move Gallanari, 

 

Can't believe I am arguing this because it doesn't matter either way. But read the Shams report again... "Now that the deal is official, Denver can sign Paul Millsap to the three-year, $90 million deal the two sides agreed upon over the weekend"

Notice how he said "sign"? Millsap was not traded. He signed as a free agent. He wasn't involved in the 3-team trade. It was reported at first that he was, but later came out that he wasn't. This is why Millsap also just now held his press conference because his signing became official. If he was involved, then you would have seen it earlier since we have been using Stone in our Summer League and already had Crawford on the roster. Either way, doesn't really matter. We did lose Millsap for nothing, but that's more Budcox's fault and not Schlenk's in my opinion.

Or you know... LA was like "hey, we want to sign Gallinari, but need to dump Crawford to have the cap space for it. We will give you a 1st round pick to take on his contract. Deal?"

Denver didn't do anything but sign-and-trade Gallinari for a 2019 2nd round pick.

So you think it was a bad idea to get a first round pick for basically $14m in cap space? I am so confused.... By the way, that figure is potentially less. We just don't know the terms of the buyout yet. Who did you want to use the cap space on this summer instead of getting a first round pick?

9 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We don't know what was offered.  However, just because the deals wasn't coming in the way you like them doesn't mean that you take a terrible deal.  

I mean... Let's say that you go to the store to buy tires for your truck.  The salesman says... We got these 70k tires that will cost you $430 each.   You need tires but are you going to take a bad deal to get them??  IF you do.. don't come to me after you have bought these $430 tires and say.. well I didn't see any other tires that fit my truck in the store. 

Fans like you are trying to make an incredibly bad deal seem like it was the best deal we could have gotten.  It's the heartache of the gotta do a deal now generation.  There would have been nothing wrong with waiting, passing, and getting a better deal with somebody else later. 

 

You're right I don't know what was offered, but I have no reason to believe that Schlenk would purposefully choose a worse deal. Do you? That doesn't make any sense...

If I need tires to drive my truck and I go to all the other 29 stores and they don't want to sell me tires, then yea I am going to get the $430 each ones while you sit at home with a truck that doesn't work....

I disagree... We just heard Millsap say that the only thing he wanted from Denver during his free agency pitch was "functionality".... Now why do you think he would say that? Seems kind of a weird thing to ask for right? Did he not have functionality in Atlanta? So yea, I think if your goal is too build a culture of team basketball and you want to establish that culture from day one as a new GM with all the young players on your team, then it is worth it to trade a guy that doesn't fit the culture.

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I'm sorry... all he has done thus far is have a firesale.

 

Every GM knows how to have a successful firesale.. 

BK had a very successful Firesale.

Ferry had a very successful Firesale. 

Babcock even knew how to have a firesale when he felt the time was needed. 

 

So a firesale is not new and it's not what should be applauded... However, you can make mistakes in a firesale..... 

I think Schlenk has done that.  Both with the Dwight trade and with the Crawford Buyout, I think Schlenk has made mistakes in the firesale.  Both of those guys had value and Schlenk misjudged their value.  Yet... Adoring fans want to give him the biggest congratulation for moving those contracts and taking bad deals in the process.  ON the Dwight trade, we took back a bad, longer contract and loss a draft spot.  Moneywise it was a trade of 46 Million to 37.5 Million.  That 8.5 Million difference in this economy is MEANingless.   Not to mention, we will be paying Plumlee 12.5 Million dollars in a time where Dwight would have been gone.  Both Dwight and Crawford's contract would have been more valuable next year but we squandered that... WHY?  Here's the problem... we're not trying to be competitive.   It's not like we have said FA in our target and needed to clear cap space to get him..  We're just having a firesale and hoping to tank.   So this adoration for Schlenk because he is able to trade players is unfounded.   Anybody can get rid of Salary.. especially when you trade a top rebounder for a guy who gets you 2ppg and 2 rpg and cost you 12.5 Million dollars per to do it.   Or when you pay a guy 22 Million dollars to leave.

What was Dwight's value? If he had value, then why didn't other teams offer more to get it? What makes you smarter than all these other team's GMs that weren't willing to give up assets for Dwight? I think it is obviously pretty clear that Dwight did not have value. You're also only taking a simply analysis of the Dwight trade. You don't know how Dwight was as a teammate. You don't know how he was in terms of trying to run plays or if he had the BBIQ to run the type of fluid / motion offense that Bud likes. If you are trying to rebuild your team with young guys, then do you want that type of player on your team as a starter who still thinks he is a superstar?

