What's with all the Adoration for Schlenk?

[Diesel]

I'm sorry... all he has done thus far is have a firesale.

 

Every GM knows how to have a successful firesale.. 

BK had a very successful Firesale.

Ferry had a very successful Firesale. 

Babcock even knew how to have a firesale when he felt the time was needed. 

 

So a firesale is not new and it's not what should be applauded... However, you can make mistakes in a firesale..... 

I think Schlenk has done that.  Both with the Dwight trade and with the Crawford Buyout, I think Schlenk has made mistakes in the firesale.  Both of those guys had value and Schlenk misjudged their value.  Yet... Adoring fans want to give him the biggest congratulation for moving those contracts and taking bad deals in the process.  ON the Dwight trade, we took back a bad, longer contract and loss a draft spot.  Moneywise it was a trade of 46 Million to 37.5 Million.  That 8.5 Million difference in this economy is MEANingless.   Not to mention, we will be paying Plumlee 12.5 Million dollars in a time where Dwight would have been gone.  Both Dwight and Crawford's contract would have been more valuable next year but we squandered that... WHY?  Here's the problem... we're not trying to be competitive.   It's not like we have said FA in our target and needed to clear cap space to get him..  We're just having a firesale and hoping to tank.   So this adoration for Schlenk because he is able to trade players is unfounded.   Anybody can get rid of Salary.. especially when you trade a top rebounder for a guy who gets you 2ppg and 2 rpg and cost you 12.5 Million dollars per to do it.   Or when you pay a guy 22 Million dollars to leave.

[capstone21]

We were going backwards and had some bad contracts and not a lot of flexibility ... he is starting over and being smart about it with small short term contracts for young potentially good players and also acquiring draft picks ... you have to break down before you can build back up.  We didn't make bad decisions like keeping that atrocious THJ contract and although I love Milsap at 32 years old and potentially soon entering his decline we didn't give him a handcuffing contract ... we got out of a Howard's contract who was causing issues in the locker room and also wasn't doing much on the court (with the exception of rebounding) ... we did take back Plumlee's 12 mil contract but he is serviceable and it still gives us some future flexiblity ... The new GM seems to have a direction and a plan (it includes getting a very high pick this up coming year)  and a lot of losses this next season but I am looking forward to see where this goes.

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

That 8.5 Million difference in this economy is MEANingless.

If we didn't receive that room we would already be over the cap right now. Also the Crawford deal is awkward but we got a first round pick and a project big who is only twenty for the cost of a 2019 second rounder which was not even our original pick. Crawford's real value has turned out to be six million and not fourteen anyway. These moves aren't so ugly other than swapping the 31 for 41, didn't think that was actually necessary but its done. So far Schlenk has been ok by me.

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

We were going backwards and had some bad contracts and not a lot of flexibility ... he is starting over and being smart about it with small short term contracts for young potentially good players and also acquiring draft picks ... you have to break down before you can build back up.  We didn't make bad decisions like keeping that atrocious THJ contract and although I love Milsap at 32 years old and potentially soon entering his decline we didn't give him a handcuffing contract ... we got out of a Howard's contract who was causing issues in the locker room and also wasn't doing much on the court (with the exception of rebounding) ... we did take back Plumlee's 12 mil contract but he is serviceable and it still gives us some future flexiblity ... The new GM seems to have a direction and a plan (it includes getting a very high pick this up coming year)  and a lot of losses this next season but I am looking forward to see where this goes.

The argument is not should we have had a firesale or not... with an incoming GM.. that's expected... 

The question is was all the moves Smart?  

1. The HardawayJr move is a wait and see.  I believe that we could have resigned him and maybe had a star player.  Others doubt the star ability so we will wait and see. 
2. The Crawford Buyout was bad.  Schlenk treated Crawford as a contract and not like a contract.   He should have realized the power that Crawford's contract would have had in the future and at least negotiated a better buyout or held on to the contract until we could get good material in a trade.   Then he stretched the deal.  Yuck.
3. The Dwight deal was definitely Bad.   You trade a top rebounder for nothing and you lose a pick position in the process.   Again, Crawford treated Dwight like a contract but missed the total value of the contract. 
4. I applaud the Ilyasova signing. 
5. I actually applaud the Moose signing.
6. I don't feel one way or the other for the other signings.  I don't see them as significant just filling roster spaces and cap space.  I'm actually happy that we're trying to develop players in those signings.  So for that reason, I say that they are good... but I'm not lauding over them like some Hawks fans are... like these guys are even on Dampiere, Tree, or Deke's level is an insult. 

