Hawks backed out of offer to Marreese Speights

[GameTime]

 

[Peoriabird]

Another soft non athletic big...we need a change bad!!!!!

[Pacman21]

I'm guessing ilyasova was cheaper and they really plan on giving Collins minutes

[sturt]

This is consistent with Schlenk saying he thought they'd sign three bigs.

So, Dedmon was one, Ily was two. Speights would have been three.

And he also said in that same breath that that would give us six bigs.

One Collins, two Moose, three Stone, four Plumlee.

Six.

Something's amiss here. And this news just reaffirms to me that.

[gurpilo]

I hope Reed is the third big, glad Speights is not here, not sure about his influence on the lockeroom.

[hazer]

28 minutes ago, sturt said:

This is consistent with Schlenk saying he thought they'd sign three bigs.

So, Dedmon was one, Ily was two. Speights would have been three.

And he also said in that same breath that that would give us six bigs.

One Collins, two Moose, three Stone, four Plumlee.

Six.

Something's amiss here. And this news just reaffirms to me that.

Willie Reed

[sturt]

Not sure I'm getting my point across.

Let me try again, minus the sarcasm.

Schlenk said three more bigs for a total of six. But it's not six.

It's seven.

I find it challenging to explain that any other way but that one of our bigs is already gone, we just don't know it yet.

It's easier for me to believe that the GM had a slip of the tongue than it is that he can't add 4+3.

Add to that, all of us recognize that the two glaring voids on our current roster are NOT among the 4s or the 5s in the depth chart, but that we need another PG (which Schlenk acknowledged), and that we really only have one legitimate SF on the roster... but Schlenk completely omitted acknowledging that when he made his "3 bigs" comment.

Something, indeed, is amiss.

So, I'm just going to say it.

This smells like either Plumlee or Stone is already ticketed for another team, and that we're already expecting someone else's SF in the trade.

Why the trade hasn't already been announced? Beats me.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe Schlenk really just is that bad at simple math. Maybe he just had a momentary brain cramp, in spite of the fact that we would think that a GM eats and sleeps with two lists carved into his brain--his current roster, and his short list if he suddenly needs to go hire a new coach.

All I know for sure is, something is amiss.

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, GameTime said:

 

Of course they did.  Why obtain a big guy that may help you from a shooting standpoint?  That goes against "tank philosophy".

[capstone21]

Good, not a fan

[DrReality]

1 hour ago, capstone21 said:

Good, not a fan

What he said. 

[lethalweapon3]

I had become a fan of The Mole! But with the direction we're taking, unless there's some grand plan involving Plumlee or Stone I'm fine with it. He'd only crowd things and stunt growth at either position. He'll be of much better use with a team willing to spend now.

~lw3

[High5]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Not sure I'm getting my point across.

Let me try again, minus the sarcasm.

Schlenk said three more bigs for a total of six. But it's not six.

It's seven.

I find it challenging to explain that any other way but that one of our bigs is already gone, we just don't know it yet.

It's easier for me to believe that the GM had a slip of the tongue than it is that he can't add 4+3.

Add to that, all of us recognize that the two glaring voids on our current roster are NOT among the 4s or the 5s in the depth chart, but that we need another PG (which Schlenk acknowledged), and that we really only have one legitimate SF on the roster... but Schlenk completely omitted acknowledging that when he made his "3 bigs" comment.

Something, indeed, is amiss.

So, I'm just going to say it.

This smells like either Plumlee or Stone is already ticketed for another team, and that we're already expecting someone else's SF in the trade.

Why the trade hasn't already been announced? Beats me.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe Schlenk really just is that bad at simple math. Maybe he just had a momentary brain cramp, in spite of the fact that we would think that a GM eats and sleeps with two lists carved into his brain--his current roster, and his short list if he suddenly needs to go hire a new coach.

All I know for sure is, something is amiss.

 

 

It's possible you're right, but...it's also possible you're insane.

Seriously, though, it could mean something that he didn't even acknowledge Stone as part of the Crawford trade in that Q&A. He just said he wanted the pick. 

[KB21]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Of course they did.  Why obtain a big guy that may help you from a shooting standpoint?  That goes against "tank philosophy".

This.   Can't make any moves that may help the team win games.  

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Of course they did.  Why obtain a big guy that may help you from a shooting standpoint?  That goes against "tank philosophy".

Because there is more to basketball than just shooting...just ask Muscala

[High5]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Of course they did.  Why obtain a big guy that may help you from a shooting standpoint?  That goes against "tank philosophy".

It's not like they were required by the NBA to entertain Speights for a week. 

[sturt]

37 minutes ago, High5 said:

it could mean something that he didn't even acknowledge Stone as part of the Crawford trade in that Q&A. He just said he wanted the pick. 

If Stone's contract wasn't guaranteed, that maybe could make some sense, but his place on the 15-man roster is all-but certain. And actually, to the contrary, he notably welcomed Stone to the team in a post-trade tweet.

I've got one other possibility, which is the original suspicion that Plumlee is destined for being stretched.

That would address one side of the equation, but it doesn't address the part where he ignores the lack of open SF slot on the roster.

 

[Vol4ever]

Im not to sure about Stone and his NBA future.  Hope im wrong.  

[JTB]

This isn't Schlenk not wanting speights. This was just speights wanting more than the 2.1 million he got this past season and that's what Schlenk was hoping to get him for....but honestly with him being a quality back up big man who shot 37% from 3 this past season he no doubt is being underpaid. He's likely to get 8-10m on the market probably from Brooklyn.

the longer he sits though the more less expensive he will be. I say if he's not picked up in another 2 weeks he may revisit with Schlenk on a deal if we don't move on to signing Reed.

36 minutes ago, Vol4ever said:

Im not to sure about Stone and his NBA future.  Hope im wrong.  

Hopefully he turns into a quality back up big at the least. 

[sturt]

57 minutes ago, Vol4ever said:

Im not to sure about Stone and his NBA future.  Hope im wrong.  

He's 20, and he's going to, at least, get this year to provide evidence of his longer term viability.

[ThomasCredle]

This didn't upset me a bit. We have too much young talent to evaluate to give minutes away to another big. We need some more depth at SF and a veteran PG much more in my opinion. We also don't know what his side was asking for maybe it was just a bridge to far to get to what he thought it was worth so the Hawks pulled out of the deal all together. Either way no big loss in my opinion