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

[sturt]

47 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

You ask me to do something I’ve done a million times before on prior posts but you never read it.

And yet, you can't find even a single one in a million... hehe...

That's what we call... .

 

Which is what people do when their argument is out of gas.

Didn't have to be this way at all. Just agree that, yes, the choice to trumpet Harrell's pick and roll numbers (you didn't do that???... hehe...) is not actually all that compelling... and that, indeed, talking up his AST% would have been, otoh, been purty damn compelling.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

How come y'all comment on this nonsense but won't touch the Coaching thread?

Is that a rhetorical comment or a real question?

I'm a simple man. I'm not sure.

[Peoriabird]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Is that a rhetorical comment or a real question?

I'm a simple man. I'm not sure.

It was a joke

[sturt]

29 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

It was a joke

Thanks. I'm a simple man, like I said. And I thought I remembered that was a hot topic for you, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

[Peoriabird]

Just now, sturt said:

Thanks. I'm a simple man, like I said. And I thought I remembered that was a hot topic for you, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

Definitely think that the Hawks need find a better coach if that is what you are referring to.

[sturt]

4 hours ago, Buzzard said:

What part of I am not ruling anything out about 10 - 20 post ago did you not understand?

I did not understand that you were referring in any way to Schlenk's opinion of Ingram.

Why? Because you don't refer to Ingram in the post even once.............

  

On 4/16/2020 at 8:53 PM, Buzzard said:

I can believe Schlenk will try to get the help we need this year since he has stated he misjudged our depth and its quality. I think he will try to do that as due diligence and avoid overpaying as well from his standpoint. If he does not get us at least one rock solid role player ( 6th man quality ) , then I will consider the off season a fail.

I don't think he will be stupid with the money and end up with a Turner, Crabbe, or Bazemore like contract that is almost impossible to move. As far as having cap for 2021, signing one role player to a decent length contract and one over payed one year contract is a possibility. Then with Dedmon's 13.3M expiring we could have something around 30M. The brilliant thing about Collins being a late middle round pick is his cap hold in 2021/22 is only 10.34 Million.

I am not ruling out anything; but I am not going to blow smoke up my butt with dreams of AD, Leonard, or George coming here either. I think Schlenk does want a much better bench and learned a very hard lesson last season when it comes to depth.

But blame me. It's my bad. I deserve it.

 

  At least Jay likes me.
 

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Just agree

No I’ll never agree...

 

 

[Buzzard]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

I did not understand that you were referring in any way to Schlenk's opinion of Ingram.

Why? Because you don't refer to Ingram in the post even once.............

  

But blame me. It's my bad. I deserve it.

 

  At least Jay likes me.
 

So when I say I am not ruling out anything and anything is possible for Schlenk in this or next seasons free agent period, anything does not correlate to Ingram. Got it.

I think Schlenk is going to do what I think he is going to do based on everything I have read and listened to in interviews. But I do have a firm grasp of these two concepts:

1- I cannot read his mind.

2- I am not always right.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Buzzard

[kg01]

7 hours ago, Buzzard said:

2- I am not always right.

Don't sell yourself short, Buzz.  You are always right .... when you agree with me. 

Seriously though, wanted to share a concept I heard on a podcast this week.

An NBA guy was talking free agency, specifically w.r.t. the SE division.  As an aside, he said something he was hearing from agents and other NBA people.

They're expecting most players to opt into these player options because there won't be any back channel meetings, which typically happen in-person.

New tampering rules make devices text and call history, etc. "discoverable" - for lack of a better description.  So tampering usually happens at predraft and other group gatherings that arent happening this year.  That means guys won't be sure what money is available if they jump ship.

For the Hawks, some names they mentioned as good fits, in their opinion:

DJ Augustin

Malik Beasley

Bogdanovic, although don't expect him to be available ultimately 

Derek Jones Jr.

Juancho Hernangomez

Hayward

Gallinari

[JayBirdHawk]

58 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Don't sell yourself short, Buzz.  You are always right .... when you agree with me. 

Seriously though, wanted to share a concept I heard on a podcast this week.