So as I said.. this was the easy part... but he hasn't done anything deservinig all of the adoration he's getting.  It's just a firesale. 

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, Thomas said:

If we didn't receive that room we would already be over the cap right now. Also the Crawford deal is awkward but we got a first round pick and a project big who is only twenty for the cost of a 2019 second rounder which was not even our original pick. Crawford's real value has turned out to be six million and not fourteen anyway. These moves aren't so ugly other than swapping the 31 for 41, didn't think that was actually necessary but its done. So far Schlenk has been ok.

Maybe you missed it... I didn't say that the Millsap trade was bad. I actually think that Denver made us get into the trade and take Crawford so... I'm glad he got a first from that deal.   I'm not happy with the buyout... You normal give a buyout when you have a target or plans to use capspace...  I don't think we have either. 

 

[Bankingitbig]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I'm sorry... all he has done thus far is have a firesale.

 

Every GM knows how to have a successful firesale.. 

BK had a very successful Firesale.

Ferry had a very successful Firesale. 

Babcock even knew how to have a firesale when he felt the time was needed. 

 

So a firesale is not new and it's not what should be applauded... However, you can make mistakes in a firesale..... 

I think Schlenk has done that.  Both with the Dwight trade and with the Crawford Buyout, I think Schlenk has made mistakes in the firesale.  Both of those guys had value and Schlenk misjudged their value.  Yet... Adoring fans want to give him the biggest congratulation for moving those contracts and taking bad deals in the process.  ON the Dwight trade, we took back a bad, longer contract and loss a draft spot.  Moneywise it was a trade of 46 Million to 37.5 Million.  That 8.5 Million difference in this economy is MEANingless.   Not to mention, we will be paying Plumlee 12.5 Million dollars in a time where Dwight would have been gone.  Both Dwight and Crawford's contract would have been more valuable next year but we squandered that... WHY?  Here's the problem... we're not trying to be competitive.   It's not like we have said FA in our target and needed to clear cap space to get him..  We're just having a firesale and hoping to tank.   So this adoration for Schlenk because he is able to trade players is unfounded.   Anybody can get rid of Salary.. especially when you trade a top rebounder for a guy who gets you 2ppg and 2 rpg and cost you 12.5 Million dollars per to do it.   Or when you pay a guy 22 Million dollars to leave.

What was Dwight's value? If he had value, then why didn't other teams offer more to get it? What makes you smarter than all these other team's GMs that weren't willing to give up assets for Dwight? I think it is obviously pretty clear that Dwight did not have value. You're also only taking a simply analysis of the Dwight trade. You don't know how Dwight was as a teammate. You don't know how he was in terms of trying to run plays or if he had the BBIQ to run the type of fluid / motion offense that Bud likes. If you are trying to rebuild your team with young guys, then do you want that type of player on your team as a starter who still thinks he is a superstar?

The Crawford buyout? Really.... You wanted a disgruntled player to just ride the bench all year and not showing any work effort in practices? That's a good role model for our young players to have on a team. Your first year as a GM and you're going to try and "stick it" to a veteran. Yea - that's a good way to try and build credibility with other players / agents around the league and make Atlanta a place where players want to come..

Who did we pay 22m to leave? Where are you getting your information?

The adoration for Schlenk currently is that he has done a good job in the draft with Collins and he is taking on good contracts. There isn't anything else to it. Obviously he is still be evaluated, but thus far there really hasn't been too much to complain about. I'll give you the Dwight thing, but I think there is more to it than you or I know. I also find it laughable how you can say he had value, yet no other teams were wanting to trade more to get him.... Cleary the market determined he doesn't have value...

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Maybe you missed it... I didn't say that the Millsap trade was bad. I actually think that Denver made us get into the trade and take Crawford so... I'm glad he got a first from that deal.   I'm not happy with the buyout... You normal give a buyout when you have a target or plans to use capspace...  I don't think we have either. 

