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

[AHF]

Just now, ATLSmith said:

I agree with you on this.  Wait until closer to the deadline to find a suiter if one isnt available now.

Or wait until next offseason when 2/3 of the league is projected to be desperate for cap room and you can trade him to another team and let them cut him and create over $10M in cap room.  

For a nice price.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Sothron said:

This discussion is pretty moot, Love isn't being traded here. It also seems pretty transparent our GM is going the full blown rebuild model as well so a youth movement is pretty much mandatory.

I would have argued the point before Sap signed for the number and years that he signed at.

Since Schlenk was unwilling to even throw out there some contract that was even barely competitive with that, I don't see any other conclusion but that one. You, me and others might still differ a little in what constitutes a "full blown" model. But Schlenk's words already appear to have failed to be supported by actions, so the denial that we're going to be Philly like has to be taken with a grain of salt for the moment.

I hope that I can say this time next year that, after some initial jukes and head fakes, I've gained confidence in our GM's words since then (ie, now).

I hope.

[AHF]

12 minutes ago, sturt said:

I would have argued the point before Sap signed for the number and years that he signed at.

Since Schlenk was unwilling to even throw out there some contract that was even barely competitive with that, I don't see any other conclusion but that one. You, me and others might still differ a little in what constitutes a "full blown" model. But Schlenk's words already appear to have failed to be supported by actions, so the denial that we're going to be Philly like has to be taken with a grain of salt for the moment.

I hope that I can say this time next year that, after some initial jukes and head fakes, I've gained confidence in our GM's words since then (ie, now).

I hope.

Philly traded players like Dennis Schröder away from their team for future picks when they started off their rebuild.  We seem to be trying to unload every 30+ vet and bad contract but do not seem to be pushing to trade our young players.  I'd say his actions so far support a denial that we plan to be like Philly but do not support the notion that we will be competitive or that we are doing anything but a rebuild.

[sturt]

Yes... I can allow for that... hence the statement...

 

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

You, me and others might still differ a little in what constitutes a "full blown" model.

 

His words, though, have been hollow in other ways aside from the rebuild, as you, me, and @Dolfan23 have recently discussed in a sidebar.

[AHF]

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

Yes... I can allow for that... hence the statement...

 

 

His words, though, have been hollow in other ways aside from the rebuild, as you, me, and @Dolfan23 have recently discussed in a sidebar.

I just think the Philly model clearly includes ditching all competent players at the start of the rebuild for future picks so however much vagueness there is around the definition of rebuilding, the Philly model should be more clear.

[Peoriabird]

I think Schlenk just wants good contracts on his team now not over valued contracts...nothing wrong with that. Who knows...Someone or a few might out perform their contracts over time. That's how you get really good.

[Admin]

Guess it's done

 

[GameTime]

 

[Admin]

 

[Watchman]

He should have to pay us if he wants out of his contract, not the other way around.

[GameTime]

 

[Plainview1981]

5 minutes ago, Watchman said:

He should have to pay us if he wants out of his contract, not the other way around.

The Hawks are cucks.

[sturt]

 

[sturt]

(Pretty convinced now that C-Viv has, at least, a much, much improved pipeline with the FO.)

[Admin]

The Hawks probably heard they can buy Jamal Crawford and got all excited until they found out that a buy out means something completely different. 

 

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, Watchman said:

He should have to pay us if he wants out of his contract, not the other way around.

Um. Well, he's effectively giving up some amount of money, so that's the same thing, no?

[ATLSmith]

Just now, sturt said:

(Pretty convinced now that C-Viv has, at least, a much, much improved pipeline with the FO.)

Actually, this FO seems more open in general.

[sturt]

I'm preparing myself for the worst... Crawford represented a nice asset to us, imo, and we'd better come out of this with some serious new cap space.

[Watchman]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

Um. Well, he's effectively giving up some amount of money, so that's the same thing, no?

Not providing any service to us at all.  Deserves to be paid nothing accordingly.  Business law concept of unjust enrichment.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Watchman

[JTB]

I don't get why we did this ...none of Schlenks moves make any sense!