SO....MANY....DOUBTERS

[AHF]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Bud had an off set in his contract, or am I mistaken?

Pretty much any NBA coach that is cut is subject to having amounts owed to him offset against future earnings and that was specifically reported to be the case for Bud.  Most coaches, however, earn less than their prior contract after being let go so they generally can't cover the full cost. 

If a coach wants the freedom to go somewhere else like Bud and you agree to settle at a lower amount then you have a better chance of more fully offsetting the cost.  For example, if someone is owed $6M and you agree on buy out and release for $4M and said coach then signs his next deal for $3M:

$6M - $3M = $3M owed

$4M - $3M = $1M owed 

It also changes the incentive to cover the salary.  If a coach is owed $6M and his new team will only pay him a maximum of $4M then he can earn the same amount of money by taking a $1 salary or a $4M salary because $1 + ($5,999,999) = $6M just as $4M salary + ($2M) = $6M. 

So there is no real reason for the next two seasons for Bud to have pushed to make much money - it didn't matter what his new team was paying him unless it was more than the $13M he was owed over the next two years so Bud could just shop for the job he liked best knowing he had $13M in the bank already.  If you agree to grant him his release at the cost of some of that money, however, like a $3.5M per year buyout then Bud actually gets more cash in hand by negotiating a $4M salary over a lower one and the Hawks end up with more (or potentially all) of the amount owed being offset.

Which is also fair given that Bud wanted the buyout and he is coaching for the competition.

[Royjr9]

8 hours ago, AHF said:

That makes literally no sense.  You could have taken money off the table 100% before you start reducing the remainder with offset of other salary.  For example, if he was due $6.5M per year then conceding half of that leaves you owing him $3.25M per season and the new contract he signs further reduces via offset so there is no conceivable circumstance where you aren't better protected financially by getting him to take a haircut in exchange for being allowed to walk.

Moreover, you could have put other conditions on his departure.  A common one is a non-solicitation provision where he will not solicit people employed by the Hawks.  That would keep him from poaching our staff and coaches unless we agree to it in advance.

There were just so many easy gets here and it isn't even like we would be unreasonable to ask for them.  Bud literally is getting paid 100% of his salary to coach elsewhere when we could have him working in a film room.  We gave him an incredibly big concession by letting him walk and got zero in return.

I was reading hoping that was ressler stepping in and saying just go away. I was arguing the same point. If Schlenk forced a bad contract on Dallas this deal look much better. As is it eh what’s the worst that could happen. I hate the C’s but Schlenk could use a little Ainge tactics in his negotiations. The just outright trading 34 it was like my god what the hell are you doing.

[AHF]

14 hours ago, Royjr9 said:

I was reading hoping that was ressler stepping in and saying just go away. I was arguing the same point. If Schlenk forced a bad contract on Dallas this deal look much better. As is it eh what’s the worst that could happen. I hate the C’s but Schlenk could use a little Ainge tactics in his negotiations. The just outright trading 34 it was like my god what the hell are you doing.

The bad contract with Dallas isn't much of a motivator for me compared to the pick(s).  If the choice was Bazemore for Dallas's expiring salary dump then I would much rather have the pick (even with four years of one-sided protection) than save one year of Baze's contract.

Trading 34 struck me as strange given that I value those 31-35 picks a ton more than the ~45 second round picks.  If we didn't want to take on 4 rookies then I'm curious what he plans to do with our second round picks next year.

[nathan2331]

The bad contract with Dallas isn't much of a motivator for me compared to the pick(s).  If the choice was Bazemore for Dallas's expiring salary dump then I would much rather have the pick (even with four years of one-sided protection) than save one year of Baze's contract.

Trading 34 struck me as strange given that I value those 31-35 picks a ton more than the ~45 second round picks.  If we didn't want to take on 4 rookies then I'm curious what he plans to do with our second round picks next year.

That trade was a bad deal no matter how you slice it. If you want an extra second rounder in the future, you can buy one or trade some future seconds pretty easily. Considering how deep the draft was this year, we should've taken a chance on somebody or stashed the pick. I'm gonna be mad if Isaac Bonga turns out to be something in the NBA.

[Royjr9]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The bad contract with Dallas isn't much of a motivator for me compared to the pick(s).  If the choice was Bazemore for Dallas's expiring salary dump then I would much rather have the pick (even with four years of one-sided protection) than save one year of Baze's contract.

Trading 34 struck me as strange given that I value those 31-35 picks a ton more than the ~45 second round picks.  If we didn't want to take on 4 rookies then I'm curious what he plans to do with our second round picks next year.

Stash em on guys that maybe one or two will make it over.

[JayBirdHawk]

I remember everybody pitching a fit about the  2016 #54 pick - Kay Felder.  Where is he now? A free agent.

Players have to agree to be stashed - we currently have 3 stashes.

[Jungle Jack]

Holy crap.  While Ayton was whom I was jonesing for us to get, I still would have been darn happy to have Doncic.  A fella who is 6'8 and can pass like that seems a much safer choice.  Even Schlenk seemingly was quite enamored of Luka as his comments yesterday underscored.  It can be argued that his comments are hedging his bets for the future, but....

 

While I have faith that Young will be a good player, the idea of moving from 3 for a top 5 protected 2019 pick is a tough pill to swallow.  Especially as even Miami's pick is utterly unprotected and Doncic remains thought by many to be the best prospect period.

 

I have a nauseous feeling that our Draft soothsayer will likewise be right about JJJ.  Maybe that will allow us to move on from the Marvin trauma.

[nathan2331]

The one thing going for Schlenk in the #3 for #5 trade is that the Mavs pick whenever it conveys may become the best player in the trade, or could be used in a different trade for a better asset. I didn't like the move, but even if Doncic is a better player than Young we may not necessarily lose the trade.

[AHF]

55 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

The one thing going for Schlenk in the #3 for #5 trade is that the Mavs pick whenever it conveys may become the best player in the trade, or could be used in a different trade for a better asset. I didn't like the move, but even if Doncic is a better player than Young we may not necessarily lose the trade.

We could definitely win the trade but I think we were in a position to get more from the trade regardless of whether we win or lose.