What's with all the Adoration for Schlenk?

[Bankingitbig]

 

21 minutes ago, Diesel said:

 

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, 

 

Can't believe I am arguing this because it doesn't matter either way. But read the Shams report again... "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"

Notice how he said "sign"? Millsap was not traded. He signed as a free agent. He wasn't involved in the 3-team trade. It was reported at first that he was, but later came out that he wasn't. This is why Millsap also just now held his press conference because his signing became official. If he was involved, then you would have seen it earlier since we have been using Stone in our Summer League and already had Crawford on the roster. Either way, doesn't really matter. We did lose Millsap for nothing, but that's more Budcox's fault and not Schlenk's in my opinion.

Or you know... LA was like "hey, we want to sign Gallinari, but need to dump Crawford to have the cap space for it. We will give you a 1st round pick to take on his contract. Deal?"

Denver didn't do anything but sign-and-trade Gallinari for a 2019 2nd round pick.

So you think it was a bad idea to get a first round pick for basically $14m in cap space? I am so confused.... By the way, that figure is potentially less. We just don't know the terms of the buyout yet. Who did you want to use the cap space on this summer instead of getting a first round pick?

[Buzzard]

Just now, Diesel said:

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?

So we saved 14 million in cap these next two years. I am not going to argue against that. You are treating this as done and we will not make anymore moves. I think the moves have just started; and three years from now is a better test of Schlenk's judgement than one draft, one FA period, and two months on the job

Put it to you this way:

We were going no where with Howard 20, Sap 30 , Bazemore 16 , and Schröder 15 eating up 80 plus million in cap. Lets see where we are three years from now before we say good or bad one way or the other.

[Bankingitbig]

13 minutes ago, Diesel said:

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

 

Got it. So you want to be the GM that tells players to just sit on the bench and that they're never going to play. So we would have two roster spots (Crawford and Dwight Howard) taken by guys that would literally just not even partake in drills or anything. Do you honestly expect to sign anyone in free agency doing that? Good luck getting meetings with agents.

[Bankingitbig]

11 minutes ago, Diesel said:

 

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?

Crawford only has $3m guaranteed for next year, not $14.5m. Also we don't know the terms of the buyout yet, but it is highly likely that his cap hit will not be $14.2m this year.

I think that is an easy deal from our perspective to get a 1st round pick.

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Got it. So you want to be the GM that tells players to just sit on the bench and that they're never going to play. So we would have two roster spots (Crawford and Dwight Howard) taken by guys that would literally just not even partake in drills or anything. Do you honestly expect to sign anyone in free agency doing that? Good luck getting meetings with agents.

First off, I don't spend 28 Million dollars and a 2nd rounder for a late first and Stone.  It's not worth it. 

You say we buy out.. OK... we can wait for the terms of the buyout... but it may be possible that all we did is just stretch that 28 Million over 7 years... That's foolish. 

2ndly....  You cannot convince me that taking what we took for Dwight is the best that we could have done.   Moreover, we did it rashly.  You and I can disagree but we have to disagree.  I don't take a bad deal like that for Dwight.. I would much rather had held on to him and waited for a better deal than to trade him for Charlotte's unwanted Crap.  THEY are laughing in Charlotte because trader Joe found another sucker and he stuck it to him. 

 

 

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Crawford only has $3m guaranteed for next year, not $14.5m. Also we don't know the terms of the buyout yet, but it is highly likely that his cap hit will not be $14.2m this year.

I think that is an easy deal from our perspective to get a 1st round pick.

OK... 17.2 Million and a 2nd rounder for a later first and Stone.  Still not worth it. 

 

[Buzzard]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

First off, I don't spend 28 Million dollars and a 2nd rounder for a late first and Stone.  It's not worth it. 

You say we buy out.. OK... we can wait for the terms of the buyout... but it may be possible that all we did is just stretch that 28 Million over 7 years... That's foolish. 

2ndly....  You cannot convince me that taking what we took for Dwight is the best that we could have done.   Moreover, we did it rashly.  You and I can disagree but we have to disagree.  I don't take a bad deal like that for Dwight.. I would much rather had held on to him and waited for a better deal than to trade him for Charlotte's unwanted Crap.  THEY are laughing in Charlotte because trader Joe found another sucker and he stuck it to him. 

 

 

Charlotte is laughing because they are so desperate to be in and stay in the playoffs. They were willing to pay any amount to get there and that is what they did. By the time Monk matures into a solid player along side Kemba, Dwights days will be numbered.

Their back court could be special, offensively, one day, but their perimeter defense is going to sieve scoring opportunities for the opposing team.

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Charlotte is laughing because they are so desperate to be in and stay in the playoffs. They were willing to pay any amount to get there and that is what they did. By the time Monk matures into a solid player along side Kemba, Dwights days will be numbered.

Their back court could be special, offensively, one day, but their perimeter defense is going to sieve scoring opportunities for the opposing team.

WHAT????

