Final_quest

12 minutes ago, benhillboy said:

The high risk of injuries sours me on exorbitant payrolls alone, let alone there are only a handful of worthy max guys anyway.  
 

Amassing as much expensive talent as possible without regard to roles, makeup, and fit is just amateur hour… paging James Jones & whoever the hell is running the Clips.  

Most people think/ thought Dame was some prize so I won’t roast Horst too tough but still lol.  

GS’s core built their shiny new arena off the backs of their pre-max deal performances, they wholly deserve to get fat on the back end.  

The Celtics are paying less than $6M for elite shooting between Hauser and Pritchard and White just signed a very team-friendly deal.  They better bring it home this season (which I  doubt) I just can’t fathom Jaylen Brown at $50M next season.  To his credit I used to hate dude but I can’t front on him any longer as he’s tightened his dribble a bit and posting his best playoff metrics by far granted they’ve faced two terribly hobbled teams.  Always been a boss slasher.

The main thrust is our focus should be acquiring the right pieces to have a solid core that fits.  

Using Collins TPE and an MLE to put us on par with the top 8 payrolls would mean we have the worst roster of all the biggest spenders. We can do that, but for what purpose?  

But no I don’t think we are close to a rebuild.  Soonest that would happen is 2025-2026, and only then if San Antonio is  having an abysmal year.  
 

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I agree and disagree about things being binary.  I mean there are many flavors of how this could play out.  When Trae expresses some want to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything makes sense and (b) identifying which scenario is best for the team. 
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the abilitiy to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc. 
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, then the front office will have a limited range of options and will make the decision which trade to accept.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, then the FO has made a voluntary election not to move Trae but may have no choice over the terms of the personnel move demanded by Trae.
• And probably 50 other scenarios that I don't think are any more difficult to dissect.

What is binary is whether the front office retains the authority to make their own decision or if their authority is stripped away in whole or in part.  Where they do retain authority, they own the decision to the full extent of their discretion and authority because that is exactly their job.  Where that authority is stripped from them, whoever took that authority owns the outcome of how and/or to what extent they limited the FO's authority.  Do you see why whether the FO retains authority and discretion makes a difference?

So let's look at these again.  Trae expresses some desire to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything available to them makes sense and (b) if there are options that make sense then identify which scenario is best for the team. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the ability to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.  Ressler and Trae own the decision by virtue of Ressler stripping the FO of their authority and then giving it to Trae.
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, Trae owns the fallout from his demand crippling his trade market and the FO owns the responsibility for the offer they select among available offers.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, the FO owns the decision not to trade Trae and to cede authority to him and Trae owns the outcome of the personnel decision.

Throw out your own scenarios that you think would be useful for illustrating the variety and complexity of these scenarios if you'd like but I tried to hone in on a variety of realistic ones here.

After reading that I think the disconnect is I'm not focused on who owns the decision.  I'm more interested in the narrative of how a decision was made, what were all the factors involved.  

Like right now with Landry Fields I'm wondering if he really is a shadow GM that basically does what Ressler wants, or at least wondering if he's got a very short leash.  To the public they are making it look like Landry owns the decisions, but how much power does he actually have?  

You can have a powerful person who acts mostly independently that makes decisions and owns decisions.  You can have a powerful person who leans on a lot of talented people to make good decisions, but technically they alone own the final decision.  Have you ever experienced a no backbone "leader" who makes decisions but only after talking to a lot of people to try and figure out what will be the most popular decision?

Understanding who owns the decision is a small part of the how a decision is made.  When it came out that Nick Ressler had a bigger voice than anyone realized, even if Tony or Landry owns the decisions, it's still quite shocking that this kid even has significant influence.  

So you are focused on what you wrote in bold, and I'm more interested in the story leading up to the bolded part.  

Here's a question for you.  Take your example below.  In that scenario what actually happens in a public facing story?  Landry is STILL the public face of the decision, and in your world owns the decision.  The only way that changes is if the behind the scenes story gets leaked, which can happen years later.  The true story may never come out.  
 

• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.  Ressler and Trae own the decision by virtue of Ressler stripping the FO of their authority and then giving it to Trae.

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

What are we even talking about if Trae doesn't apply enough pressure on the front office to get them to do something they would not have chosen to do on their own?  What are we talking about if there is no causal link between the outcome and Trae's statements to the front office?