 

But I still think he got what he was after up front, making a move to get another first rounder whether late or not. We will indeed have three firsts next year, the Wolves will make it in.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

1. He's not a head coach in a dual role.

2. He's not a baby face with no experience.

3. GSW

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

What was Dwight's value? If he had value, then why didn't other teams offer more to get it?

We don't know what was offered.  However, just because the deals wasn't coming in the way you like them doesn't mean that you take a terrible deal.  

I mean... Let's say that you go to the store to buy tires for your truck.  The salesman says... We got these 70k tires that will cost you $430 each.   You need tires but are you going to take a bad deal to get them??  IF you do.. don't come to me after you have bought these $430 tires and say.. well I didn't see any other tires that fit my truck in the store. 

Fans like you are trying to make an incredibly bad deal seem like it was the best deal we could have gotten.  It's the heartache of the gotta do a deal now generation.  There would have been nothing wrong with waiting, passing, and getting a better deal with somebody else later. 

 

[Bankingitbig]

10 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Maybe you missed it... I didn't say that the Millsap trade was bad. I actually think that Denver made us get into the trade and take Crawford so... I'm glad he got a first from that deal.   I'm not happy with the buyout... You normal give a buyout when you have a target or plans to use capspace...  I don't think we have either. 

 

What in the world... Denver didn't make us get into the trade. Also, just so you know Millsap wasn't traded. Denver signed him through free agency with cap space. We got in the deal ourselves by using our cap space to get a first round draft pick.

The trade was:

ATL receives: Crawford, Stone and 2018 first (top-3 protected) from LA via HOU

LA receives: Gallinari

DEN receives: 2019 2nd round draft pick from ATL via WSH

Millsap not involved at all.

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, Thomas said:

But I still think he got what he was after up front, making a move to get another first rounder whether late or not. We will indeed have three firsts next year, the Wolves will make it in.

Thomas... I'm happy he got the first.  That's not the question??  Are you begging the question?  The buy out was the problem.

[Thomas]

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

Thomas... I'm happy he got the first.  That's not the question??  Are you begging the question?  The buy out was the problem.

Yeah ok, just saying I think Schlenk got what he wanted up front and that to him was the whole deal. Not saying he couldn't have brought in a second, stash or a third string possible role player or all of the above but what difference would that have really made anyway. We were not going to get any more than that.  

[sturt]

Impressed that he moved Dwight's contract for at least some degree of additional flexibility. People will disagree, but I still maintain that almost no one thought that was feasible until the night it actually happened.

Generally impressed that we came out of the Millsap exit with a couple of assets--Stone and a late 1st.

Impressed that I think we actually have some serious value here in what Schlenk agreed to pay Dedmon, Ily and Moose.

But/and here's what is NOT IMPRESSIVE...

NOT impressed in the least if we gain confirmation that the buyout was so minimal that it ended up making more money for Crawford than if he'd never been traded.

THAT is disturbing because unlike any of the other moves--ie, which can be legitimately argued in his favor because (a) he's gained high regard for his judgment of talent enough that he's actually paid big bucks now, and (b) there's no way of actually knowing what the other options on the table were--this is a straightforward case of business acumen/wisdom. No talent assessment involved, and no mystery as to what the other options may have been.

And he failed in grand style.

Again, that is, if the rumors being circulated are, in fact, fact.

Hoping C-Viv again proves he should never ever be allowed to discuss anything involving payroll numbers and cap issues.

 

 

[Bankingitbig]

9 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We don't know what was offered.  However, just because the deals wasn't coming in the way you like them doesn't mean that you take a terrible deal.  

I mean... Let's say that you go to the store to buy tires for your truck.  The salesman says... We got these 70k tires that will cost you $430 each.   You need tires but are you going to take a bad deal to get them??  IF you do.. don't come to me after you have bought these $430 tires and say.. well I didn't see any other tires that fit my truck in the store. 

Fans like you are trying to make an incredibly bad deal seem like it was the best deal we could have gotten.  It's the heartache of the gotta do a deal now generation.  There would have been nothing wrong with waiting, passing, and getting a better deal with somebody else later. 

 

You're right I don't know what was offered, but I have no reason to believe that Schlenk would purposefully choose a worse deal. Do you? That doesn't make any sense...

If I need tires to drive my truck and I go to all the other 29 stores and they don't want to sell me tires, then yea I am going to get the $430 each ones while you sit at home with a truck that doesn't work....