An NBA guy was talking free agency, specifically w.r.t. the SE division.  As an aside, he said something he was hearing from agents and other NBA people.

They're expecting most players to opt into these player options because there won't be any back channel meetings, which typically happen in-person.

New tampering rules make devices text and call history, etc. "discoverable" - for lack of a better description.  So tampering usually happens at predraft and other group gatherings that arent happening this year.  That means guys won't be sure what money is available if they jump ship.

For the Hawks, some names they mentioned as good fits, in their opinion:

DJ Augustin

Malik Beasley

Bogdanovic, although don't expect him to be available ultimately 

Derek Jones Jr.

Juancho Hernangomez

Hayward

Gallinari

That's very interesting, regarding 'back chanelling'

They might have to get burner phones.

Regarding opt ins - that is true. I think most will now, especially guys like Otto Porter, Drummond etc. Those with high salay figures. I think teams with capspace this off season will be a little more judicious with their spending in anticipation of next seasons salary cap uncertainty. Which may likely drop. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Giannis signs his super max extention as well.

 

[sturt]

10 hours ago, Buzzard said:

So when I say I am not ruling out anything and anything is possible for Schlenk in this or next seasons free agent period, anything does not correlate to Ingram. Got it.

I didn't say that's not what you meant.

You get that, right? Because I didn't.

What I said was that that's not what was understood.

And that that's not a strange thing for me to say, given that (a) indeed Ingram was never mentioned, and maybe more importantly, (b) the context of saying "anything is possible" was not about anyone's talent level and not whether anyone would be pursued, but whether Schlenk would be successful if he tried to pursue them.

10 hours ago, Buzzard said:

I think Schlenk is going to do what I think he is going to do based on everything I have read and listened to in interviews.

Me, too, and I would add, I don't think there's much difference between what you think he'll do and what I think he'll do, and also not much difference between how successful you think he'll be in pursuing what he pursues and what I do.

The only real difference is that one of us believes a 22 year-old who just made his first ASG and will be an RFA is plausibly (10% by my latest estimate, down from 30% when I was still misunderstanding the room NYK likely will have) someone that Schlenk will pursue.

Whereas, if I understand correctly, you don't think he'll even bother to make a phone call because you don't think he considers that player to be someone who either would be good enough now (really? he's not at least as good as Collins?), or whose 2019-20 trajectory is sustainable (that's your best argument against, imo), or whose acquisition would serve to create depth (really? when you add a starter, you do not inherently create depth when someone who would start goes to the second unit?), or whose acquisition would be consistent with these most recent comments of Schlenk's saying he will not hesitate to create competition at some position(s) (and if that's not SG or SF, then where is it?).

All of that accurate?

I'm content that you're wrong, but that I could be, and for the 723rd time, it all comes down to how Schlenk values Ingram.

Indeed, he won't make a phone call if he believes there are basic flaws in Ingram's psyche/personality or his talent/skills that make his 2019-20 trajectory/performance an outlier... fool's gold as it were.

Which, in the end, leads right back to agreement once again... your words here, same as mine...

10 hours ago, Buzzard said:

But I do have a firm grasp of these two concepts:

1- I cannot read his mind.

2- I am not always right.

[sturt]

52 minutes ago, kg01 said:

An NBA guy was talking free agency, specifically w.r.t. the SE division.  As an aside, he said something he was hearing from agents and other NBA people.

They're expecting most players to opt into these player options because there won't be any back channel meetings, which typically happen in-person.

Interesting comment, but if I have a deal where I have a contract where the team is obligated to give me $5m this season, I hardly think I'll roll the dice and see if this new post-Covid19 economy gives me in July 2020 something better than it would give me in July 2021.

That's absurd, really.

Today's economy is what it is, and the losses the league has suffered have already been lost.

There is even less upside to opting out (I believe you called it "opting in," but based on everything else you said, you meant "out," right?) for a Gordon Hayward than there would have been anyway when the most he could hope to gain was ~1m above what he's guaranteed, and every likelihood that no team would offer him the same has he's supposed to get in BOS ($34m).

