Jamal Crawford and Atlanta Hawks have come to terms on a buyout

[Diesel]

Haven't our GM learned ANYDAMNTHING...

I would hold Crawford until teams get desperate and we can get a good deal.   I don't care if he was sitting on the bench wearing Brooks Brothers for 56 games...  He doesn't leave Atlanta without a trade. 

 

[Vol4ever]

maybe Schlenk is wanting to use his buyout money to reduce the cap and sign someone else.  Who knows, lol

[Watchman]

5 minutes ago, Vol4ever said:

maybe Schlenk is wanting to use his buyout money to reduce the cap and sign someone else.  Who knows, lol

Hey, it's not his money flying out the door.  The combination of Plumlee's and Crawford's salaries would bring in a near superstar level talent.  I think Schlenk thought he'd have no trouble turning those deals over, and now he realizes it might not be that easy.  No one wants their cap eaten up with a worthless center or an aging one-on-one specialist. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Watchman

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, Watchman said:

I think Schlenk thought he'd have no trouble turning those deals over, and now he realizes it might not be that easy. 

I have no idea what leads to this conclusion.

It presumes that Schlenk's horizon is this off-season.

But based on what the man has said more than once, he's looking well beyond this off-season.

As @AHF just asserted, Crawford could be a very nice commodity to have in February or June 2018, so if he's not willing to basically tear up his contract and relieve us of all or nearly all of the amount he's owed, it does only make sense--ie, the horizon being what it is--to wait this out.

To the original question, though, of course  Schlenk should listen in case Crawford and his agent come down to the number we want.

But I'm not optimistic, when you consider this is the last big contract of Crawford's career. And for our part, we aren't motivated sellers.

Stalemate.

 

[Watchman]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

I have no idea what leads to this conclusion.

It presumes that Schlenk's horizon is this off-season.

But based on what the man has said more than once, he's looking well beyond this off-season.

As @AHF just asserted, Crawford could be a very nice commodity to have in February or June 2018, so if he's not willing to basically tear up his contract and relieve us of all or nearly all of the amount he's owed, it does only make sense--ie, the horizon being what it is--to wait this out.

To the original question, though, of course  Schlenk should listen in case Crawford and his agent come down to the number we want.

But I'm not optimistic, when you consider this is the last big contract of Crawford's career. And for our part, we aren't motivated sellers.

Stalemate.

 

He also said he didn't want to take on bad contracts.  Guess what?  He took on bad contracts, and evidently they are not as easy to get rid of as he assumed.

[sturt]

Just now, Watchman said:

He also said he didn't want to take on bad contracts.  Guess what?  He took on bad contracts, and evidently they are not as easy to get rid of as he assumed.

Right.

So, he goes from a $23m bad contract to a $12m bad contract. You're right he took on a bad contract. But to be so strictly interpreting his words misses that there's a net gain there.

And what... you're upset that he made a deal that gains us a 1st round pick for the 1 year of a bad contract? Again, to be so strictly interpreting his words misses that there's a net gain there, as well.

Finally... who said they'd be easy to get rid of? If anyone's making an assumption, I have to lay that back at your feet. He never said what you're saying "he assumed." If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I haven't seen the quotes that even barely lead in that direction.

[Watchman]

Just now, sturt said:

Right.

So, he goes from a $23m bad contract to a $12m bad contract. You're right he took on a bad contract. But to be so strictly interpreting his words misses that there's a net gain there.

And what... you're upset that he made a deal that gains us a 1st round pick for the 1 year of a bad contract? Again, to be so strictly interpreting his words misses that there's a net gain there, as well.

Finally... who said they'd be easy to get rid of? If anyone's making an assumption, I have to lay that back at your feet. He never said what you're saying "he assumed." If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I haven't seen the quotes that even barely lead in that direction.

No net gain when you take on a $12.5 million a year guy who averages 2 points and 2 rebounds.  At least Dwight gave you 13 & 13 for his $23 million.

[Watchman]

He certainly gave indications to the public that would lead them to believe he could get rid of Plumlee's contract.  "Already fielding calls about Plumlee...) 

[sturt]

You keep focusing on THIS YEAR, or at least THE IMMEDIATE future as-if that's the horizon.

But, you know this. It's clearly not.

So, the value of getting 13 & 13, when you're being hamstrung by the contract and unable to maneuver accordingly???

