Atlanta Hawks Salary Cap: Post-Dwight Howard trade edition

[DrReality]

5 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

That's a very zen way of looking at things!

Thus the Buddha on my monicker 

[Admin]

2 minutes ago, DrReality said:

Thus the Buddha on my monicker 

Oh damn my bad I thought that was @Spud2Nique in your avatar

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

Oh damn my bad I thought that was @Spud2Nique in your avatar

Burn burn burn, lolololol 

[KB21]

1 hour ago, GrimeyKidd said:

Still a bad trade because the Hawks got no significant value. But thats just me. 

The value of the trade is getting rid of Dwight's negative influence on younger players in the locker room.  People don't want to buy this, but this is absolutely the case.  If this team is rebuilding, and it looks like they are doing that, you can't go into the season with Dwight as the elder statesman on the team.  You automatically set your rebuild back 2 years by keeping him, and not because he helps you win.  He doesn't.  

[Buzzard]

I understand the business side of the trade; but that does not mean I have to like giving up 31.

Portland is a viable trade partner but I am sure there are several teams in a position to buy their pick. 

It is still a wait and see off season but I am firm in my belief that this is a all out rebuild and the playoffs are not a concern for our new GM. I have accepted this and now I am interested in what he can do for our future.

The pick bothers me to no end. Trading down without getting a future 2nd rounder is opposite of what I consider to be rebuilding with a look to the future. To me it looks like a panic move when the rumored Nets deal fell through. We will see if he can get us another pick in this draft; but I am not holding my breath. If it happens great. if not we have 19 and 41 to use. So be it. I am a Hawks fan for life and I am also old enough to know this NBA is still a business.

[Admin]

4 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I understand the business side of the trade; but that does not mean I have to like giving up 31.

Portland is a viable trade partner but I am sure there are several teams in a position to buy their pick. 

It is still a wait and see off season but I am firm in my belief that this is a all out rebuild and the playoffs are not a concern for our new GM. I have accepted this and now I am interested in what he can do for our future.

The pick bothers me to no end. Trading down without getting a future 2nd rounder is opposite of what I consider to be rebuilding with a look to the future. To me it looks like a panic move when the rumored Nets deal fell through. We will see if he can get us another pick in this draft; but I am not holding my breath. If it happens great. if not we have 19 and 41 to use. So be it. I am a Hawks fan for life and I am also old enough to know this NBA is still a business.

What was the rumored Nets deal? I don't recall ever seeing specifics of it. 

[Buzzard]

Just now, Dolfan23 said:

What was the rumored Nets deal? I don't recall ever seeing specifics of it. 

The specifics were not given but the deal mentioned did involve Howard. It fell through when they swung the deal with the Lakers; and ended up with Mozgov and Russell. Was Lopez to us and us sending a pick or two part of it? I would assume so seeing that they traded him.

[Admin]

1 minute ago, Buzzard said:

The specifics were not given but the deal mentioned did involve Howard. It fell through when they swung the deal with the Lakers; and ended up with Mozgov and Russell. Was Lopez to us and us sending a pick or two part of it? I would assume so seeing that they traded him.

I wonder how everyone would have felt about that? Lopez wouldn't have really fit into the we're tanking narrative so that would be a pretty stark contrast in philosophy to the Plumlee trade. 

[Buzzard]

2 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

I wonder how everyone would have felt about that? Lopez wouldn't have really fit into the we're tanking narrative so that would be a pretty stark contrast in philosophy to the Plumlee trade. 

No but he does only have one year left. Not a bad wait and see until next season problem to have.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Buzzard

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, Dolfan23 said:

Yes but it doesn't change the fact that we're in much better position to make moves without Dwight than we were with Dwight. 

Not necessarily.  Had we held on to Dwight for 1 years he becomes a huge 23 million dollar expiring for trade bait. His lack of value this year was mostly due to the extra year on the salary.  Although this provides short term flexibility (that we most certainly won't use if tanking), it provides a 12 million dollar anchor in 2019.

[thecampster]

39 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The value of the trade is getting rid of Dwight's negative influence on younger players in the locker room.  People don't want to buy this, but this is absolutely the case.  If this team is rebuilding, and it looks like they are doing that, you can't go into the season with Dwight as the elder statesman on the team.  You automatically set your rebuild back 2 years by keeping him, and not because he helps you win.  He doesn't.  