Charlotte got rid of Plumlee's bad deal and traded #41 for #31.... and they got a guy who is an elite rebounder (Still) and a rim protector.   THEY are Laughing because they took advantage of a young, desperate, inexperienced GM.  Let's see what Charlotte fans thought of the deal:

Quote

Can't really be mad at this trade. Turned two bums into Dwight and upgraded picks in the process. 
 

Quote

 

Welcome to the "holy **** we managed to trade Plumlee" club  

Quote

I liked Miles and Beli a lot more than most and think they are useful pieces, but this is fantastic. Cloud 9 right now.

Quote

I really like this trade for the Hornets. The Hawks give up a pick upgrade for the right to take Plumlee for Dwight. And they even picked up Marco's salary as well. Wow.

Quote

Just woke up, browse this forum and damn! I really thought we trade the 11st pick for Dwight. I don't really like Dwight, but to get him and moving up in the draft just for Plum and Rambonelli, i have no complain, at all.

Quote

May have already been posted, but here is a vid of Dwight highlights from last season: https://youtu.be/nihM_LRdBjw

Dude is gonna be a monster for us.

We need to name this thread.

Quote

The narrative that dwight sucks now is absurd. He was the 2nd best player on the 5th seeded hawks. Hes closer to being a star than a mediocre player. People just dont like him so they say he sucks and then on the other hand praise guys like Devin booker, andrew wiggins, and other scorers who are worthless in the wins/losses column.

He had a major resurgence last year with career high rebounding numbers, virtually career high ts%, and impressive defensive metrics.

He's no longer DOMINANT defensively and sure hes mediocre on offense but he addresses all of our rebounding, rim protection, and big man depth issues. 

You get a lot better in the NBA by turning weaknesses into strengths. Simple concept but most people cant grasp that for whatever reason.

 

Yeah.. THEY ARE LAUGHING.  And you're still trying to defend this move...  Pathetic.

[sturt]

40 minutes ago, Diesel said:

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

That's just silly, Ignores the whole paradigm that Schlenk maintains is central.

Ignores.

Blatantly.

Whether you agree with the philosophy is an okay debate. But within the confines of the philosophy, it's not about what talent you get back, but what contracts you get back.

The fundamental point is simple math.

Moving a $12m contract is easier than moving a $23m contract, and that you probably don't have to move the $6m contract at all, given that it's just 1 year, but you have that option.

As that the philosophy is what it is, you actually gain from lesser talent because of how that translates to the draft slots on the immediate horizon.

Not telling you anything you shouldn't already acknowledge.

 

 

[Sothron]

I want to give Schlenk a full season before I judge him. I don't think that is asking too much to hold off on an opinion before it can be truly informed and developed over a season.

Right now, I'd say he has made some good decisions in drafting Collins, not matching THJ, only give spare parts deals to Dedmon and Ersan and Moose and letting Millsap walk.

He also made bad decisions by giving away Dwight and taking back a bad deal and going down in the draft to do it. I also think buying out Crawford was a huge mistake. Even if Crawford pouted and refused to play for us it wouldn't matter because his contract was like gold for next offseason when teams desperate for cap relief would be willing to trade for it.

So right now I'd say he has been more positive than negative. Give him a full season before judging him.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

That's just silly, Ignores the whole paradigm that Schlenk maintains is central.

Ignores.

Blatantly.

Whether you agree with the philosophy is an okay debate. But within the confines of the philosophy, it's not about what talent you get back, but what contracts you get back.

The fundamental point is simple math.

Moving a $12m contract is easier than moving a $23m contract, and that you probably don't have to move the $6m contract at all, given that it's just 1 year, but you have that option.

As that the philosophy is what it is, you actually gain from lesser talent because of how that translates to the draft slots on the immediate horizon.

Not telling you anything you shouldn't already acknowledge.

 

 

Schlenk is a walking contradiction with that philosophy...  You want to take on no bad contracts then takes on 17.2 Million dollars of Crawford's contract for an exchange of a late first rounder for a second and Diamond Stone.

Secondly...

Moving 12 M contract is easier than moving a 23 M contract is not true.   It depends on the player and what they bring to the table.  We are probably stuck with all 37.5 Million dollars of Plumlee's contract because he's oft injured and when he plays he sucks...

But let's go with your thought about it only being about the money:

CJ McCollum	$23,962,573
12.	Dwyane Wade	$23,800,000	$0	$0	$0	$0
13.	Anthony Davis	$23,775,506	$25,434,263	$27,093,019	$28,751,775	$0
13.	Andre Drummond	$23,775,506	$25,434,262	$27,093,018	$28,751,774	$0
13.	Bradley Beal	$23,775,506	$25,434,262	$27,093,018	$28,751,774	$0
13.	Hassan Whiteside	$23,775,506	$24,434,262	$27,093,018	$0	$0
17.	Dwight Howard	$23,500,000	$23,500,000	$0	$0	$0
18.	Harrison Barnes	$23,112,004	$24,107,258	$25,102,512	$0	$0
18.	Chandler Parsons	$23,112,004	$24,107,258	$25,102,512	$0	$0
20.	Kevin Love	$22,642,350	$24,119,025	$25,595,700	$0	$0
20.	DeAndre Jordan	$22,642,350	$24,119,025	$0	$0	$0
20.	Marc Gasol	$22,642,350	$24,119,025	$25,595,700	$0	$0
20.	Brook Lopez	$22,642,350	$0	$0	$0	$0

 

All of the guys in Red will be making somewhere about 23 Million dollars next year.   Aside from Dwight (because this is your case in point)... Which of these contracts will be harder to move than Plumlee's?  If Washington just had the need to move Bradley Beal... do you think they'd take what we took to move him using the same logic that it's easier to move 12 M than it is to move 23?  How about Kevin Love?  How about Mark Gasol??  What about Anthony Davis?