The Crawford buyout? Really.... You wanted a disgruntled player to just ride the bench all year and not showing any work effort in practices? That's a good role model for our young players to have on a team. Your first year as a GM and you're going to try and "stick it" to a veteran. Yea - that's a good way to try and build credibility with other players / agents around the league and make Atlanta a place where players want to come..

Who did we pay 22m to leave? Where are you getting your information?

The adoration for Schlenk currently is that he has done a good job in the draft with Collins and he is taking on good contracts. There isn't anything else to it. Obviously he is still be evaluated, but thus far there really hasn't been too much to complain about. I'll give you the Dwight thing, but I think there is more to it than you or I know. I also find it laughable how you can say he had value, yet no other teams were wanting to trade more to get him.... Cleary the market determined he doesn't have value...

7 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

They are using all of Crawford's 14.2 against our cap for this season. That is the highest it can be. If Crawford's cap hit is lower, that gives us more than the 10.3 they are citing.

Our 12 signed players = 72,878,722

Crawford and Dunleavey dead cap = 15,909,488

Total cap used ( 12 players plus Crawford and Dunleavey ) = 88.788,260

Total cap allowed = 99,093,000

Total cap left = 10,304,740

I mean... I can see what Sportrac has for myself. What I am saying is it isn't accurate as they don't list Dedmon. For example, they have Dedmon listed as signing with the Spurs, which there hasn't been anything reported to suggest that is the case.

Like I also said, I know that they are using Crawford's full cap hit, which I don't think is the most accurate, but probably is the most conservative estimate.

But to each his own, you can keep going with the assumption that we only have 12 players signed and that we haven't signed Dedmon and that we agreed to pay Crawford his full contract in the buyout if you want.

4 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

According to Spotrac we have 12 guaranteed contracts and 10.3 in practical cap space. Magette does not count as he is still listed as G League. I trust just about anyone's math more than I trust CViv; but Spotrac could be wrong. No one is the end all be all for this all to fluid cap space information.

Link I use:

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/atlanta-hawks/cap/

Spotrac doesn't have Dedmon listed.

They also are assuming we gave every $ to Crawford in the buyout, which I highly doubt. I agree about CViv, but in this case I think CViv is more accurate.

I think Simmons is overhyped because of his background and how he made it into the NBA. We all hate on Bazemore, but Baze is better than him. I would rather give minutes to Bembry than sign Simmons.

22 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

We are filling in the roster and by my count off Spotrac, that gives us 12 players with guaranteed contracts and about 10.3 million in cap left.

I have liked Ersan his whole career and if we have to pay a vet 6 a year, he is as solid as any.

I've got it at 13 players. Using the $11m cap hit from Crawford that CViv tweeted out, then we have ~$6.7m left in cap space along with the Room exception.

I'm going to take a huge pass on him... He is a black hole on offense. Doesn't pass the ball. Doesn't play defense. Doesn't shoot the three well. No thank you. Don't even believe that we are interested. Think its just his agent trying to boost the market for his client.

Would not have minded re-signing Thabo. Still think we need a true SF to backup Prince and he could have done it. His locker room presence and mentorship would have been a huge positive as well.

Still think Bembry can be the third point guard if needed and we can use Josh Maggette as an emergency point guard. I would rather try and sign another true small forward, as Prince is really the only one. Granted there aren't many available. I also think it might be valuable to carry an open roster spot throughout the season to facilitate 1-for-2 trades with teams. We currently have 13 players signed.

Looks like we may be getting some information on the terms of the buyout. If the cap hit is $11m next season, then that means we actually didn't stretch out his cap hit. It also means we agreed on a buyout of ~77% of the guaranteed portion. That said, I don't fully trust CViv, especially when it comes to cap related information. Note that the cap hit will also be offset somewhat by Crawford's new deal as well.

9 minutes ago, sturt said:

- Anderson

- Ariza

- Gordon

- Capella

- 2020 1st

- 2022 1st

- 2024 1st

- Hartenstein (draft and stash that was projected by many to be 1st rounder)

- Llull (regarded by some to be best PG in Europe)

- About 5-6 other draft-and-stashees, and of course some 2nd round pick fodder like any other team

Out of all of those... What would take to be compensated for taking on Anderson's contract? Don't forget you have to give some asset to NYK as well for trading Melo.

