Atlanta Hawks Mock Draft 1.0

[JayBirdHawk]

6 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Maybe in other drafts but this draft appears to be unique.  There may be legitimate starters late in this 1st round.  And is there a true difference between prospects after say the 10th pick?

I don't know enough about these players personally, but just based on history, there is a variance in prospects 11-20 and 21-30 and that is more so based on what position you maybe trying to fill.

There are players that may drop unexpectedly.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

10 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

But if prospect #30 is sitting there with the same grade as 15, why trade up to 15?

How often is that true though? That a guy just outside the lottery at #15 is there at #30?

[Peoriabird]

Just now, Buzzard said:

lol what ever. Collins was gone by 30. We took him 19th.

There were guys taken in the second round even last year who might be starters...certainly last year produced rotational players like Dorsey ...players you definitely need on your team to succeed

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

How often is that true though? That a guy just outside the lottery at #15 is there at #30?

I prefaced my statement by saying that I think that this draft is unique and I think a lot of experts agree with my assessment

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

I prefaced my statement by saying that I think that this draft is unique and I think a lot of experts agree with my assessment

It it's one thing I've learned over the years is that when it comes to the draft the 'experts' are not always right in their assessments of a draft class.

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

There were guys taken in the second round even last year who might be starters...certainly last year produced rotational players like Dorsey ...players you definitely need on your team to succeed

Do you think Dorsey would have been a rotational player if Bembry hadn't gotten injured or if we had a 'winning' roster? Dorsey would have spent most of his time in the GL if circumstances were different.

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

It it's one thing I've learned over the years is that when it comes to the draft the 'experts' are not always right in their assessments of a draft class.

And Neither are Squawkers but I do think that in this particular draft, there is safety in numbers.  For example, I don't think that Ayton is the best player in this draft but he definitely will go #1

[Peoriabird]

Just now, JayBirdHawk said:

Do you think Dorsey would have been a rotational player if Bembry hadn't gotten injured or if we had a 'winning' roster? Dorsey would have spent most of his time in the GL if circumstances were different.

Rotational player in the future for Dorsey.  He still has to work on developing some of his skills but he looks like say a Patty Mills to me.

[Buzzard]

11 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

There were guys taken in the second round even last year who might be starters...certainly last year produced rotational players like Dorsey ...players you definitely need on your team to succeed

Role players and so hum starters are a dime a dozen. We already have some of those and bought out a few last season. Let the capped out super teams and contenders worry about their role players.

My opinion on this. We have plenty of cap money to give away on role players; and they take it every year. We need to draft as high as we can with every pick until we get to where those super teams and contenders are.

It is not a perfect world so I expect there will be times when we cannot move up. So drafting a ho hum starter or role player might be our only option; but that does not mean we should not be trying.

 

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

That isn't a problem at all.  You don't have to hit a minimum salary floor.  Instead, if you fail to hit that line then you just have to pay the guys on your roster that amount.  Starting the season below the minimum floor is fine and allows you to later add salary or take on dead salary for picks, etc.

I am not ignoring your response and read every point. Thanks for clearing that up. Being under the cap could prove to be beneficial if someone wants to sell off a Blake Griffin or a Draft Pick for cap space. I don't want Blake; just using him as an extreme example.

I think with Casey at the helm, the Pistons will improve. He has done some good work with guards and bigs but how much they can improve is still a huge question in my mind.

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

Since there is no true salary minimum (you just pay the money you are under the minimum out to the guys on your roster), there is no problem from a financial situation in the near term.  Having too much cap space also means you can take on dead money for assets ala Crawford.

I know I've explained this to you before so let me try a different tact.  Being too far under the cap complicates things when making trades later down the road.  Although the minimum salary floor results in a tax (dollar for dollar) and is therefore not a financial mess on the surface, it does create a mess later when trying to sign other players, make trades and signing outside talent. It poses no threat to signing your own players but it can create a reputation in the league with players from other teams and it can create a problem in your cap later when all of those rookie salaries need to be resigned for real deals.

 

The minimum team salary rules are as much a protection for the individual players as they are for the team of players.

.

As for the posters asking about why 34 is worth more than 30.  If I am trading with a team that needs to "take something back" (nba rules state you must send something back), the cap hit for 34 is much less than the cap hit for 30 if you sign the player. But 34 also is not a guaranteed salary and it changes value when signing free agents later.  The guaranteed salaries are for 3 years + 1.  The non-guaranteed salaries are not so restrictive. 

 

[Buzzard]

15 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I know I've explained this to you before so let me try a different tact.  Being too far under the cap complicates things when making trades later down the road.  Although the minimum salary floor results in a tax (dollar for dollar) and is therefore not a financial mess on the surface, it does create a mess later when trying to sign other players, make trades and signing outside talent. It poses no threat to signing your own players but it can create a reputation in the league with players from other teams and it can create a problem in your cap later when all of those rookie salaries need to be resigned for real deals.

