It’s official Bud is gone ....but for nothing in return

[Jungle Jack]

As a UGA grad and lifelong Falcons/Hawks/Braves fan, it really is exceedingly hard not to feel as though all are cursed.  Like many here, I was surprised Bud stayed after losing GM duties, but speaking only for myself am glad he stayed.  Regardless, given the current direction, it does not matter what HC we had in terms of wins.  However, in terms of development, nothing could be more important given seemingly a quarter of our roster will be rookies next year should we keep all 3 firsts and the second round pick.

 

While I certainly understand why MB wanted to leave, I am struggling to understand how a coach of his caliber is not worth at least swapping upwards one of our 1st's or darn sure not being potentially on the hook to the tunes of millions for the next two years.  Unlike many here, I still remain cautiously optimistic about Schlenk and do think he is getting much of the grief that the ownership group might otherwise get.

[nathan2331]

This franchise is a joke. Bud wasn't a miracle worker, but he was a very good coach and the primary reason I supported the GM's decisions. Doesn't matter where we go from here, I'm willing to admit I was wrong.

[Flight]

It's kinda weird that people expected to get something in return for losing Bud, as if getting something for losing your coach is really THAT common these days.

[JTB]

6 minutes ago, Flight said:

It's kinda weird that people expected to get something in return for losing Bud, as if getting something for losing your coach is really THAT common these days.

I rather he finish his contract and walk out rather than negotiating a deal to get all his money and walk out to a better team.

I like bud and I’ve left that be known but if I’m gm/owner unless we can trade you ain’t going no where! Especially not WITH your salary! Hell no!....  you just got to be a hostage and deal with it until your contract is up.

but no Atlanta just bent over and took it.

[nathan2331]

It's kinda weird that people expected to get something in return for losing Bud, as if getting something for losing your coach is really THAT common these days.

I think more than anything it's frustrating losing assets for nothing over and over. Lost DMC. Then Horford. Then Millsap. Then we traded Howard for the garbage pile that is Plumlee's contract. Then we failed to deal Ilyasova & Bellinelli and now they're contributing for the Sixers. These failures are mostly self inflicted, but fans don't make the decisions.

[Flight]

Just now, JTB said:

I rather he finish his contract and walk out rather than negotiating a deal to get all his money and walk out to a better team.

I like bud and I’ve left that be known but if I’m gm/owner unless we can trade you ain’t going no where! Especially not WITH your salary! Hell no!....  you just got to be a hostage and deal with it until your contract is up.

but no Atlanta just bent over and took it.

Man I definitely understand where you're coming from but keeping someone around that doesn't want to be there is bad for the morale and culture of your team going forward. So sure we'd get our money's worth but its also detrimental to the team's future. 

[MaceCase]

42 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

We just paid someone 7 million a year to go away. So much for those who think our ownership and management is only concerned with the bottom line.

~14 mil to go along with whatever they pay a replacement.  Kind of hurts the "cheap" narrative which is why you'll hear crickets on that as they pivot onto the next narrative.

[Watchman]

2 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

~14 mil to go along with whatever they pay a replacement.  Kind of hurts the "cheap" narrative which is why you'll hear crickets on that as they pivot onto the next narrative.

Well, clearly with all the money we've thrown away, much of it on players who never played a game for us, we can't say they're on the cheap, but on the matters where it is most important, I think the cheap argument still holds up.  The excessive spending on dead contracts, which does nothing to help the team, instead of spending on contracts that were worthwhile is infuriating.  No, they are selectively cheap.  Cheap when it comes to helping the team, not so cheap when it comes to throwing money down the drain.  Hey Slinky/Ressler, if that money is just burning holes in your pockets, feel free to send some my way.

[Buzzard]

12 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

~14 mil to go along with whatever they pay a replacement.  Kind of hurts the "cheap" narrative which is why you'll hear crickets on that as they pivot onto the next narrative.

Apparently the next narrative is right below your post lol.

[Watchman]

3 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Apparently the next narrative is right below your post lol.

Nothing factually inaccurate in my remarks.

[MaceCase]

6 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Well, clearly with all the money we've thrown away, much of it on players who never played a game for us, we can't say they're on the cheap, but on the matters where it is most important, I think the cheap argument still holds up.  The excessive spending on dead contracts, which does nothing to help the team, instead of spending on contracts that were worthwhile is infuriating.  No, they are selectively cheap.  Cheap when it comes to helping the team, not so cheap when it comes to throwing money down the drain.  Hey Slinky/Ressler, if that money is just burning holes in your pockets, feel free to send some my way.

Spending is spending.  The narrative that they are rebuilding “to help the bottom line” doesn’t hold up under any circumstance yet it’s still been bandied about for months despite spending on infrastructure and salary being higher than ever for the franchise.  

There are no caveats, there is no “selectively cheap” especially when taking on dead salary lessens revenue.  No, the Hawks have picked a certain strategy and are investing heavily in it.  People are welcome to disagree with the strategy but they can in no way suggest that finances are the primary motivation behind said strategy.

[KB21]

https://twitter.com/DeMarreCarroll1/status/989341826501853184

 

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, Watchman said:

Nothing factually inaccurate in my remarks.

Cheap is spending in a miserly fashion. That is a fact. I think it is safe to say, we will be spending an exorbitant amount of money for our head coaching spot.

[parfait]

9 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Nothing factually inaccurate in my remarks.

So, they're cheap when they're being cheap. And they're not cheap when they're spending a lot of money. That sum it up? 

[hazer]

39 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

~14 mil to go along with whatever they pay a replacement.  Kind of hurts the "cheap" narrative which is why you'll hear crickets on that as they pivot onto the next narrative.

Spending on buyouts, higher payroll than last year, 2nd largest arena reno in NBA history, developing The Gulch, you are correct: the “cheap” narrative just doesn’t hold water. Then there’s that Ressler quote where he said they’d go into the luxury tax for the right player. Ressler is not a cheapskate...

Edited April 26, 2018 by hazer

[davis171]

[Watchman]

12 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Cheap is spending in a miserly fashion. That is a fact. I think it is safe to say, we will be spending an exorbitant amount of money for our head coaching spot.

Ok, let me rephrase...instead of "cheap" just insert the words "wasteful, counterproductive, foolish and stupid" then.

[Watchman]

6 minutes ago, hazer said:

Spending on buyouts, higher payroll than last year, 2nd largest arena reno in NBA history, you are correct: the “cheap” narrative just doesn’t hold water. Then there’s that Ressler quote where he said they’d go into the luxury tax for the right player. Ressler is not a cheapskate...

Who gives a crap about having a barber shop and a golf simulator in a basketball arena?  As far as the luxury tax remark goes, I'll believe it when I see it.  Saying something and doing something are not the same.

[Sothron]

49 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

~14 mil to go along with whatever they pay a replacement.  Kind of hurts the "cheap" narrative which is why you'll hear crickets on that as they pivot onto the next narrative.

Unless I'm mistaken Bud won't get paid by us if he gets hired as a NBA HC again with two years left on his contract.

[Jungle Jack]

1 hour ago, Flight said:

It's kinda weird that people expected to get something in return for losing Bud, as if getting something for losing your coach is really THAT common these days.

While I certainly see where you are coming from, the situation with Budenholzer certainly at minimum seems like one where having to pay for him to coach elsewhere is not in the offing.

 

In giving Schlenk the benefit of the doubt I am going to wait until a HC is named before getting too upset.  That said, I absolutely was hoping MB would stay.  I wonder if we can find another Priest Lauderdale?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Jungle Jack