I disagree... We just heard Millsap say that the only thing he wanted from Denver during his free agency pitch was "functionality".... Now why do you think he would say that? Seems kind of a weird thing to ask for right? Did he not have functionality in Atlanta? So yea, I think if your goal is too build a culture of team basketball and you want to establish that culture from day one as a new GM with all the young players on your team, then it is worth it to trade a guy that doesn't fit the culture.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, Bankingitbig said:

What in the world... Denver didn't make us get into the trade. Also, just so you know Millsap wasn't traded. Denver signed him through free agency with cap space. We got in the deal ourselves by using our cap space to get a first round draft pick.

The trade was:

ATL receives: Crawford, Stone and 2018 first (top-3 protected) from LA via HOU

LA receives: Gallinari

DEN receives: 2019 2nd round draft pick from ATL via WSH

Millsap not involved at all.

Semantics... but here's the fact...

Quote

The Denver Nuggets, Los Angeles Clippers and Atlanta Hawks announced the terms of a three-team trade Thursday that sent Danilo Gallinari to L.A., Jamal Crawford, Diamond Stone and a 2018 top-three protected first-round Clippers draft pick to Atlanta and a 2019 second-round pick from Atlanta (via the Washington Wizards) to the Nuggets.

Now that the deal is official, Denver can sign Paul Millsap to the three-year, $90 million deal the two sides agreed upon over the weekend, per The Vertical's Shams Charania. 

Gallinari's desire to join the Clippers catalyzed the agreement. 

Or how about this:

Quote

The 28-year-old Gallinari had hoped to return to Denver, but the Nuggets signed free agent forward Paul Millsap to a three-year, $90 million deal and the Clippers went to great lengths creating the kind of salary cap space to offer the kind of contract he was seeking. The Clippers are retooling after losing point guard Chris Paul last week, when the nine-time All-Star opted into the final year of his contract and was traded to Houston after making it clear to the Clippers that he wanted to play for the Rockets.

 

So... now.. let's put some critical thinking to this.  You want us to believe that we traded for a guy just to buy him out?  For a GM who doesn't want to get bad contracts.. .do you think he would stupidly trade for a late first round pick at the price of taking on Crawford's bad contract?

So how it really went down is that Denver said that they were going to sign Millsap.  We would have lost him for absolutely nothing.  Hell, we never made Sap an offer.  Then Denver came back to us and said, we're trying to move Gallanari, 

 

[sturt]

Millsap had already made his choice.

LAC then approached DEN about their willingness, and then we were a natural team that they pursued as the 3rd team in the transaction.

But Millsap had already made his choice. That's key to understanding what went down.

The trade was an after-thought that, it turned out, did make sense to all three parties.

[Buzzard]

This is a hoot Diesel. In my post about holding out judgement for three years, you went the five year path. Now you are having a judgement based on one draft and one not yet completed FA signing period.

While basing your judgement on trade offers you cannot substantiate but can only speculate on; and then fail to mention we may have received Korvers replacement in Belinelli in  this deal.  Belinelli himself being a favorable trade piece for anyone wanting to add a floor stretcher to their lineup.

The only thing I did not like about the Howard deal and the plan to start a rebuild, was giving up 31. Otherwise I was all in on a rebuild. We were cap strapped after losing Horford for nothing and signing Dwight. So no way we could sign Paul and a Max FA to help us keep up with Boston as a 2nd best team in the East with a chance to grow into the best team in the East.

I have no problem with the logic, the rebuild, or the trade, just the pick.

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

You're right I don't know what was offered, but I have no reason to believe that Schlenk would purposefully choose a worse deal. Do you? That doesn't make any sense...

If I need tires to drive my truck and I go to all the other 29 stores and they don't want to sell me tires, then yea I am going to get the $430 each ones while you sit at home with a truck that doesn't work....

I disagree... We just heard Millsap say that the only thing he wanted from Denver during his free agency pitch was "functionality".... Now why do you think he would say that? Seems kind of a weird thing to ask for right? Did he not have functionality in Atlanta? So yea, I think if your goal is too build a culture of team basketball and you want to establish that culture from day one as a new GM with all the young players on your team, then it is worth it to trade a guy that doesn't fit the culture.

