Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted July 12, 2018 Premium Member Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 What does this mean? Was Schlenk hoping that Trae fell to #8 or did he want Sexton? What else was part of the deal? If it was just about moving down to dump Bazemore I would be royally annoyed. Just like the initial #3 and Bazemore for #5 and Matthews. I'm still side eye watching Schlenk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kg01 Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 I'm certainly no Slink fan but I don't buy this rumor. It's so bad that it makes no sense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Duff_Man Posted July 12, 2018 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Since it didn't happen, it means nothing. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtLaS Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Those type of trades are typically owner influenced. I can't buy this as a Schlenk (or any GM) move. It makes no sense to fall 5 spots in the lottery in order to shed 2 years of a bad contract when the team isn't going to be good anyway. I really hope it isn't true, simply because it would mean Ressler is more focused on making money as an owner, even at the cost of talent. If other assets were included from Cleveland in this proposed trade that weren't mentioned by the report, then that would be a bit easier to swallow. But, it's scary to think about future transactions as a team if this was true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud2nique Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Lies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted July 12, 2018 Moderators Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 I absolutely do not believe we are this desperate to unload Baze. He is a solid player (greatly overpaid) and a great attitude. We aren't spending money anyway so it isn't like that would free up cap space for us. Moreover, what would we really be saving? Cleveland isn't under the cap so they can't absorb Baze's deal - they would have to match salaries and how would that save us much? Baze's albatross contract is only around for 2 more years at this point so even if we got back all expiring deals we would really only be getting a benefit from this for a single season a year away and we would be giving up the #3 pick to do that while only getting the #8 back? That is after the point at which the elite (draft profile) ceiling talent was in the draft. At 5, we were still in the range to take someone like Trae with the high upside. Then on top of that it says Cleveland rejected the trade because they wanted Sexton? What? If Sexton was so good, they wouldn't have necessarily known whether he would still be on the board. The article makes it clear that the trade was discussed before the Hawks actually picked so the only way to get Sexton for sure would have been to make the trade. The whole thing just sounds like Cleveland PR BS to try to make the fan base more excited about Sexton. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud2nique Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Yes lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 58 minutes ago, AHF said: I absolutely do not believe we are this desperate to unload Baze. He is a solid player (greatly overpaid) and a great attitude. We aren't spending money anyway so it isn't like that would free up cap space for us. Moreover, what would we really be saving? Cleveland isn't under the cap so they can't absorb Baze's deal - they would have to match salaries and how would that save us much? Baze's albatross contract is only around for 2 more years at this point so even if we got back all expiring deals we would really only be getting a benefit from this for a single season a year away and we would be giving up the #3 pick to do that while only getting the #8 back? That is after the point at which the elite (draft profile) ceiling talent was in the draft. At 5, we were still in the range to take someone like Trae with the high upside. Then on top of that it says Cleveland rejected the trade because they wanted Sexton? What? If Sexton was so good, they wouldn't have necessarily known whether he would still be on the board. The article makes it clear that the trade was discussed before the Hawks actually picked so the only way to get Sexton for sure would have been to make the trade. The whole thing just sounds like Cleveland PR BS to try to make the fan base more excited about Sexton. I agree. The Magic or Bulls could have nabbed Sexton at 6 and 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleachkit Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 It's hard to know if these rumors are ever true. It's also hard to know if the trades were legit offers or teams were just testing the waters. I have to believe Travis wasnt trading unless a pick was involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan2331 Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 I could kind of get it if the idea was to remove the protections on next year's pick and we expected Young to still be there at #8. I would still disapprove, but it would be an interesting gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4wkfan Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Someone on another site I visit said we were also asking for 2 unprotected 1s. Not sure if that included unprotecting next year's or 2 on top of next year. Or if any if that was true. But that makes 100% more sense than just 3+ baze for 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kg01 Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 3 hours ago, AHF said: The whole thing just sounds like Cleveland PR BS to try to make the fan base more excited about Sexton. Preach, AH. Now all their fans are gon' be like, "And we even tried to trade up to 3 to get this guy but Koby was like nu'uhn when the Hawks tried to send us Kevin Bazemore. And we stiiiilll got who we wanted. Lebron who?" None of this makes sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted July 12, 2018 Moderators Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 A more responsible take on this: Quote We obviously don’t know the entire offer, which opens even more questions about what Atlanta wanted. The Hawks have the Cavaliers’ top-10-protected 2019 first-round pick. Did removing those protections factor into the trade offer? The Hawks seemed set on Young, and moving down to No. 5 ensured they got him. That wouldn’t have been the case at No. 8 with the Magic (No. 6) and Bulls (No. 7) picking in between. So, not only is the exact offer unclear, so are potential contingencies it was based on. Perhaps, Atlanta would have picked Doncic then executed the deal only if Young fell to No. 8. Could Cleveland have gotten Doncic for taking on the overpaid, but still helpful, Bazemore? Maybe – but that’s a significant oversimplification. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-hawks-offered-no-3-151518855.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EazyRoc Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 I wonder who we would’ve drafted at 8. Probably Mikal Bridges who should come out of this draft class 5 years down the line as one of the 5 best in the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted July 12, 2018 Moderators Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, EazyRoc said: I wonder who we would’ve drafted at 8. Probably Mikal Bridges who should come out of this draft class 5 years down the line as one of the 5 best in the class. My personal guess is that the deal would have been contingent on Young being there at 8. Otherwise, that is a lot of risk. Sexton would be a total fail, IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddielives Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 This is just weird to me. If this potential trade was actually on the table AND IF Cleveland wants to remain a playoff contender, how would they not make this trade? I mean they could have had Luka Doncic alongside George Hill, Baze at the 3 and Love and Thompson. That's actually a legit playoff contending starting five. Again, if true, I'm glad Cleveland didn't accept because we might have lost out on Trae and not have an extra 1st round pick coming our way in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddielives Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 But for the record, even though I'm warming up to Trae, I think we should have stayed with Luca as I am in the crowd that thinks he will be a generational talent. Trae too possibly but Luca is a little more of a sure thing imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 hours ago, AHF said: My personal guess is that the deal would have been contingent on Young being there at 8. Otherwise, that is a lot of risk. Sexton would be a total fail, IMO. We must have been asking for a lot for the Cavs to turn it down, Top 10 protection being removed for sure a minimum. I like Sexton as a scoring PG but he does not have the type of potential impact that Trae, Doncic, or Ayton have. We swung for the fences with Trae and unless you think someone is going to send you a James Harden to start your rebuild with, it is what we needed to do, We could have done the same thing with Doncic; but getting that extra asset is a big deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now