 

The minimum team salary rules are as much a protection for the individual players as they are for the team of players.

.

As for the posters asking about why 34 is worth more than 30.  If I am trading with a team that needs to "take something back" (nba rules state you must send something back), the cap hit for 34 is much less than the cap hit for 30 if you sign the player. But 34 also is not a guaranteed salary and it changes value when signing free agents later.  The guaranteed salaries are for 3 years + 1.  The non-guaranteed salaries are not so restrictive. 

 

Exactly, if a team just wants anything back to make the trade work within its rules. 2nd round picks and one year deals are much easier for the other team to accept. 1st round bust are still a PITA no matter where you take them because they are guaranteed.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

I know I've explained this to you before so let me try a different tact.  Being too far under the cap complicates things when making trades later down the road.  Although the minimum salary floor results in a tax (dollar for dollar) and is therefore not a financial mess on the surface, it does create a mess later when trying to sign other players, make trades and signing outside talent. It poses no threat to signing your own players but it can create a reputation in the league with players from other teams and it can create a problem in your cap later when all of those rookie salaries need to be resigned for real deals.

 

The minimum team salary rules are as much a protection for the individual players as they are for the team of players.

.

As for the posters asking about why 34 is worth more than 30.  If I am trading with a team that needs to "take something back" (nba rules state you must send something back), the cap hit for 34 is much less than the cap hit for 30 if you sign the player. But 34 also is not a guaranteed salary and it changes value when signing free agents later.  The guaranteed salaries are for 3 years + 1.  The non-guaranteed salaries are not so restrictive. 

 

I've seen no history supporting the points you make here and I see zero complications from having a low salary.  Do you think JJ Reddick cared whether the Sixers paid a minimum salary tax two years ago or that free agents credit the Hawks for carrying dead contract weight.  The competitive condition of our team will mean a hell of a lot more than a history of reaching or not reaching the minimum floor. 

In practice, every team meets the minimum floor.  They may not start the season there but when it counts they hit it.  Who cares?

In addition, not signing someone to meet the minimum floor acts as a bonus check to everyone on the roster.  It is like giving all of them a raise for this year so if you think the Hawks last year not having any dead money and getting rid of Plumlee and 2018 Baze for say Jordan Bell and 2016 Baze would hurt their reputation I'll beg to differ with you.  The mere fact that they could have been under the minimum floor with Bell and 16 Baze instead of over with Crawford's money, Plumlee and 18 Baze doesn't change our reputation one way or the other.

It is the losing and lack of notable players that drives our current reputation.  The 76ers have a great buzz and reputation now.  It isn't because they earned the respect of the league by paying people more.  It is because they started winning games and they have several buzz worthy players that make up the foundation of that team.  All other things being equal (and when you are situated in New York those other things might be very important) they will be 10x as attractive to free agents this offseason than a team like the Knicks that always is way above the minimum floor (the only things the Knicks have going for them are Porzingis and the city of the New York).

I think there is merit to the point about not wanting to have too many young players on the same salary cycle but this minimum floor notion is a red herring.  Free agents won't respect us for paying Plumlee.  They will respect us if we get good players and win games.

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I've seen no history supporting the points you make here and I see zero complications from having a low salary.  Do you think JJ Reddick cared whether the Sixers paid a minimum salary tax two years ago or that free agents credit the Hawks for carrying dead contract weight.  The competitive condition of our team will mean a hell of a lot more than a history of reaching or not reaching the minimum floor.

I think there is merit to the point about not wanting to have too many young players on the same salary cycle but this minimum floor notion is a red herring.  Free agents won't respect us for paying Plumlee.  They will respect us if we get good players and win games.

I think the two downsides are what I have already pointed out.

If our low floor is due to having crap 1st round picks on guaranteed contracts; most teams really do not want your guaranteed garbage. On the other hand, if they are non guaranteed salary, they are much more attractive for salary dumps and clearing cap space. Every edge counts.

The other downside is we will look like a college team playing NBA teams if we do not invest in vets with solid experience; even if they are just role players. The vets, at least some of them, will help our young players grow and gather knowledge. I hate the idea of having seven rookie contracts after this draft; and it could be eight to nine after next season depending on what Bron does.

Two first and one second next year, Prince is a RFA so subtract him from this years seven. But I do like it better than the alternative of not having any draft picks.

In the end, I am hoping we can do some packages to move up and take quality over quantity.

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I've seen no history supporting the points you make here and I see zero complications from having a low salary.  Do you think JJ Reddick cared whether the Sixers paid a minimum salary tax two years ago or that free agents credit the Hawks for carrying dead contract weight.  The competitive condition of our team will mean a hell of a lot more than a history of reaching or not reaching the minimum floor. 

In practice, every team meets the minimum floor.  They may not start the season there but when it counts they hit it.  Who cares?