Once the horizon became something beyond 2018, that automatically makes $12m better than $23m regardless of the stats you cite.

[mrhonline]

Just now, sturt said:

You keep focusing on THIS YEAR, or at least THE IMMEDIATE future as-if that's the horizon.

Agreed.  It's not going to be easy for us all, but decisions on signings/trades need to be made based on their impact after this season.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Watchman said:

He certainly gave indications to the public that would lead them to believe he could get rid of Plumlee's contract.  "Already fielding calls about Plumlee...) 

I'm forgetting--was that his quote, or was that what C-Viv reported?

And regardless... why wouldn't he be hopeful?

That one is hopeful is different than asserting that that person thought it "would be easy."

Right?

[Watchman]

3 minutes ago, mrhonline said:

Agreed.  It's not going to be easy for us all, but decisions on signings/trades need to be made based on their impact after this season.

Sorry, I forgot the majority here are pro tankers.  My oversight.

[DrReality]

preposterous question cuz you don't know what hes thinking or doing.   Hardly anything has happened and won't until the bigger FA get decided. 

[sturt]

2 hours ago, Watchman said:

Sorry, I forgot the majority here are pro tankers.  My oversight.

Haven't seen that poll, but regardless, that's a rhetorical diversion tactic you just attempted. What we were discussing prior to that I'll-fated attempt is a specific criticism leveled at Schlenk and an assumption made about his assessment of hoe easy it would be to move salary dump contracts. Mind you, I for one have not been consistently supportive of what the new GM has said, but out of a general want to be fair to people--and he meets the criteria for a person--this is an occasion where I think he's received the proverbial short end of the stick.

[LastDon]

Schlenk is a dumb GM if we buy Crawford out we basically would be paying 7 million  for a low first round pick..If we held on to Crawford and gave him big minutes to drive his value up we could reflip him at the deadline for another 1st round pick..

[Admin]

He has to be planning on using Crawford and Plumlee together for a major trade. Those 2 together could be very useful in making the Love to Atlanta trade happen. 

I don't know off the top of my head what Melo has left on his deal but if it's more than this year we could give them Crawford and Plumlee while the Cavs get Melo and the Hawks get Love. 

[Plainview1981]

17 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

He has to be planning on using Crawford and Plumlee together for a major trade. Those 2 together could be very useful in making the Love to Atlanta trade happen. 

I don't know off the top of my head what Melo has left on his deal but if it's more than this year we could give them Crawford and Plumlee while the Cavs get Melo and the Hawks get Love. 

Sorry, you have us getting Love and not Melo.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Hotlanta1981

[sturt]

36 minutes ago, LastDon said:

we basically would be paying 7 million  for a low first round pick

Not sure where that number comes from.

But the point is well-taken that the number would almost have to be practically nothing in order to dissuade Schlenk from keeping him as a trade asset for later.

My inclination is Crawford can't justify coming down to a number that Schlenk can stomach, and then Schlenk has no real impetus that would cause him to start stomaching whatever number would be acceptable to Crawford. So, yeah, stalemate, except that the team wins the stalemate ultimately.

Only potential for some resolution in the near term would seem to be if a trade could be hatched with a team that could do for Schlenk something like CHA did--send us an assets that break up that $14m liability into two $7m liabilities, at least one of which would need to be worth keeping; or alternatively, a deal that brings us rights to a nice European asset that we can try to sign later.

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, Watchman said:

No net gain when you take on a $12.5 million a year guy who averages 2 points and 2 rebounds.  At least Dwight gave you 13 & 13 for his $23 million.

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, sturt said:

You keep focusing on THIS YEAR, or at least THE IMMEDIATE future as-if that's the horizon.

But, you know this. It's clearly not.

So, the value of getting 13 & 13, when you're being hamstrung by the contract and unable to maneuver accordingly???

Once the horizon became something beyond 2018, that automatically makes $12m better than $23m regardless of the stats you cite.

i'm sure that after his season, Dwight was easier to move than what Travis settled on.   Travis got screwed in the worst way and now you're trying to make people feel like it was a good deal.   PLUUUUEEZE.

This GM keeps showing that he has no clue.   Moreover, he didn't architect the Millsap trade so stop giving him credit.   Denver needed help moving Gallanari and we were available.    This after 3 days of hearing people moan about us losing Sap for nothing.  Yes, he was motivated to try harder but originally, there was no try.  Even Sap said that there was no offer from the Hawks.