JeffS17

Garland is trash so I imagine they want a much better PG to build around-- one that can actually facilitate to their bigs and run the offense. Mobley is nice in the PnR and Allen is a lob threat.

If Trae is asking out, would you guys entertain and Trae/Mitchell swap? Seems like Trae + the bigs in Cleveland would feast and Mitchell would fit well with Murray and would obviously plug into our offense with Quin seamlessly.

Probably my least favorite option if we go that route, but I also would not be surprised if we do. We'll still a #1 pick on the roster, and better fit in the back court but Ingram isn't going to be any more impactful as Hunter starting at SF.

To add to this, look what happened when Giannis started demanding the Bucks make win-now moves. They sold a key piece in Holiday for a flawed player in Lillard and now they're in a materially worse position. It's a downward spiral once you start operating like that.

I understand you feel that I am being negative, while I feel I am simply being objective using all the information I have. Not to get into an epistemology debate, but how do you know anything if you can't draw conclusions from observation? No? My goal is for us to build a sustainable, winning, program that hopefully translates into a chip. The only time the goal is to keep a star happy is if ownership has a directive to do just that so they can continue printing money. That's how we've been operating. "Keeping a star happy" mentality does not lead to rings. Do any of the successful programs across the league operate like that? Riley and Miami? Pop and the Spurs?

Same. Send him to an owner that just wants to sell tickets and get back quality players. Or send him somewhere like New Orleans (will not stop repeating this one as I think it makes the most sense) where we could poach Herb Jones and use Ingram as salary filler.

Not making any assumption about Trae, not sure where that is coming from. I was responding to comments posters keep making about Trae being happy as if that's some primary goal of what should be driving front office decision making.

Sure, but what is the cause and effect here? Winning > Trae happy. That doesn't mean the front office should be working backwards and taking input from Trae or listening to what he wants. He's not a GM and his interest is Trae Young, not the Atlanta Hawks. Our front office cannot control Trae's emotions, not should they try, nor should they make that a focus. The goal should be putting together a sustainable, winning, program. And if that means the best path forward is developing and progressing slowly, that's what they should do. The idea that there is anything we can do to take a team that can't make the playoffs into a championship caliber squad in a single offseason is just way off. Even 2 seasons is a big time stretch.

I think our goal should be to put together a winning program, not keeping Trae happy.

lmao great example, they kept a winning culture and used other teams picks by making good front office moves to continue building. They did not tank

Again, you're framing this incorrectly -- no one drafts championship caliber players out of college, you still have to develop them. You're missing the massive component of a championship team that is the development of not only the top top talent, but all the players. Don't get twisted because the NBA markets individuals so heavily that one player is the difference maker. The best player on a championship team might get all the credit, but that is on the back of a well developed team and team chemistry. Plenty of talent gets wasted in shitty programs because of shitty orgs. And no well respected coaching staff is going to want to intentionally lose games, including the GM intentionally not fielding competitive rosters or sidelining guys for "contusions" all season. When you have a well-oiled development program, you can turn high potential draft picks that want to put work in into very good players. See: Kawhi Leonard, Jamal Murray, Klay Thompson, and many many more. You don't need to tank and try to get a top 5 pick. That's, literally and figuratively, praying for a lottery ticket and a quick n easy path to a chip. We're not winning a chip by subscribing to a get rich quick scam.

This framing is just off, dude. That is how every single team wins a championship. They consistently improve their record because their players develop together, get better, and build chemistry. This is how the Spurs do it, this is how Golden State did it, this is how the Nuggets did it, etc. Name a team that intentionally lost games with a losing culture then became competitive and won a chip? Has that ever happened? Look at Philly, Detroit, Charlotte, Knicks, Rockets, Magic, etc. The list goes on.

There's a big difference between the Spurs trying to win with not a ton of talent versus letting Trae chuck up shots from 35 feet while the rest of the roster gets cardio Yes, I just got off a virtual board call, I get some meetings might be in person but there's no reason to assume they will be. Trae is 25, not 65.

How is it horrible? That's pretty much how every championship is built-- slowly, over time, developing culture and chemistry with a solid core. Nuggets, Warriors, Bucks, Spurs teams, etc. It's actually quite rare for these all-in type of moves to work because quality rotation depth typically gets gutted trading for the star player. The only exception I can think of is when the Raptors went all-in on Kawhi. They won their championship, primarily due to Golden State injuries, and have been ass ever since. Maybe you can argue Anthony Davis as well, but he had Lebron. Big difference between Lebron and Trae. But then you have a laundry list of teams that made win-now moves and failed, and have bleak futures: Harden x3, Philly, Nets, and Clips. KD to Suns, Paul George to Clips, Lillard to Bucks, etc. Honestly, I see these types of moves as ticket-selling strategies more so than winning moves. We're not one Giannis away from a chip right now, especially if we're offloading our second best player in the process and a number 1 pick. Feels desperate and we should not be desperate as Trae is only 25 years old.

