Draft chatter with Travis Schlenk

[GrimeyKidd]

 

[sturt]

Whatever you do, guys, don't let Milwaukee know about this.

It could ruin whatever slim hope Wilcox had left, if they know Schlenk is giving it away.

(hehe)

[sturt]

Btw.... Schlenk part of the podcast gets going around the 40 minute mark.

[sturt]

"Most important thing we did at GS, we didn't get locked into bad contracts... how many more years do they (Sap and Howard) have to be productive?"

Perhaps erroneous, but conventional wisdom says this can be interpreted as, "Bye, Paul."

 

"I think you can maintain competitiveness, and also maintain your flexibility."

Perhaps erroneous, but conventional wisdom says this can be interpreted as, "Not anything close to a Sixers style re-build."

 

"This is a partnership with Bud and I... the buck does stop with me... basketball philosophies (between ATL and GSW) match up."

 

"Very encouraging how Dennis has been working out already during the off-season. He's an exceptional defender in ways that don't necessarily show up in metrics."

 

Spoke more than once about "getting lucky" in the draft.... which may disappoint those of us who hoped he was Jerry West's secret love child, blessed with immaculate hoops DNA.

 

Couldn't help but think, as he described the kind of players they're looking for (long, athletic), Billy Knight is smiling somewhere.

[TheFuzz]

Sounds like we're getting back to the Danny Ferry way of operating. Did he straight up say "How long do they (Millsap and Howard) have left?" If so, not sure about that from a PR perspective, might as well say goodbye to Sap and get ready for some grumpiness from Howard.

All that said, the "flexi-build" (I'm coining that, btw) style is fun for fans IMO, maintaining competitiveness while brainstorming buy-low and moneyball candidates. 

[skimaskway23]

"We want to sign guys to contracts that we can move if we have to"

Idk if you want the players out there to know that. He's got my support though

[GameTime]

49 minutes ago, TheFuzz said:

Sounds like we're getting back to the Danny Ferry way of operating. Did he straight up say "How long do they (Millsap and Howard) have left?" If so, not sure about that from a PR perspective, might as well say goodbye to Sap and get ready for some grumpiness from Howard.

All that said, the "flexi-build" (I'm coining that, btw) style is fun for fans IMO, maintaining competitiveness while brainstorming buy-low and moneyball candidates. 

Grumpy Howard is a goner. We are drafting a big to replace Millsap/Howard in the future.

We got our starting PG and SF we need our starting SG, PF and C.

Edited June 13, 2017 by GameTime

[cam1218]

I think for Millsap it means a team friendly deal is required for him to stay.

When we keep hearing the "no bad contract" talk, I think he is saying no more Bazemore contracts. That one hurts us a ton if he plays like he did last year.

[CP61]

8 minutes ago, GameTime said:

Grumpy Howard is a goner. We are drafting a big to replace Millsap/Howard in the future.

We got our starting PG and SF we need our starting SG, PF and C.

And potentially the entire bench. We are going to have to be patient.

[Sothron]

I'm hoping for a full on rebuild with Dennis and Prince as the pieces we keep.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, GameTime said:

We got our starting PG and SF we need our starting SG, PF and C.

I agree with this to some degree. I still wouldn't be locked into necessarily taking a SG, PF or C if there is a better prospect at PG or SF...I think you have to draft the BPA in the draft and then shift or move pieces. By shifting I mean if we take a small forward with the 19th pick, it doesn't mean that he will be in front or behind Prince in the rotation. He could very well be interchangeable in many different lineup scenarios.

 

My philosophy in today's game is get the 5 best guys on the court and ball out. This didn't work in yesterday's NBA but today is a much different game.

 

 

[ryandauwalker]

Did he say that Dwight is only 6' 8"? No way that's right...

[AUhawksfan]

Not sure why anyone would think that means Howard or Bazemore are goners.

He wants friendly and moveable deals.  If he is taking over something and two guys don't have friendly or moveable deals, why would he move them and not get anything in return?  Especially if he wants to stay competitive.

[CP61]

1 hour ago, ryandauwalker said:

Did he say that Dwight is only 6' 8"? No way that's right...

Dwight is 6'9 without shoes. Horford was 6'8 3/4". 

[KB21]

13 hours ago, Sothron said:

I'm hoping for a full on rebuild with Dennis and Prince as the pieces we keep.

You're hoping for years and years of losing then, because that is the only thing a full on rebuild will guarantee.  We do that, and you can kiss winning seasons goodbye for at least 6-7 years.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, AUhawksfan said:

Not sure why anyone would think that means Howard or Bazemore are goners.

He wants friendly and moveable deals.  If he is taking over something and two guys don't have friendly or moveable deals, why would he move them and not get anything in return?  Especially if he wants to stay competitive.

It will all be about the trade offers.  I don't think Dwight's deal is toxic.  It is very movable given the short duration, moderate cost and his obvious strengths (the weaknesses are there too but it is better for marketability to have obvious strengths than be like Baze with no real strengths and several weaknesses).  Whether he gets moved will depend on how much value we get back in a trade offer.

Baze is a toxic asset.  If we can get value back, I think Baze is gone but if we have to attach first round picks to move him then you won't see it happen.  Whether Baze gets moved will depend on how much value we have to give to get someone to take him in a trade.

[AUhawksfan]

21 minutes ago, AHF said:

It will all be about the trade offers.  I don't think Dwight's deal is toxic.  It is very movable given the short duration, moderate cost and his obvious strengths (the weaknesses are there too but it is better for marketability to have obvious strengths than be like Baze with no real strengths and several weaknesses).  Whether he gets moved will depend on how much value we get back in a trade offer.

Baze is a toxic asset.  If we can get value back, I think Baze is gone but if we have to attach first round picks to move him then you won't see it happen.  Whether Baze gets moved will depend on how much value we have to give to get someone to take him in a trade.

Yeah I'm in total agreement here.  I just don't think it is a foregone conclusion.  I also don't think Dwight's deal is bad at all but a survey of GMs show there isn't much of a market for him either.

If we can trade Baze for an expiring deal without giving up youth I'm all for it.  Same for Dwight.

[sturt]

Fwiw, put me in the camp that sees neither Baze nor Howard as moveable assets this off-season, unless you're willing to accept bad contracts in return or you're able to find a team in full re-build with cap space... but now with the NFL Osweiler scenario having played out, I foresee that starting to translate to how NBA GMs do deals (ie, we may have to send a conditional pick or something to sweeten the deal).

I think Baze is actually young enough still that he's not a lost cause. He could conceivably play at his contract value at some point, and all the more so of course if we see another cap jump of a few million in the next couple of years.

Howard, imo, is here until February 2019, when he could represent a solid deadline asset for some contender.

[Sothron]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

You're hoping for years and years of losing then, because that is the only thing a full on rebuild will guarantee.  We do that, and you can kiss winning seasons goodbye for at least 6-7 years.

We are not going to get anywhere in the playoffs for the next several years.  Why not get a start on rebuilding 

[sturt]

Just saw this... maybe this life event can impact him in some positive way on the court (???)...