Quote

Atlanta Hawks: D

That the Hawks would be interested in moving Howard less than a year after signing him makes sense. Atlanta's preseason excitement about adding more interior presence to an offense that had been perimeter-oriented with Al Horford at center proved short-lived. Howard was mostly in the way on offense, to the point that he played just 17 total?fourth-quarter minutes in the Hawks' six-game, first-round playoff loss to the Washington Wizards.

Above and beyond that, Atlanta's direction as a franchise appears to have shifted after the arrival of new GM Travis Schlenk, who recently expressed skepticism about the Hawks' chances of re-signing All-Star power forward Paul Millsap -- a departure that would almost certainly send Atlanta into a rebuilding process. At age 31, Howard doesn't fit into that.

My expectation was that the Hawks could deal Howard for something close to cap relief, as ESPN's Kevin Arnovitz suggested as a best-case scenario on Twitter after the season. Clearly, that market didn't materialize, because this trade is far worse than cap-neutral for Atlanta. Plumlee's contract, with three years and $37.5 million remaining, is among the league's worst deals.

On the plus side, the Hawks do realize modest cap savings of $3.4 million this coming season and about $11.3 million in 2018-19. But that's offset by the fact that Plumlee's contract runs a year longer than Howard's, meaning an extra $12.5 million on Atlanta's 2019-20 payroll.

In contrast to Howard's offensive issues, he remains a useful player because of his strong paint defense and rebounding. (Early in the season, he seemed more comfortable coming out high to defend the pick-and-roll. Whether due to an injury or normal wear and tear, this skill faded by the postseason and was one of the reasons Howard struggled against the Wizards.)

Based on Howard's wins above replacement player (WARP) and rating in ESPN's real plus-minus (RPM), I project him as about fairly paid next season and a little overpaid in 2018-19. By contrast, Plumlee brings little on-court value. After falling out of the Milwaukee Bucks' center rotation last season before he was traded to Charlotte, I project him right around replacement level for the remainder of his contract, meaning he'll be paid in excess of $35 million more than he's worth over the next three seasons.

So since the Hawks are taking on the worse contract and the worse players, why are they also trading down in the second round?

If Atlanta was so desperate to be rid of Howard, the Hawks probably would have been better off telling him not to report next season and wait out his contract rather than make this trade. Maybe no market ever would have materialized for Howard's services, but at least his deal ended a year sooner than Plumlee's.?

We could have just benched Howard for 2 years and gotten better returns than what we took... That's the bottom line. 

 

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Millsap had already made his choice.

LAC then approached DEN about their willingness, and then we were a natural team that they pursued as the 3rd team in the transaction.

But Millsap had already made his choice. That's key to understanding what went down.

The trade was an after-thought that, it turned out, did make sense to all three parties.

Ok... so if there was absolutely no Millsap signing by Denver.  And Denver and LAC brought us the Crawford trade... 

DO we do it?

Is Diamond Stone and a Late first worth all the cap space we have squandered with Crawford?

 

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

This is a hoot Diesel. In my post about holding out judgement for three years, you went the five year path. Now you are having a judgement based on one draft and one not yet completed FA signing period.

While basing your judgement on trade offers you cannot substantiate but can only speculate on; and then fail to mention we may have received Korvers replacement in Belinelli in  this deal.  Belinelli himself being a favorable trade piece for anyone wanting to add a floor stretcher to their lineup.

The only thing I did not like about the Howard deal and the plan to start a rebuild, was giving up 31. Otherwise I was all in on a rebuild. We were cap strapped after losing Horford for nothing and signing Dwight. So no way we could sign Paul and a Max FA to help us keep up with Boston as a 2nd best team in the East with a chance to grow into the best team in the East.

I have no problem with the logic, the rebuild, or the trade, just the pick.

here's 2 questions:

1.  Which is better.. sending Dwight and the 31st pick to Charlotte for Plumlee, Marco, and the 41st pick..  OR  Sitting Dwight for 2 years and letting his deal expire and seeing what trades are available?

Understand... we only saved 3 Million this year... and possibly 11 Million next year.. but we lose 12.5 Million in the third year of Plumlee's deal.

2.  IS Diamond Stone and a first worth the Capspace that Crawford's contract ate up?

In essence, we paid 14.2 Million this year and 14.5 Million next year for Stone and a late first. ... Is it worth it?