Half the season behind us, what FA targets are you most hoping on Schlenk's radar?

[sturt]

7 hours ago, Buzzard said:

I hope he signs his targets.

Yep. Amen.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

Notice how they mention the 88% in the pick n roll. Let the Trae/Trez show begin.

You know it, because after all, that's just not something Capela does. Or Collins, for that matter. Whole new weapon in our arsenal, fersure.

Nonsense.

What you actually could be legitimately talking up is Harrell's passing.

That's not an element we have right now from our post players, and it is indeed something that Schlenk values. Heck, if only Harrell could add a 3 pt shot, he'd arguably be a better Draymond Green than the current Draymond Green is.

But in every other way, Wood is at minimum Harrell's equal, and in some, superior.

Like I've said, people have known about Wood for a long, long time. It's not some revelation that the superior talent is there. It's always been a matter of maturity. That maturity appears to have begun to take hold, and the sky really is the limit. His contract will reflect that, imo.

[sturt]

4 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

You got stewed!

Indeed. Which appears to be a more damning thing to one's attempt to argue a point than is getting dunked on. Turns out getting the dunk treatment is no treatment at all, just a rhetorical dance where the poster conjures up some dream of a persuasive argument that never actually made it into reality.

[sturt]

8 hours ago, Buzzard said:

I don't get your infatuation with this Ingram all or nothing stance for 2020 free agency.

It appears that way only because you and a handful of others here are so persuaded that Ingram is not worth max money, though at the same time, most of you appear to be persuaded he's worth max money to Dell Demps... which is its own interesting commentary on intellectual honesty.

In light of that, it would seem it's less about my "infatuation," more about your contempt for the player.

Of the two of us, at least as far as I recall, I'm the only one who acknowledges that, perhaps, Schlenk sees things differently than I would, on the outside looking in. That is, I've said it's completely plausible that Schlenk doesn't consider Ingram to be worth pursuing. There's been zero acknowledgement from your side of the discussion, otoh, that Schlenk might consider the 22 year-old 2019 All-Star Game selection to be worth pursuing.

Further buttressing that point in bold above, I'm the one who has written at least a hundred times by now that my advocacy is not actually for a player, but for Schlenk's philosophy as I believe it to be based on what he's said (and yes, my own buy-in to that philosophy that has evolved over time, but wasn't originally something that existed).

 

Thus... as I've said... the starting point is AD. No one seems to question that that will happen (EDIT: that, in spite of the fact that such an acquisition would pose a threat to Collins or Capela's starter status), even though it's quickly followed by the point that no one seems to question whether that will be a futile attempt.

 

'Who's next in line? Ingram. For at least the one hundred and one-th time, that is premised on whether Schlenk values Ingram's talent... but notably, not on the threat Ingram's presence might pose to the future of Reddish and/or Hunter, and (for at least the third or fourth time) we have Schlenk's own words that affirm that.

 

Who's next in line? Some player who is really good, but whose price won't threaten Schlenk's ability to compete for a top or near-top tier talent in the 2021 market.

 

That's all coherent with what Schlenk has said, and with reason.

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

Me:

Travis Schlenk, you want to weigh-in on this?

Voice from JTB's HS account:

"I believe I already did..."

 

And that makes sense, yes. Why? Because the end game isn't to justify his 2019 draft trades.

The end game is, whatever it takes, to justify this entire scenario where he's driven the Atlanta Hawks franchise into a 3-4 year ditch... ie, it's not good enough merely to get back to the playoffs, since that could have been the case without any ditch imposed... no, he's all-in on this ending up with ATL for the first time ever becoming a legitimate threat to win an NBA title.

So, it makes sense to accumulate all the top-end talent possible, through the draft in phase one, and now in phase two, to use this cap space as effectively as possible before it goes away.

I think, this is my opinion and I am sure you and JTB differ, that 27 Million a year is more than just friendly competition. Schlenk would probably lose his job after one more season if Ingram was not the starter day one and onward. Hell he might fire himself if Ingram did not start.

I do think Grant ( SF ), Bogdanovic ( SG ), Gallinari ( SF ), Fournier ( SG ) etc could push some of our young players as well. But I don't think Schlenk will be chasing anyone, other than a brief call to AD, that is going to push his competition budget in the neighborhood of 27 Million.