If Trae is the causal link and gets the front office to do things they would not have otherwise done, how is that different than saying he overrides them?

Exactly. If you can only imagine a scenario where Trae overrides or he doesn't, there isn't a conversation to be had.  That's what I've been trying to say.  It's only a conversation if you see this outside of a binary.  

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

The idea isn't that he is overriding anyone.  It's clearly not that black and white-- didn't realize we needed to explicitly state that.  But he does have opinions, and he absolutely can have influence if he strongly suggests he wants to keep playing with JC, and JC wants more money than the FO is otherwise willing to pay him, and they make a small concession and extend him to a contract thats too rich.  That type of thing is extremely plausible, if not probable.  "Do we pay JC an extra $2-5M per year to keep Trae happy" would be the decision point for the front office and even decent FOs could accept that trade off, as the risk of your star player being continually unhappy is a big financial risk.

So ultimately, yes, I agree with you the front office shouldn't listen to Trae's desires for the roster, but the disconnect is many people here absolve him of responsibility of influencing decision making, while simultaneously trashing the FO and ownership.  And would absolutely continue to blame the front office if Trae asks out, which is part of the reason they might be considering his input anyways.  The mental gymnastics is nauseating.

It's exactly this, and no it doesn't mean Trae overrides the GM.  This isn't a binary where they allow Trae to draw up the contract terms if they take his input into consideration.  Also, I'm not talking about just the JC contract, so for me this is not exclusively or primarily about Collins.
Trae is the main revenue driver and makes the most impact on the court.  Biggest star since Nique.  They want to keep him content.  If you have to say that means nothing or means something on occasions, I think it has been a factor.
We don't know the details on what his impact has been on the front office.  There's a lot of speculation, but also good reasons why people think he's been vocal and that ownership has made some efforts to listen.  

Repeating the GM makes the final decision or a dozen analogies demonstrating that concept isn't very impactful.  That is easy to understand.  A binary where either GM or Trae decides is not the dynamic, so we're talking past each other it seems.  

5 minutes ago, Afro said:

Am I the only one who is slightly concerned with the testing? 

Sure, he didn't get hurt at Purdue, but he didn't play this level of "athletic" basketball. Evidenced by the fact everyone was shocked lol. 

It's the one thing that I don't think gets talked about. If you increase the athletic requirement(which I think is fair to assume. It's the NBA).... He's 7'6" and huge. That almost never works health wise in the NBA. When paired with big minutes. 

Every time we see a big THIS big, everyone criticizes his ability to hold up long term. It's a bit odd that this one gets a pass. 

One of my BIG questions with Wemby and Chet Holmgren.  No history of their build type holding up.  In my mind it may take 5 or 6 years, but it will happen. 

8 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Several of us have the same opinion. It just gets lost in the noise. And most don't have any interest in going 99 rounds. IYKWIM

We know.  Try mentioning the name Ingram.  There is an auto reply.  

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The point is really simple.  It is not Trae's job to make personnel decisions.   It is like a hiring manager listening to his direct reports.  That person can and perhaps should listen to some of them but ultimately it is the GM or hiring manager's call and if they get overridden it is by the owner or CEO, etc. and not by one of their reports or players.

Responsibility lies with the GM, not the player - unless the player has the ability to walk and threatens to use it.  Otherwise, the player is under team control and the GM needs to make roster decisions and can listen to all the players, agents, media members, etc. he wants but the responsibility lies with him.

And when we get nuanced and the issue is more about the terms of a deal (how much did we pay JC, how many first round picks did we give up for Murray, etc.), the idea that a player like Trae gets into specifics like which draft picks to offer and what protections to put on them in a trade or how much money to put in a contract offer or anything is really headscratching for me.  Like no one didn't want to resign JC.  He was a RFA and was an upwardly mobile young player.  Did anyone want him to walk?  Of course not.  Trae didn't want him to leave neither did any of us. The only discussion is about how many dollars were in the deal.  The idea that Trae was the driving force behind determining the number of dollars the Hawks offered or had so much control over the terms of a contract offer that his name should come up in any discussion around that is just silly to me.  I legit don't get why we are talking about how much influence age 22 Trae had in the context of navigating JC's restricted free agency.

But if there is an ultimatum from a player I do put that in a different category.  If Trae says, "trade for Dejounte Murray or I walk" then I get that.  But otherwise this is normal business where the responsibility lies with the GM.