I can buy his negative influence as in he was directly challenging Bud. But I won't buy that he was a negative influence. His main contentious relationship was with Dennis and his ball hogging.  You just removed the only real impetus to Dennis jacking up 30 shots a game.

[Admin]

1 minute ago, thecampster said:

Not necessarily.  Had we held on to Dwight for 1 years he becomes a huge 23 million dollar expiring for trade bait. His lack of value this year was mostly due to the extra year on the salary.  Although this provides short term flexibility (that we most certainly won't use if tanking), it provides a 12 million dollar anchor in 2019.

Not necessarily. There's far too many variables to say with any certainty one way or another but I trust that Schlenk isn't an idiot and wouldn't have put us in worse shape when his entire platform is about flexibility. 

And sure Dwight would have been a 23 million dollar expiring contract but we'll still be able to take back a huge contract by trading Plumlee, if we so desire. 

[Admin]

3 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I can buy his negative influence as in he was directly challenging Bud. But I won't buy that he was a negative influence. His main contentious relationship was with Dennis and his ball hogging.  You just removed the only real impetus to Dennis jacking up 30 shots a game.

You have to re-evaluate those 2 sentences because they directly contradict each other. 

And who's to say that Dennis isn't on his way out as well? Just because they felt Dwight needed to go doesn't mean they chose to ride with Dennis. 

[Admin]

6 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

No but he does only have one year left. Not a bad wait and see until next season problem to have.

I agree but my point is that the Hawks wouldn't do a 180 in their future direction based on not making that trade. Clearly we'd trade for Lopez because we want to win next year so I have a very hard time believing that isn't still our strategy for next year.... assuming that we were trying to trade for Lopez. 

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, Dolfan23 said:

Not necessarily. There's far too many variables to say with any certainty one way or another but I trust that Schlenk isn't an idiot and wouldn't have put us in worse shape when his entire platform is about flexibility. 

And sure Dwight would have been a 23 million dollar expiring contract but we'll still be able to take back a huge contract by trading Plumlee, if we so desire. 

I am not going to hate on the deal. Schlenk is in charge and we will see. I do think its going to be a long frigging season and not a lot of wins.

[thecampster]

2 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

You have to re-evaluate those 2 sentences because they directly contradict each other. 

And who's to say that Dennis isn't on his way out as well? Just because they felt Dwight needed to go doesn't mean they chose to ride with Dennis. 

No I don't....negative influence as it relates to Bud's perception (challenging his authority) but he pushed the younger players to get better, worked with both Moose and Tavares (when he was here), became friends with Baze, Hardaway and Sap. His teammates liked him but Bud wanted to invest in Dennis (and his development) and it was to the detriment of the team in the short term. Dwight pushed back. It wasn't him being negative with the team, it was a direct conflict with the coach and pg.

[Buzzard]

Just now, Dolfan23 said:

I agree but my point is that the Hawks wouldn't do a 180 in their future direction based on not making that trade. Clearly we'd trade for Lopez because we want to win next year so I have a very hard time believing that isn't still our strategy for next year.... assuming that we were trying to trade for Lopez. 

If you want to think of Schlink as being flexible then that is exactly how he would play it. Lopez would make a nice trade chip at the deadline as well if him and Bud did not like what they were seeing.

[Admin]

Just now, Buzzard said:

If you want to think of Schlink as being flexible then that is exactly how he would play it. Lopez would make a nice trade chip at the deadline as well if him and Bud did not like what they were seeing.

That's very true but you don't trade for Lopez if your plan is to tank. 

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Was Lopez to us and us sending a pick or two part of it? I would assume so seeing that they traded him.

Wouldn't assume they would have--many combinations they could have used. But had that been the case, I also would not be surprised to learn we were having to give up our #19 as part of it too. I mean, really, there is no way to assess what could've been. We don't even necessarily know that Schlenk considered the Nets trade would have been better--just that there was a conversation.

[Admin]

1 minute ago, thecampster said:

No I don't....negative influence as it relates to Bud's perception (challenging his authority) but he pushed the younger players to get better, worked with both Moose and Tavares (when he was here), became friends with Baze, Hardaway and Sap. His teammates liked him but Bud wanted to invest in Dennis (and his development) and it was to the detriment of the team in the short term. Dwight pushed back. It wasn't him being negative with the team, it was a direct conflict with the coach and pg.

You don't get to challenge your head coach publicly and not be considered a negative influence to the younger players. I mean this is nothing new with Dwight as he has been a problem for literally every team and head coach in his career so you can't be surprised by that.