You obviously think Ingram is the next great young small forward or at least one of them. We will see if Schlenk thinks otherwise. I have a hard time grasping he would give up after only one season with Hunter and Reddish, and only two with Huerter. I think he is happy as hell with the Capela trade and honestly thinks this team could be ready for prime time as built, minus bench depth, in two or three seasons.

The GSW model everyone talks about did not involve a max free agent until Durant dropped in their lap. I think Schlenk believes in his picks that same way; he just needs the bench depth he mentioned missing out on this season. That is my opinion of course. You are just as entitled to your Ingram koolaid; as others are to their Giannis koolaid.

Don't give up hope man. One day another Moses or Dikembe may come knocking on our door. It has been about 25 years, so we are overdue.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Buzzard

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Schlenk would probably lose his job after one more season if Ingram was not the starter day one and onward.

The implication being that you think there would be some doubt that Ingram would be the starter from day one.

I don't even think Schlenk pursues Ingram if there's a sliver of a doubt in his mind that Ingram would be the starter from day one.

Whether it would cost him his job if he were wrong is its own other question, but it's only as relevant as whether it would make him a shoe-in for Exec of the Year if he were right.... no one really cares either way... we're trying to win a championship.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

You obviously think Ingram is the next great young small forward or at least one of them. We will see if Schlenk thinks otherwise.

Too concrete.

I think at 22 years old, logic tells you to be bullish on any player that achieves an ASG appearance that early.

And yes, you're repeating what I've said... we'll see what Schlenk thinks... and again, I seem to be the only one of the two of us who even barely acknowledges that perhaps Schlenk views the situation differently than either of us would as fans.

[sturt]

10 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I have a hard time grasping he would give up

Stop.

It's not "giving up."

It's adding to what you've got.

Don't miss the fact that whoever is the 3rd wing is not getting that many fewer minutes than the 1st and 2nd. The only one who might be legitimately feeling "given up" on is Huerter.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

The GSW model everyone talks about did not involve a max free agent until Durant dropped in their lap.

The Schlenk model... because it's what he's outlined for years... was/is to amass high-end talent with high draft picks for a period of years, and then just before those guys turn the corner out of their rookie (cheapo) contracts, use cap space to do the same... get as high-end talent as you can.

GSW didn't exactly follow that outline perfectly. They lucked out on two occasions, one being that Green was elite, and the other being the trade for Iggy, where they came out on top of that one. Durant, really, was just a cherry on that top b/c GSW had already become GSW before he ever came into that picture.

[Buzzard]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

The implication being that you think there would be some doubt that Ingram would be the starter from day one.

I don't even think Schlenk pursues Ingram if there's a sliver of a doubt in his mind that Ingram would be the starter from day one.

Whether it would cost him his job if he were wrong is its own other question, but it's only as relevant as whether it would make him a shoe-in for Exec of the Year if he were right.... no one really cares either way... we're trying to win a championship.

Ingram is worth a max to the Pelicans. If we owned his rights, just like with Collins, I would be every bit as hesitant to lose him for nothing. What I am implying is he is not worth it to us. We have made our investments in what we project to be two very good defensive wings ( Hunter and Reddish ). I think because of their projected abilities, they are perfect fits around Trae; as is Capela.

The Pelicans need to keep Ingram or trade him. Collins is not a perfect player either and I think the same exact way about him.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

What I am implying is he is not worth it to us.

1. We have cap space that NOP doesn't have.

As a consequence, it's a complete talent play for us. Do we think his talent makes us more likely than not to be more capable to compete for a championship.

2. Virtually none of us are convinced yet based on the rookie year evidence that we have locked-in good-enough players at both starting wing positions that we can thumb our nose at someone who in fact is almost exactly those players same age who has himself achieved at a level that was considered worthy of an ASG appearance... in fact, it's not even barely taken for granted that either of those rookies will ever make an ASG. Possible, yes, but probable is a bridge too far at this point... and we have to make judgments at this point, not later.