In addition, not signing someone to meet the minimum floor acts as a bonus check to everyone on the roster.  It is like giving all of them a raise for this year so if you think the Hawks last year not having any dead money and getting rid of Plumlee and 2018 Baze for say Jordan Bell and 2016 Baze would hurt their reputation I'll beg to differ with you.  The mere fact that they could have been under the minimum floor with Bell and 16 Baze instead of over with Crawford's money, Plumlee and 18 Baze doesn't change our reputation one way or the other.

It is the losing and lack of notable players that drives our current reputation.  The 76ers have a great buzz and reputation now.  It isn't because they earned the respect of the league by paying people more.  It is because they started winning games and they have several buzz worthy players that make up the foundation of that team.  All other things being equal (and when you are situated in New York those other things might be very important) they will be 10x as attractive to free agents this offseason than a team like the Knicks that always is way above the minimum floor (the only things the Knicks have going for them are Porzingis and the city of the New York).

I think there is merit to the point about not wanting to have too many young players on the same salary cycle but this minimum floor notion is a red herring.  Free agents won't respect us for paying Plumlee.  They will respect us if we get good players and win games.

I'm sorry you don't see it but I am done trying to explain it to you.  If the horse doesn't want to drink, there is no point in making him a margarita.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, thecampster said:

I'm sorry you don't see it but I am done trying to explain it to you.  If the horse doesn't want to drink, there is no point in making him a margarita.

An example would be helpful.  You have like 70 years of NBA history to show a pattern of how low salary and not talent and wins drives a teams reputation.  Curious to see the statistically significant collection of teams that paid the tax for not meeting the minimum salary floor that you will bring forth in support of your position.

I don't see the logic.  Surely you can show the evidence.  I can show you lots of teams with low payrolls and great reputations or high payrolls and crap reputations.  I can show tons of teams whose reputations follow the wins and talent on the team.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, Buzzard said:

I think the two downsides are what I have already pointed out.

If our low floor is due to having crap 1st round picks on guaranteed contracts; most teams really do not want your guaranteed garbage. On the other hand, if they are non guaranteed salary, they are much more attractive for salary dumps and clearing cap space. Every edge counts.

The other downside is we will look like a college team playing NBA teams if we do not invest in vets with solid experience; even if they are just role players. The vets, at least some of them, will help our young players grow and gather knowledge. I hate the idea of having seven rookie contracts after this draft; and it could be eight to nine after next season depending on what Bron does.

Two first and one second next year, Prince is a RFA so subtract him from this years seven. But I do like it better than the alternative of not having any draft picks.

In the end, I am hoping we can do some packages to move up and take quality over quantity.

Quality vets don't play on non-guaranteed contracts.  So if the issue is guaranteed salary then you will have lesser talent than first round picks (with the exception of the 30th pick which won't generate superior talent in the aggregate than 2nd rounders but will have an advantage over undrafted players) by pushing for non-guaranteed players.

There is value in the mentoring aspect of having vets on the team for sure.  I don't see it so much in reputation, though.  Plumlee, Ilya, Moose and Belli did squat for Atlanta's reputation last season.  Because the team was losing so many games and lacked high ceiling young players, there was no collection of low paid vets that was going to swing the team's reputation with FAs.  For mentoring, I can get on board with that.

I'm 99% on board with the idea that the guy who ends up with the best player in a trade wins the trade so I'm good if we package and move up to take superior quality all day.  (Just don't trade up to take Tractor Traylor and pass on Dirk or trade up to get Fultz, etc.).

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

An example would be helpful.  You have like 70 years of NBA history to show a pattern of how low salary and not talent and wins drives a teams reputation.  Curious to see the statistically significant collection of teams that paid the tax for not meeting the minimum salary floor that you will bring forth in support of your position.

I don't see the logic.  Surely you can show the evidence.  I can show you lots of teams with low payrolls and great reputations or high payrolls and crap reputations.  I can show tons of teams whose reputations follow the wins and talent on the team.

Golden State prior to 2014.....Philly 2 years ago.

[thecampster]

Here, educate yourself... https://goldengatesports.com/2014/09/24/golden-state-warriors-turnaround/

 

[thecampster]

12 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Here, educate yourself... https://goldengatesports.com/2014/09/24/golden-state-warriors-turnaround/

 

Golden State’s roster was full of Development League players, their coach (despite having the most wins in NBA history) was obviously ready for retirement, the owner was seemingly nonexistent, and the admirably faithful fans — tricked by the short-lived success of the 2007 season — were finally frustrated and ready for changes.

Let’s go back to the summer of 2009. Golden State, disappointed by an abysmal 29-win season (coming directly after the 2007

then this

Golden State’s entertaining style of play, their enthusiastic fans, and — most importantly — their success put them on the map. No longer would Golden State be a last resort for top free agents.

During the 2013 offseason, the Warriors were one of Dwight Howard’s top destinations. After he made it clear he would leave the Los Angeles Lakers, he narrowed down his choices to the Houston Rockets and Golden State.

I hope that helps. I know you are busy dismissing others.