Atlanta Hawks could be "destination" for Jahlil Okafor

[JTB]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Enes Kanter off of the bench at best. No thanks.

What?!!!! A Enes Kanter Cline off the bench would be great, either last season or the season before he was in the running for sixth man.

[JTB]

2 hours ago, GameTime said:

Philly has the cap space

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y8xhe6su

Baze + 2nd rounder for Okafor/Bayless

Nah I’d keep baze. Trade plumlee and either our worst first rd pick or our best second rd pick.

[Peoriabird]

No way you give up a 1st round pick for that bum!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Okafor's crime is that he's not Embiid.  This dude could ALWAYS ball.

Clips are from his rookie year ( first 3 months )

 

[GameTime]

1 hour ago, JTB said:

Nah I’d keep baze. 

Why?

[AHF]

You guys realize he is an UFA and whatever team trades for him will be unable to offer more than the qualifying offer Philly didn't make last year?  That means you are worse off if he develops this season and shows he has potential because you can't even pay him 7M per on his next deal.  If you don't trade for him you can offer him anything you want.

Dont give up s single asset for him.  Sign him as a FA if you want him.

[Jdawgflow]

55 minutes ago, AHF said:

You guys realize he is an UFA and whatever team trades for him will be unable to offer more than the qualifying offer Philly didn't make last year?  That means you are worse off if he develops this season and shows he has potential because you can't even pay him 7M per on his next deal.  If you don't trade for him you can offer him anything you want.

Dont give up s single asset for him.  Sign him as a FA if you want him.

I agree we should not give up assets.  But if we could move a dead weight contract...

[RedDawg#8]

4 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Okafor's crime is that he's not Embiid.  This dude could ALWAYS ball.

Clips are from his rookie year ( first 3 months )

 

Contract aside, this kid is a keeper. Nobody can handle this kid down low. We could really use another guy that can create his own offense.

[JTB]

10 hours ago, GameTime said:

Why?

I rather move plumlee and his contract instead 

[Thomas]

So if we get him now and he gets coached up some and does play well we will be punished by most likely not being able to sign him moving forward. Bringing on a guy that if he does help us win games actually hurts our draft position and then we lose him anyway? Not seeing the logic. 

[DS5]

Schlenk said on 92.9 that he hasn't had any conversations about Okafor, and that he was suprised that Aldridge reported that Hawks could be a destination. Let's move on, we're not trading for Okafor.

[AHF]

22 minutes ago, DS5 said:

Schlenk said on 92.9 that he hasn't had any conversations about Okafor, and that he was suprised that Aldridge reported that Hawks could be a destination. Let's move on, we're not trading for Okafor.

Thanks for the update.  

[JTB]

1 hour ago, DS5 said:

Schlenk said on 92.9 that he hasn't had any conversations about Okafor, and that he was suprised that Aldridge reported that Hawks could be a destination. Let's move on, we're not trading for Okafor.

I don’t understand that but ok. 

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

21 hours ago, Diesel said:

[AHF]

2 hours ago, JTB said:

I don’t understand that but ok. 

What path is there where this works out?  If he works out he wins you more games and you can't resign him because of the limitations on your offer due to Philly turning down his option.  If he sucks, then that doesn't work out very well either.

Only scenario that works is if you develop him without getting any other team interested.  Odds of that? Pretty low.

[JTB]

58 minutes ago, AHF said:

What path is there where this works out?  If he works out he wins you more games and you can't resign him because of the limitations on your offer due to Philly turning down his option.  If he sucks, then that doesn't work out very well either.

Only scenario that works is if you develop him without getting any other team interested.  Odds of that? Pretty low.

Lol !!! You stated that as if you believe some worthy free agents were going to actually look the Hawks way next summer . We are going to want to spend that money on a worthy free agent anyways so I trade for him for a 2nd round pick or trade plumlee and our worst 1st rd pick and don’t worry about losing him in free agency....he’d be our biggest free agent to get back. 

I doubt the hawks get too many free agents to look their way, at least if he was already on this team we’d be considered depending on how well he does for us.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, JTB said:

Lol !!! You stated that as if you believe some worthy free agents were going to actually look the Hawks way next summer . We are going to want to spend that money on a worthy free agent anyways so I trade for him for a 2nd round pick or trade plumlee and our worst 1st rd pick and don’t worry about losing him in free agency....he’d be our biggest free agent to get back. 

I doubt the hawks get too many free agents to look their way, at least if he was already on this team we’d be considered depending on how well he does for us.

You are missing the point.  It is not a matter of budget.  If we don't trade for him, we could sign him for $7M, $10M - whatever we want up to the max - next season.  If we trade for him, we can't sign him for more than $6.3M.  

Philly is capped as to how much they can offer him in the offseason.  Because they declined his option, they can only offer him a contract paying as much as the qualifying offer.  If another team offers $1 more, they can't match it.  They can't offer more on their own.  They are stuck to offering him $6,313,832 or less.

Any team that trades for him steps into Philly's shoes and gets their rights.  They get the RFA rights to him.  They get the Bird Rights to him.  But it is like getting Superman's powers where you also become vulnerable to kryptonite.  You get limited to not being able to offer him more than $6.3M.  So if any team wants to pay $6.5M for him, they can offer that and you can't.

That is why we are better off going after him in the offseason if we think he actually has potential for the long-term.

[sturt]

I appreciate the need to appreciate the consequences if Okafor blows it up, or if he's a dud, but what about all that room in the middle... ie, actually being worth $5m or so at the end of the season, and having the advantage of working with him.

I agree that I can't imagine paying much of anything in trade for him, but I also think it's a whole lot more likely that he isn't bad and isn't great, and that it really comes down to whether Bud thinks it's worth the time and effort to invest in him.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

9 hours ago, DS5 said:

Schlenk said on 92.9 that he hasn't had any conversations about Okafor, and that he was suprised that Aldridge reported that Hawks could be a destination. Let's move on, we're not trading for Okafor.

Like he hasn't told a boldface lie before?

[sturt]

45 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Like he hasn't told a boldface lie before?

I always thought it was bold faced lie instead of bald faced lie, but in this case, either one works just fine.

But even as one who thinks Schlenk has tended to shade the truth to his own purposes, this one's a little too specific. My guess is that if he has had a conversation, he feels so confident that it's not going anywhere that he's not the least concerned things could develop to make him look bad.

To fit in ATL and yet be confined to low-post, my perception is you need to do one of two things above-average... pass the ball or defend the rim. And if you do both, there's no question in my mind that Bud would welcome the opportunity to acquire your services.

So, while I'm intrigued, at the same time, I feel the reality is that that trade discussion was brief and one-sided.