 

 

[DBac]

Parsons and DWade. 

[sturt]

21 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Give him a full season before judging him.

Talent assessment-wise, he kinda has credentials over any one of us, so on that specific front, I give him at least one year. Probably two.

The Crawford situation is its own thing, though. That's just a pure business decision that either demonstrates fundamental wisdom or not. So, when that number comes out, I for one will judge his business acumen.

My take is that the agreement should have been our buyout = 50% of the difference between his total guarantee under the existing contract and whatever his new contract amount would eventually prove to be.

He was set at $17m of his former contract as guaranteed. His new contract is about $9m. So, what we should have owed him was (17-9) x 50% = $4m. He takes a $4m haircut. That's very reasonable, imo. (If anything, still too kind.)

 

[Buzzard]

32 minutes ago, Diesel said:

WHAT????

Charlotte got rid of Plumlee's bad deal and traded #41 for #31.... and they got a guy who is an elite rebounder (Still) and a rim protector.   THEY are Laughing because they took advantage of a young, desperate, inexperienced GM.  Let's see what Charlotte fans thought of the deal:

 

Yeah.. THEY ARE LAUGHING.  And you're still trying to defend this move...  Pathetic.

What is pathetic is you are now grasping at straws and quoting fans instead of non biased national reporting. No one in the national media bashed either team for this move as they understood what both teams two very different goals were.

Furthermore I have never said nor will I ever say Dwight sucks. Again that is Charlotte fans talking and hyping their chances of finally being in the playoffs for longer than a one year stretch.

I like the move except for giving up 31. That is not defending, that is being ok with us rebuilding a flawed team. To much cap invested and only one current all star to show for it. That is flawed Diesel. Once Horford walked, it was probably time to cut the cord then. Bud could not bring himself to do it.; so Schlenk has been hired and he is doing it for him.

Hate all you want Diesel, it is a done deal and we are rebuilding. Embrace it and hope for the best; or keep bashing. Neither of us is going to change a damn thing.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Buzzard

[Thomas]

In William Hurt's voice:

"I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively."

Remember "The Big Chill" folks?

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Bankingitbig said:

Got it. So you want to be the GM that tells players to just sit on the bench and that they're never going to play. So we would have two roster spots (Crawford and Dwight Howard) taken by guys that would literally just not even partake in drills or anything. Do you honestly expect to sign anyone in free agency doing that? Good luck getting meetings with agents.

It's an odd solution particularly since the accusation is that Schlenk only recognizes players as contracts yet both deals satisfied each player personally.

[sturt]

14 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Schlenk is a walking contradiction with that philosophy...  You want to take on no bad contracts then takes on 17.2 Million dollars of Crawford's contract for an exchange of a late first rounder for a second and Diamond Stone.

I'm willing to re-visit this once we know the actual number. God help us that I don't have to concede that point.

But for now, I don't, and you should be sober enough to acknowledge that we don't know yet what we don't know.

16 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Moving 12 M contract is easier than moving a 23 M contract is not true.   It depends on the player and what they bring to the table.

This is where you're just totally exposed and dog-determined to evaluate on the basis of talent.

No. Again, you know stuff that you just blatantly ignore.

In this case, you know that there's a salary cap.

I feel ridiculous to even feel I have to say this... you can do things with a contract at $12m that you cannot do with a contract at $23m.

"Well, if the talent attached to the $12m is lousy, then you're just as stuck, though."

No.

You aren't.

Again, you know this, and I feel ridiculous to even have to say it... there is such a thing as trade filler in this environment that makes talent very much a secondary consideration.

Ever hear of Terrell Brandon? We were part of one of the original trade-filler trades.

 

 

 

[marco102]

Man, Diesel knows how to keep the conversation going around here.

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, marco102 said:

Man, Diesel knows how to keep the conversation going around here.

Yowzer, Yowzer!! And with so many illustrative words too!!

[lburner30342]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

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?

Man I don't care how you say it.  we gave howard away for nothing. drop in the draft to do it. we are tanking that the only way you can rationalize what he did. howard stats 13point 13 rebounds in limited minute put  those up against al horford stats( I have done it not much better) so that means boston should get rid of horford....

we went backwards cuz we didn't have a plan B when al bounced on us. if I was the gm I would have added melo or pg13 all we need in this weak eastern conference  was a proven scorer. not to blow the team up.