If your star player walked at the end of his contract with no warning, you might feel betrayed.  You might ask them why they didn’t bring up concerns earlier…before it was too late.  That you, the organization, might have done things differently if they provided more feedback.  

Repeating that it’s the GM’s responsibility final call over and over doesn’t really reflect how decisions are made.  That’s where the nuance comes in.  

21 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

Thank you. 
Nuance. That’s all I ask for. 

Every business wants to retain their best employee.  You actually want input from them, and at times you want them to challenge and push you.  They make mistakes too.  

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

To label him as a teenager who drinks mountain dew and is like an annoying kid to ignore in the back of the car doesn't respect his actual position.  He is the box office draw.  He is also the engine of the team.  If someone is acquired or cut, it impacts what Trae has to do on the court to make it work.  There are a lot of reasons to include him in conversations if you want to have success.  

However, if all you have to say is Trae should have zero influence and has had zero influence, there really isn't a conversation.  Point taken and that's your perspective.  Many others see it differently.  

10 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Bro, JJ for sure is, OO isn't and never will be a high volume scorer, Sarr is a complete question mark, he's a baby. 

Jalen is on target to meet basic requirements, but not on a trajectory where anyone thinks of him as a shooter.  

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So, you think they have maxed out their shooting ability?

I think assuming JJ, Sarr, and OO will meet the shooting requirements of a modern NBA front court is a concept built on hope.  None of them have demonstrated they are reliable volume shooters.  They can make open set shots.  

Could one of them develop to be a shooter? Yes, but none are even on that trajectory path.  

38 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Scariest part of any of those scenarios is how well JJ and Sarr actually fit together.  I don't know if Sarr/JJ/OO works at all on offense.  And we'd have to be a well oiled machine with rotations on defense because that whole starting 5 would be at risk of getting cooked off the dribble.  

I think we’re so focused on improving defense that people are not being realistic about the poor fit on offense.  It could work at times, but we need an option  where a better shooter is on the front court.

If there is a world we can get Mitchell without giving up Sarr or JJ, we need to make that effort.  

4 hours ago, AHF said:

If you can steel man it, go for it.  To me, it is always the GM (or owner) who is responsible for contract offers, personnel moves, etc.  Blaming a player for how much money per year another player was offered is crazy to me.  

OK. You claimed people are saying Trae forced the front office to pay JC against their wishes.

You said people think it’s a good idea to give a 22 year old whatever they want.

If it’s not a straw man show me where people are making those statements.  That you are fairly and accurately framing what people on here are saying with regards to Trae’s influence.

No one ever said Trae should get whatever he wants or that he forced them to overpay for JC.  
They are saying Trae put pressure on the front office and it was one of many factors that went into a decision.  You are distorting that view and attacking your misstated version of what no one actually thinks which is a definition of a straw man.

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

Dude, I have been Trae's white knight since he put on a Hawks uniform. The notion that I'm a part of "ya'll" is preposterous.  It's crazy to me how binary we are with our discussions.  You love Trae or you're a hater...that's it.

No, that's not it. I've got concerns about his attitude towards the upcoming season and our immediate future.

Another person demonstrating you can be a huge Trae fan, and still see that Trae has flaws.  I get it.  
We don’t know the degree to which he leverages his power as the main gate draw for our franchise.  And let’s be clear, without Trae fan interest pretty much returns to die hard fans only.  
If you assert that he has misused or even that he appropriately uses his status to influence the roster, you are labeled a Trae hater and a bunch of other nonsense.

Yes, he uses his power, and I actually think he should at times, but it’s not always a good outcome either.  That’s reality, but it also doesn’t mean he is the shadow GM.  

2 hours ago, AHF said:

It is exactly what I'm hearing from the people who think a 22 year old Trae Young 6 years away from UFA forced the Hawks to overpay John Collins when JC was a restricted free agent.  Feel free to give me a steel man version of it if you think there is one.  I simply don't.  If the Hawks resigned JC for $90M, for example, I cannot envision a world where Trae tells the team he is no longer committed to winning in Atlanta because they haven't honored his request to pay his good friend.

(I'll just mention that I think there is considerable overlap between the people who think Trae is a terrible teammate as evidenced by JC "hating" him and those that think he is responsible for the Hawks overpaying JC because Trae somehow insisted on specific minimum payment terms for JC's next contract.)