3. 2020 represents a unique opportunity because of the lack of competition in the marketplace compared to practically any other year in the history of the modern free agent marketplace. If you value Ingram's talent, it's just simply irrational to not pursue him.

4. Collins? Collins ever sniffed an ASG appearance yet? And at that, he plays in which conference? I understand what you're saying, but there's an implication in what you're saying that the two are equals. I love Collins, but Ingram is more like Trae than he is like Collins.

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Indeed. Which appears to be a more damning thing to one's attempt to argue a point than is getting dunked on. Turns out getting the dunk treatment is no treatment at all, just a rhetorical dance where the poster conjures up some dream of a persuasive argument that never actually made it into reality.

You want it again today? I’ll leave Spaulding (oops spelling) on ur forehead again. Oooookay, the man likes to get schooled.

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

You know it, because after all, that's just not something Capela does. Or Collins, for that matter. Whole new weapon in our arsenal, fersure.

Nonsense.

What you actually could be legitimately talking up is Harrell's passing.

That's not an element we have right now from our post players, and it is indeed something that Schlenk values. Heck, if only Harrell could add a 3 pt shot, he'd arguably be a better Draymond Green than the current Draymond Green is.

But in every other way, Wood is at minimum Harrell's equal, and in some, superior.

Like I've said, people have known about Wood for a long, long time. It's not some revelation that the superior talent is there. It's always been a matter of maturity. That maturity appears to have begun to take hold, and the sky really is the limit. His contract will reflect that, imo.

Look I know about Draymond’s game. I know about Wood’s game. I know about Harrell’s game. You think just because I don’t agree with you it’s because I don’t know their game?  

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

What you actually could be legitimately talking up is Harrell's passing.

See there you go again. You are too into what you perceive me to be saying rather than just reading it. Seriously for someone who is into practicing writing ✍ (a lot) you reading fundamentals still seem to be lagging. It’s hard to seriously argue points with you because you argue your own points, then you argue with yourself on the points that you think I’m talking about.

Its a vicious cycle for ya buddy. Just read a bit, you may learn a thing or two.

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

You think just because I don’t agree with you it’s because I don’t know their game?

When did I ever say anything about why you don't agree with me?

Honestly, I just assumed it's because you make judgments based on shallow emotional reactionary perceptions you have.

Hence, the allergy to having to explain anything, and the drive-by posts.

But...

 

 

 

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

You are too into what you perceive me to be saying rather than just reading it.

That only makes any sense if, indeed, you could show that you wrote something celebrating Harrell's passing. No one's a fool. They saw what you wrote. We all did. At least in the post specified, you're celebrating this idea that somehow Harrell adds the missing pick and roll element to our offense.

Try again.

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

missing

Did I say it was missing. Again you added words to my post. I’m worried about you (not as a person though cuz you made it crystal clear that you didn’t need anyone in that front so...) as a poster. Does squawk offer a reading tutorial? Because before we dive into players, I have to know that you can read my post, MY post, not any fantasy you conjure up in that brain of yours. Quite an imagination there Stewie.

Stewie if your not careful today I’ll take you lunch money.  

 

[Spud2nique]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

No one's a fool. They saw what you wrote. We all did.

Actually that’s a great point Stewie. I guess people saw what we wrote and can decipher for themselves. 
 

Oh no I used a word like decipher for you. You gettin all hot n heavy on me?  

[sturt]

31 minutes ago, sturt said:

No one's a fool. They saw what you wrote. We all did. At least in the post specified, you're celebrating this idea that somehow Harrell adds the missing pick and roll element to our offense.

 

26 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Again you added words to my post.

 

You're trying so very hard, I know.

But the above is part one... ie, a commentary on what you exactly said.

And then part two was/is to say, "How about celebrating something that actually matters in the Harrell equation... ie, his ability to pass."

But no, you celebrate something that would merely represent a duplication of what we have plenty of.

That's not "adding words to your post." That's recommending that you choose better what you choose to celebrate about your pet cat Harrell.

[sturt]

34 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Stewie if your not careful today I’ll take you lunch money.

I don't believe the mods allow threats on this board. Careful.  

Then again, maybe they make exceptions for empty ones like that dunk treatment thing from yesterday.