This is what I laid out. This would be my preference. I don't like the idea of trading our number one pick, but I do believe in our coaching staff developing Sarr, our young guys, and other draft picks.

Not disputing you here, but yall acting like telephones don't exist is killing me lmao we been able to talk across whole ass continents since the 1800s

Also, I would be surprised if we're honestly considering tanking, even if we trade Trae. It would be a massive waste of a nicely assembled coaching staff and I highly doubt Quin has interest in tanking. He seems like he would enjoy retooling and developing guys while trying to win, but not tanking for picks.

I would go with an altered third option: it's missing Jalen Johnson in the lineup for starters, but if we trade Trae, I'd rather for it to be for quality rotation players and picks rather than young prospects and picks, so I'm not a fan of a San Antonio trade. Do it with another team like Orlando or New Orleans. And I definitely would not want to dump Murray just because we trade Trae-- the whole allure of doing a soft rebuild would be having DJ's vet leadership in the locker room, establishing the culture for the young players to grow and thrive. If the first option is "Push All The Chips In", the second option should be "Keep Filling Seats and Qualifying For The Play In". Second option sucks in my opinion. Least favorite. First option is exciting and I'll be here for it but I still think my preference is a slightly altered third option. Straight up tanking for Cooper Flagg is just awful, really bad. Loser option, literally and figuratively. It takes immense luck to get the #1 pick, even if you are terrible-- 86% chance you do not get it with one of the worst 4 records. Not to mention the habits you have to try to unwind of losing basketball.

The package is probably for AD the more I think about it. Giannis makes no sense to be available. Embiid, I hope, we wouldn't even entertain, plus Philly has no reason to trade him. AD makes sense to be available -- Lakers need a restart.

I would be down to go this route and just build around Trae and Sarr, but it seems Trae doesn't want this. I don't want him to sour the locker room and team culture because we're holding him in Atlanta, not to mention devaluing him as an asset as he becomes closer to expiring. If Trae is actually giving an ultimatum for a massive move or he wants to be traded, just trade him. We can't have a cloud of drama surrounding the team for the next year or two. It would also stunt everyone elses development if Trae was going to walk at the end of his deal because he's such a high usage player. You have to rip that band-aid now, OR you have to get him to buy into playing with Alex Sarr and move forward on good terms. Ultimately the FO has to figure out what the two scenarios look like through talks with other teams and pick the best path. I will say the more I think about a potential Giannis trade, the less it makes sense. I actually think the player that could be available is Anthony Davis. Lebron has yet to extend his contract in LA and that team has nothing to build around. I could see them rebuilding around the number one pick after Lebron leaves and AD inevitably wants out in that scenario. Idk how I feel about AD though, guy can't stay on the court and he's 31. Probably rather trade Trae than sell the farm for AD. Tough decisions for Landry.

Yeah, same here, we are in such a materially better spot due to some lucky ping pong balls. We’re in a great position and this offseason will largely dictate Landrys legacy as our GM

Definitely agree with this sentiment— the biggest thing about Giannis to me is I can see guys wanting to come here and play with him (moreso than Embiid). Could help a lot with the issues weve had signing quality vets and MLE guys. JoeLLLL on the other hand can barely stay on the court and has a loser mentality. Landry probably wouldnt want him anyways though because Embiid definitely does not have Hawks DNA

If we decide to go all in on Giannis, I will be at State Farm and excited, although that deal will make me nervous about the future. If we go all in for Joel Embiid, I will never forgive Landry.

lol those of us that weren't burying our head in the sand to all the reports and circumstantial evidence saw this coming. The question is not Trae+Giannis/Embiid versus Murray + Sarr, it's Murray + Sarr + JJ and a bunch of picks for flexibility, etc. We're not good enough to go all-in and completely mortgage our future. We'll be burning out in the first/second round for a few years then be in absolute purgatory when the aging star we trade for starts declining. Trae is 25 years old and imo in no position to make ultimatums for us to go all-in right now. If that's his ask, we need to trade him. If he was 30, I would have more sympathy.

I would rather have another teams unprotected picks than our own to be honest. Maybe I have more faith in this coaching staff and young core than you do, but that would be my preference. I also like the idea of having someone elses picks because it means we're focused on winning, but we can still add via the draft every year anyways.