This is way too melodramatic.  No room for nuance. 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to give a young person everything they want instead of what they need probably feeds their kids pop tarts, pizza and Mountain Dew for every meal.  Any GM who lets a 22 year under team control for like 6 years make decisions about contract offers deserves every bit of blame for what happens.  

This is a straw man and not what anyone thinks.  

2 hours ago, bird_dirt said:

I recall him advocating for JC to get his bag, him stepping in and stopping them from trading CC, and pushing them to trade for Murray. 

The request to trade the pick for a player or trade him tracks. 

Top players pressure their teams into moves all the time, and I doubt Trae is any different. 

Trae having influence in our roster moves turns out to a huge trigger for some people.  No one is saying he called all the shots and is the only guy responsible for every move we've made.  He's had influence.  It's completely obvious, and he wants to push his influence more so now it seems.  It doesn't mean they did everything he wanted.  

If we trade for Giannis with the #1 pick, would that trade need to go down after the pick is made?  Would Sarr's salary count as part of the salary needed to match Giannis?

3 minutes ago, ShooterSays said:

If Giannis is so available and if SA is really offering all that for Trae, why wouldn’t SA just do the trade for Giannis themselves?

San Antonio doesn't have Trae Young to feed Giannis lobs all day.  Giannis has a say in this, too. 

Also, Milwaukee might prefer getting Sarr and Jalen over anything San Antonio has to offer.  We have an expiring contract in Capela as well.  

All parties have to want to do the deal.  You have to think from Giannis perspective.  

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don’t know what ultimatum has been given other than Trae saying he wants to win.

My understanding of the rumor was trade the pick for a star or trade me to San Antonio.  In Trae's public interview he said "I want to win."  Behind closed doors he seems to be saying something more aggressive.  

5 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Aren't ya'll tired of being the next 'name that team'. 

It was Pistons for a minute, then the Spurs, then GSW, then some other team....and now the Thunder.

We lack one singular vision with the constant front office and coaching instability. Hopes and dreams man, hopes and dreams. I'm just tired.

Yes, and giving up on Trae is not something I’m ready to do.  Our defense was in shambles, and he was the fall guy.  We’ve never paired him with another star either.  

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

The source cleared me to reveal the name of the superstar.

It is Giannis. 

I am not saying it is going to happen but it is being discussed and it depends on if Giannis wants to come to Atlanta. This is from my source and from @NBASupes source. 

It also leaves the option to trade for BI and the team would look roughly something like:

Trae

Bogi/Kobe

Ingram/Hunter

Giannis

OO

 

The longer  version of what I've heard can come down to three options for our roster:

The above option, the "Push All The Chips In" is what I call it. We will be a  good team, no question, but with a scary future with no firsts for a long time.

 

2nd Option:

We trade Murray and AJ  to NO for BI and the Lakers 2025 unprotected first

We keep Trae. We do NOT trade for Giannis. We use the #1 pick on Sarr.

Team would be:

Trae

Bogi/Kobe

Ingram/Hunter

Sarr/either Capela or OO

 

3rd option:

We blow it all up. SAS have offered 4, 8 and all our picks back for Trae. We move him. We keep the #1 pick. We move Murray not to the Pelicans but to the Pistons or another team I've been told not to mention that has picks/young guys.

Roster would be:

(this is my postulating at possible draft results)

Reed Sheppard

Bogi/Kobe

Hunter/#8 pick in this draft

Sarr/OO

We have all our picks back as well as picks and young guys from moving Murray to either the Pistons or mystery team.

 

Which option do you guys and gal prefer? I think the 3rd option is the best one but the 2nd option is more safe. The first option MIGHT win us a title...but then we'll be in purgatory for years with no draft picks.

If someone can make a poll with these three options, please do so, you have my blessing. These are the three big scenarios the Hawks FO is discussing now and in the upcoming time to the draft.

Amazing to have this intel.  I put most of the clues together already, and made my case for Giannis.  Especially if we get a pick from New Orleans.  

Our draft capital is replenished for the most part after the 2027 draft plus we’d still have Trae and Giannis.  Any gaps on the roster are covered by ring chasers until then.  It would be the first time I can remember where we would consistently be in contender status.   Although I get the fear that we risk becoming Phoenix if chemistry is totally off.  A valid attempt at a ring is the whole point, let’s take the shot.  

I like the other two options as well as I’ve kind of bought into Sarr.  

Just hope Ressler isn’t the devil everyone thinks he is and makes a mess of whichever direction we go.