I think being one of the few teams with cap space this season and next is more valuable than any draft stashes and first round picks 4 years from now. I would want the equivalent of almost 2-3 first round picks in the near term to take Anderson and not have any cap space. We wouldn't have cap space for Gordon (unless we dump Plumlee somehow) if we took on Anderson, so that rules him out. HOU is highly unlikely to trade Capella, so that rules him out. Ariza is an expiring deal, maybe worth a first round pick to a contender, but not us. We also would need to dump salary to take him on. Hartenstein is a mid-2nd round draft pick, so nothing too valuable. So now we are looking at a 30 year old backup PG and some first round picks 3-6 years from now.

If we are able to dump Plumlee in this deal, then that changes things.

9 minutes ago, CP61 said:

I'd do it for a Knicks pick. They are stupid, maybe they'll just give it to us.

But what would they be getting? Knicks need to be compensated for trading Melo. With that, they would also need to be compensated for sending out a pick. HOU doesn't have much to offer and nor do we.

Thinking Ariza and possibly Gordon are going to be involved if it is a 4-team trade. I would be fine taking on Anderson if we were able to dump Plumlee.

After looking at our cap space and how we can conveniently take on Anderson's contract, I am getting worried that we are involved as well. Better get some good assets to compensate for it or dump Plumlee somehow, but I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Updated cap sheet for the 2017 - 2018 season following the Dedmon signing.

This assumes the full buyout of Crawford's guaranteed contract portion. We have no minimum roster hold charges because we have 12 players signed. This equates to $73,708,039 in guaranteed salary, along with $5,111,898 of dead money. This leaves us with $20,273,063 in salary cap space for this season, along with the Room Mid-Level Exception of $4,328,000. Curious to see if Schlenk plans to use the space or save it to use as an asset later in potential trades.

Next season I have it at $32,258,875 in cap space assuming a salary cap of $102,000,000 and assuming all options are exercised and cap holds renounced.

I really don't see Reed being signed. I think our C spot is done now with Dedmon, Muscala, Plumlee and Stone.

Great pickup in my opinion. Was thinking Dedmon might be too expensive for us and wanting to be on a competitor, which is why I was thinking we would end up with Reed instead. Glad to see a signing finally.

2 minutes ago, Afro said:

Does a two year deal still work like it did with Carroll and Sap? 

I guess our cap won't be too much of an issue though. 

It does. We won't have full Bird rights on him after his deal is over and if he exercises his player option, but we will have Early Bird rights.

8 hours ago, MCVicious said:

I dont undrstand why we cant do deals like this one. How perfect would it have been to get DMC (as old and worn out as he may be) to teach his heir Prince the culture and magic of the 60-win Hawks. I dont care if he's an expensive player coach its better than buying out Jamal with no additional value. It would make Bud at least marginally happy, and we get a first AND a second rounder in the process. But no we would rather pay 18-20 mil for Diamond stone and Jamal's contract over the next couple years. 

The deal we did is better than this in my opinion. Carroll has $30.2m over two years, whereas Crawford was basically just ~$14.3m this year and only $3m next year (actually less following the buyout). So Brooklyn is only getting an extra 2nd round pick to take on ~$12m+ more in the 2018-2019 season. I think I would prefer the cap space than the 2nd round pick there. That said, Carroll is still a somewhat productive player.

Overall, I would prefer the deal we did with Clippers, but also curious as to why we weren't involved in this one as well. We already have 3 first round picks in 2018, so maybe Schlenk is just prioritizing the cap space or maybe he has plans to use it this offseason. Or maybe its just simply that Toronto wanted another big man in Hamilton, which we couldn't really offer.

Going into free agency, I was actually thinking we should go as high as $17-18M per year to match him because I thought he still had potential and just needed to become smarter with his shots (more efficient), while improving his defense. I thought he could also turn more into a playmaker with some ball-handling duties. But after seeing some of the contracts this free agency and especially after seeing what Waiters got, I think the risk is too high in terms of matching this offer. If Schlenk wants flexibility, then I think the smart decision is to pass, as the risk is too high that THJ won't improve to meet this contract. 

Somewhat expected, but I am very curious to see why Schlenk is freeing up some cap space now with these moves and more importantly the buyout/stretch of Crawford. Some people saying its to be able to match the THJ offer (which we have to announce if we will match or not today), but I don't think that's the case as we could technically go over the salary cap with Bird rights to match his offer.