Diamond Stone... Waived..

[willthepureshooter]

In my years in the sales profession, I've seen a lot of bs'ers. Schlenk reminds me of a flashy bs'er that looks the part, but behind close doors is over his head. He's a liar with a bow tie. Can't bring myself to trust him.

[sturt]

20 minutes ago, willthepureshooter said:

In my years in the sales profession, I've seen a lot of bs'ers. Schlenk reminds me of a flashy bs'er that looks the part, but behind close doors is over his head. He's a liar with a bow tie. Can't bring myself to trust him.

I've been wrong enough in life to not rely on who looks a part, and to just let results accumulate over time to decide it. I was one of the first here to say that he's making some rookie mistakes in his public statements. I don't have confidence in him with regard to those areas where I know he has no actual experience--that being one. But based on what we know of who endorsed him, and that Ressler was adamant that all of his contacts corroborated the assertion that Schlenk has shown himself competent in all of the fundamental aspects, and that Ressler's self-interest and his desire for success speaks for itself, I trust his judgment in those aspects and just am hoping that he can mature in these other ways soon enough that we don't lose a really good head coach.

[hazer]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

I've been wrong enough in life to not rely on who looks a part, and to just let results accumulate over time to decide it. I was one of the first here to say that he's making some rookie mistakes in his public statements. I don't have confidence in him with regard to those areas where I know he has no actual experience--that being one. But based on what we know of who endorsed him, and that Ressler was adamant that all of his contacts corroborated the assertion that Schlenk has shown himself competent in all of the fundamental aspects, and that Ressler's self-interest and his desire for success speaks for itself, I trust his judgment in those aspects and just am hoping that he can mature in these other ways soon enough that we don't lose a really good head coach.

Eggzackly. He's pulling some "end justifies the means" $hit with no apologies. And I wasn't feeling Diamond Stone either, never once mentioned or endorsed the cat.

[Randy]

.....the plot sickens......

[lethalweapon3]

Do we get to call Travis "DDP", now that he's got a great finisher?

~wcw3

[TheFuzz]

Diamond Stone ain't NBA quality, no issue here. Still lukewarm on this Schlenk cat but no issue here

[sturt]

This issue is less about the player (though again, at 20 years old, and in a youth movement, this makes little sense), and more about the player's CONTRACT.

Someone please tell me that there's some other option beyond (a) Schlenk is just that incompetent that he didn't even recognize what any Hawks fan recognizes here, or (b) Stone's gone because there's a reason already he wasn't going to be playing for the Hawks next season.

[ATLien_]

I would rather have Walter Tavares back. He maybe could actually get some playing time this year. That move to cut Edy and sign Ryan Kelly is still more baffling.

[sturt]

Is it reasonable to think that Schlenk changed his mind, and decided that, in effect, he'd rather have one year of a 28 year-old shooter at, effectively, about $3m (Babbitt's salary plus Stone's salary which they're eating)?

[Diesel]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

Is it reasonable to think that Schlenk changed his mind, and decided that, in effect, he'd rather have one year of a 28 year-old shooter at, effectively, about $3m (Babbitt's salary plus Stone's salary which they're eating)?

You know that we're tanking because there's no cohesion. 

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, Diesel said:

You know that we're tanking because there's no cohesion. 

Don't even know why we're still discussing it. Call it whatever you want, but we're not competing for anything in 17-18.

And/but my question still remains... is that the explanation for the Diamond cut?

Seems wasteful to not replace Diamond with another development type.

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

Don't even know why we're still discussing it. Call it whatever you want, but we're not competing for anything in 17-18.

And/but my question still remains... is that the explanation for the Diamond cut?

Seems wasteful to not replace Diamond with another development type.

It's more than just a space.  We really wanted Babbit it seems.  Therefore, Stone was the first expendable piece.   IF you think about it from that perspective, all of our contract players are more valuble to us than Stone... including Babbit.  That's what the actions say. 

[Final_quest]

A lot of possibilities of what happened here.  I personally don't mind experimenting with prospects that have little chance of becoming NBA rotational players, even if it costs the organization monetarily.  

If they got a look at him and decided he would be a waste of time and effort it's better to cut ties.  

It could also be that they saw an opportunity with Babbit to bring a shooter to stretch the floor.  The idea is you want your future players like Collins, Dennis, and Bembry to practice playing with 40% 3pt shooters rather than a scrub center who would never make it in the league.  It's a developmental move from that perspective.  

What's less likely is they saw Babbit as a trade deadline piece they could flip for another draft pick.  

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

What's less likely is they saw Babbit as a trade deadline piece they could flip for another draft pick.  

Dunno. @DBac brought this up in the Babbitt thread, and I'm sold now, given a few hours to digest this, that this is the core idea.

 

 

[Final_quest]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Dunno. @DBac brought this up in the Babbitt thread, and I'm sold now, given a few hours to digest this, that this is the core idea.

 

 

Could be.  I think it's more likely they envision our team being full of shooters eventually.  Wanted to bring in the closest version of that they could.

[sturt]

@Final_quest, I for one would be more inclined to think they're thinking of him that way if it had been more like the other vets signed--two year contracts with the second year as a player option. But this is a straight-up 1 year minimum deal. Moreover, it's that this has went down so soon following the Stone throwaway.