Hawks trade picks 41 and 44

[hazer]

Schlank didn’t lie, just stahp

[DBac]

I stand corrected again. Basically sold the pick.

[JayBirdHawk]

Update:

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

21 minutes ago, DBac said:

I stand corrected again. Basically sold the pick.

We still have rights to the pick which we can further use in a trade somewhere along the line, which was Schlenk's point all along in keeping the pick 'alive'.

There are so many trades with 'fake' 2nds being traded all the time. This will be one.

When you outright sell a 2nd it is usually about $3 million with no pick exchange. 

[DBac]

Sold another

[JayBirdHawk]

And #41 is now gone....

 

 

[txsting]

Hawks doing hawks things.

[capstone21]

Thats fine.  We had too many picks

[AtLaS]

Yeah, we wouldn't have enough roster spots for 6 new rookies to be added to the team and we would have likely just wasted those picks anyway as a few of them would have been cut anyway.  I"m cool with it, gives us some future picks and and cash.  

 

[REHawksFan]

12 minutes ago, txsting said:

Hawks doing hawks things.

Traded pick for a future 2nd, just like Travis said he would do all along.  Not sure why it surprises some.  

[AHF]

Whatever the merits, Schlenk should not have made a gratuitous comment about not wanting to sell picks immediately before selling multiple picks.  Neither of these deals is a straight sale (and frankly this one is better if Woj's description of it being unprotected is correct) but the optics are bad.

[REHawksFan]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

Whatever the merits, Schlenk should not have made a gratuitous comment about not wanting to sell picks immediately before selling multiple picks.  Neither of these deals is a straight sale (and frankly this one is better if Woj's description of it being unprotected is correct) but the optics are bad.

Don't see how the optics are bad.  Travis did exactly what he's said he was going to do, trade the pick for some future asset.  In reality, neither 41 nor 44 had any significant value.  He never said he wouldn't sell the pick, just that he didn't want to.  And as you said, he didn't straight sell either one.  So what's the problem?  

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

12 minutes ago, AHF said:

Whatever the merits, Schlenk should not have made a gratuitous comment about not wanting to sell picks immediately before selling multiple picks.  Neither of these deals is a straight sale (and frankly this one is better if Woj's description of it being unprotected is correct) but the optics are bad.

He said is PREFERENCE was not to sell picks outright. He preferred to trade them for future picks, draft and stashes, etc since they can both be used in trades down the line. The idea is to keep the asset 'alive'. He did both things.

[AHF]

12 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Don't see how the optics are bad.  Travis did exactly what he's said he was going to do, trade the pick for some future asset.  In reality, neither 41 nor 44 had any significant value.  He never said he wouldn't sell the pick, just that he didn't want to.  And as you said, he didn't straight sell either one.  So what's the problem?  

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

He said is PREFERENCE was not to sell picks outright. He preferred to trade them for future picks, draft and stashes, etc since they can both be used in trades down the line. The idea is to keep the asset 'alive'. He did both things.

The optics are bad because a lot of fans read his original statement as saying we weren't going to be selling picks for money which was our past pattern.  Then we sold 2 for money and got back lesser valued picks.  The GS pick is 5 years from conveying so that is obviously much less valuable from a "time value of asset" perspective and the Miami pick is unlikely to convey and at best will be a worse pick than we get back (we give 44, best case we get 51, most likely case we get nothing).  

The optics are bad because he made a statement that the average fan would read as "don't worry - we're going to use these to trade up for better players or to convert them into real players not cash" and then delivered deals for immediate cash that will probably not result in a player on our roster until 2024.  And don't try to sell me on the value of non-conveying 2nds for trade purposes because you can fill that gap in a trade with a lot of other things like our rights to Euro stashes, etc.

IMO, that was a public relations bungle.

[JayBirdHawk]

10 minutes ago, AHF said:

 

The optics are bad because a lot of fans read his original statement as saying we weren't going to be selling picks for money which was our past pattern.  Then we sold 2 for money and got back lesser valued picks.  The GS pick is 5 years from conveying so that is obviously much less valuable from a "time value of asset" perspective and the Miami pick is unlikely to convey and at best will be a worse pick than we get back (we give 44, best case we get 51, most likely case we get nothing).  

The optics are bad because he made a statement that the average fan would read as "don't worry - we're going to use these to trade up for better players or to convert them into real players not cash" and then delivered deals for immediate cash that will probably not result in a player on our roster until 2024.  And don't try to sell me on the value of non-conveying 2nds for trade purposes because you can fill that gap in a trade with a lot of other things like our rights to Euro stashes, etc.

IMO, that was a public relations bungle.

Then that's a them problem for their interpretation.

[REHawksFan]

30 minutes ago, AHF said:

 

The optics are bad because a lot of fans read his original statement as saying we weren't going to be selling picks for money which was our past pattern.  Then we sold 2 for money and got back lesser valued picks.  The GS pick is 5 years from conveying so that is obviously much less valuable from a "time value of asset" perspective and the Miami pick is unlikely to convey and at best will be a worse pick than we get back (we give 44, best case we get 51, most likely case we get nothing).  

The optics are bad because he made a statement that the average fan would read as "don't worry - we're going to use these to trade up for better players or to convert them into real players not cash" and then delivered deals for immediate cash that will probably not result in a player on our roster until 2024.  And don't try to sell me on the value of non-conveying 2nds for trade purposes because you can fill that gap in a trade with a lot of other things like our rights to Euro stashes, etc.

IMO, that was a public relations bungle.

Yeah...I'm not interested in criticizing Schlenk or the Hawks for fans not understanding what he clearly stated.  He even backed up his statement by staying using the picks to trade up was "easier said than done."  IMO, there's no bad optics here.  There are, apparently, a lot of misinformed fans that misunderstood what the GM said, I guess.  

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

And #41 is now gone....

 

 

Glad we got rid of another. Sad to see it was to scrubs. Boo the scrubs.

 

We have to keep #35... just turn 10&17 into 5!

[Spud2nique]

18 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

One down and 5 to go !!

2 down! 4 to go!  

[Spud2nique]

So we got 1.88 million from Heat for #44 and only 1.3 million from the scrubs form#41! 

Then I read it’s a rule! Dang it. Wish we traded and made Warriors pay more. Cheap bastards can’t pay the city of Oakland $40 million owed but can buy a draft pick from us? Smh F U Lacob you bum! Here are the deets!

 

This deal is remarkably similar to that of the trade with Miami in that the same future draft (2024) and cash structure was used. In the trade with the Heat, the Hawks acquired $1.88 million, leaving the $1.3 million reported figure for the Golden State trade as the maximum allowable under NBA rules.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Then that's a them problem for their interpretation.

That is precisely what PR is about.  Speaking to that average joe audience.  There is a lot of successful and failed PR for overestimating the intelligence of their audience.

I think there was only downside from that statement knowing we would be giving away some pick value for cash.