Then too, at least by waiting until 2021, there's also some glimmer of hope that the economy would be getting back in gear.

 

[sturt]

42 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

next seasons salary cap uncertainty

By "next season's" do you mean 2020 or 2021?

Because... there's now, of course, uncertainty for what the 2020 salary cap will be. Those things are projected, of course, but as I know you know, aren't set in stone until July 1 or shortly thereafter.

[Spud2nique]

20 minutes ago, sturt said:

I didn't say that's not what you meant.

You get that, right? Because I didn't.

What I said was that that's not what was understood.

Still I called u and ahole but I didn’t really you know that right? You write too much homeboy you never shut up  

[sturt]

hehe... yes, I'm an ahole, but you love me anyway, admit it, @Spud2nique...

 

Spud posts =

 

Drive-by. And. Soft-serve.

[JayBirdHawk]

18 minutes ago, sturt said:

By "next season's" do you mean 2020 or 2021?

Because... there's now, of course, uncertainty for what the 2020 salary cap will be. Those things are projected, of course, but as I know you know, aren't set in stone until July 1 or shortly thereafter.

I meant 2021 with the understanding that 2020 will also be affected.

The projection at the start of the season started at $116, after the Morey/China debacle, Silver projected $115. 

 

 

 

[sturt]

1) Ok.

2) Right.

[AHF]

17 hours ago, sturt said:

 

@AHF, you're going to have to help me out... exactly which words in any of this is inaccurate, even still taking into account what you just posted???

That the market value by your own admission is a misnomer?

That it's been covered ad nauseum that Ingram's value/trajectory is indeed questionable?

That it's not actually all that different a question for Trae, who also has only come-of-age in a head-turning way within relatively recent history?

That the two were so well regarded that they were selected to an ASG?

That it's not an objective statement to say Collins hasn't yet been considered to be at that level yet?

 

Which?

 

And again.... these are tangential to the real point, but no one seems to want to talk about the real point... perhaps because the real point (Schlenk's blueprint) is widely understood.

And again again... why not concede that maybe Schlenk does think Ingram is worth pursuing? Why is that so hard for people? I've said 233 times now that he might not think he's worth pursuing.

Maybe because I'm attempting balance, and that's just something I value that others don't really. Seems the Occams Razor conclusion to me, anyway.

 

Collins hasn’t made an All-Star team.  He has been thought as being a similar level of player as Ingram by many.

Ingram and Collins present many of the same considerations for teams that are interested in them (similar talent, similar questions about max worthiness, similar profile of weaknesses, etc).  Trae is on another level.

I see nothing in their statistical profiles to think Ingram is clearly on another level from Collins - they each are favored by certain numbers with Collins enjoying the better profile career to date.  I am further confident that GMs will weigh actual play over ASG appearances.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Collins hasn’t made an All-Star team.

Objectively accurate.

1 minute ago, AHF said:

He has been thought as being a similar level of player as Ingram by many.

Subjectively accurate imo ("by many"), but also, something I agree with... and agreed, past tense, with.

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Ingram and Collins present many of the same considerations for teams that are interested in them (similar talent, similar questions about max worthiness, similar profile of weaknesses, etc).  Trae is on another level.

Subjective, and we disagree.

Trae's achilles remains his defense. Remains. He made a little but not very much progress this season. In fact, most all of us acknowledge that, given how much time we spend in discussions about how we can cover for his weaknesses in that way.

And offensively, Trae takes over games, but so does Ingram. Collins? Yeah, but not to the degree those first two have, at least so far.

Bottom line, I'd love to have all three.

I get it why some believe it won't happen, and I mostly agree with that.

I don't get why some don't want it to happen. The word of the day is "absurd."

[AHF]

If TS believes in Ingram, I’m on board with us going after him hard.  He has shown a lot of growth over the last year and is an exciting young player.  

I just very strongly disagreed with the suggestion that Collins and Ingram are meaningfully different as prospects (fit is where they differ (while I am firmly of the belief that Trae is higher impact than either of them.