Hawks Free Agent Targets

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Spud? Spud likes everyone all the time. He's not foolin anyone..

Yes I’m a huge fan of all our squawkers! Guilty as charged I lovem to death !!!

[Spud2nique]

3 hours ago, kg01 said:

, I'm in a budding fistfight with a Knick fan about

Meanwhile kg and Bird are picking on Jerry Krause in the bus I mean... a Knicks fan . I give Knicks fans credit for knowing ball but I’m also worried they can’t recognize talent since 99. Spree and Camby are rollin over right now. 
 

Ps Frank is really good on D but when I watch him I feel like his offense won’t get better. That puts a ceiling on what I’d give back, probably a 2nd rounder.

[kg01]

15 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Meanwhile kg and Bird are picking on Jerry Krause in the bus I mean... a Knicks fan . I give Knicks fans credit for knowing ball but I’m also worried they can’t recognize talent since 99. Spree and Camby are rollin over right now. 
 

Ps Frank is really good on D but when I watch him I feel like his offense won’t get better. That puts a ceiling on what I’d give back, probably a 2nd rounder.

This is the most wordy and mean way to just say you agree with me.  Smh, bro.  Smh

[Spud2nique]

I’m finally going to concede and pay full respects to Spud, a guy that really knows his basketball . I will also admit that we would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than signing Ingram. 
 

And I also wanna know... WHEN WILL BIRD GIVE ME A LIKE? #stewie

[kg01]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

I’m finally going to concede and pay full respects to Spud, a guy that really knows his basketball . I will also admit that we would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than signing Ingram. 
 

And I also wanna know... WHEN WILL BIRD GIVE ME A LIKE? #stewie

..... gold, jerry.

[kg01]

3 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

I’m finally going to concede and pay full respects to Spud, a guy that really knows his basketball . I will also admit that we would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than signing Ingram. 
 

And I also wanna know... WHEN WILL BIRD GIVE ME A LIKE? #stewie

I absolutely thought I was responding to stu.  I gotta have reconstructive surgery to get the hook outta my cheek.

You win today, stud2nique

[AHF]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

 

You mean this statement?

  

Nope. Still stand by it.

All of that.

 

But let's even do a deeper dive on your friend and mine, Jimmy Butler III.

Butler? Offered an extension. Turned it down. Bet on himself.

Ingram? As you know, Ingram wasn't even offered an extension to turn down and bet on himself.

 

And that might be one hint at why there are mixed beliefs among independent third party NBA executives.

If there was that much concern about him before, it's not stupid to think, after the truth serum was injected, there would still be some admitted concern.

You know what we can agree that Jimmy Butler's case probably establishes though?

That is, it will take NOP doing what CHI did, and in fact putting actions to words... they can max him in years and money, and in doing that, they will avoid any offers coming forward at all.

Doesn't sound like the independent third parties are persuaded that is gonna happen, seemingly for some diversity of reasons.

 

But I'm the bad guy, of course for agreeing that there is even legitimate reason to doubt. Right? Well, let's qualify that... I'm the bad guy to the 3-4 people who are ad. a. mant. that it's not legitimate to doubt.

And/but I'm okay with that.

(Aside: Someday Jay will like me again. I just know it doggone it.... Spud? Spud likes everyone all the time. He's not foolin anyone... then there's you, and I'm not even sure that you're arguing for the 0-1% thing so much as you're wanting to come to their rescue with some modicum of rationale to allow for some integrity to their position. I say that b/c, in the past, you've seemed much more reserved about it, and arguably dropped a hint or two iirc that you too would lean more toward the 10% than the 0-1%.)

 

I've given you thoughts on why NOP in particular should want to keep Ingram.  Went through every rookie lottery pick for a number of years and every top WS player for the last 10 years.  I've given you 10 years of records of teams keeping every player like Ingram whether by extension or resigning. 

I will point out that coming into this season when an extension would have been offered to Ingram two big things were in play:

(1) Ingram had a blood clot issue that was potentially career threatening.

(2) Ingram was coming off three seasons in which he had totaled 4.7 win shares.  John Collins had 5.4 win shares his rookie year alone.  Jeff Teague, who was not anything great in his early years, had 8.2 win shares over his first 3 seasons.

So this is not shocking that the Pelicans wanted to see how this season progressed and how Ingram's health progressed before committing to a long-term extension.  And what was the hurry?  They have the ultimate trump card.  RFA status.  They could do just like the Bulls did - let the season play out and then resign him for market value with much better information about that value than they had coming in to the year.

Amazingly, you accuse me of bad faith and then don't even acknowledge the stunning lack of common courtesy when it is pointed out.  Feeble effort sturt.  You are better than this.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

I’m finally going to concede and pay full respects to Spud, a guy that really knows his basketball . I will also admit that we would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than signing Ingram. 
 

And I also wanna know... WHEN WILL BIRD GIVE ME A LIKE? #stewie

Oh Spuuuuuuuud....you got me, almost 

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

..... gold, jerry.

He threw that hook, lol.

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

I absolutely thought I was responding to stu.  I gotta have reconstructive surgery to get the hook outta my cheek.

You win today, stud2nique

Anybody home

 

[sturt]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

I've given you thoughts on why NOP in particular should want to keep Ingram.  Went through every rookie lottery pick for a number of years and every top WS player for the last 10 years.  I've given you 10 years of records of teams keeping every player like Ingram whether by extension or resigning. 

I will point out that coming into this season when an extension would have been offered to Ingram two big things were in play:

(1) Ingram had a blood clot issue that was potentially career threatening.

(2) Ingram was coming off three seasons in which he had totaled 4.7 win shares.  John Collins had 5.4 win shares his rookie year alone.  Jeff Teague, who was not anything great in his early years, had 8.2 win shares over his first 3 seasons.

So this is not shocking that the Pelicans wanted to see how this season progressed and how Ingram's health progressed before committing to a long-term extension.  And what was the hurry?  They have the ultimate trump card.  RFA status.  They could do just like the Bulls did - let the season play out and then resign him for market value with much better information about that value than they had coming in to the year.

Amazingly, you accuse me of bad faith and then don't even acknowledge the stunning lack of common courtesy when it is pointed out.  Feeble effort sturt.  You are better than this.

First, regarding the "bad faith" accusation, and the "feeble effort" condemnation...

Old friend, you get it, do you not, that the righteous indignation card is one I could have long ago played, but notably didn't... ie, in light of all these times now, including this newest one, that you've posted without any evident response to the independent expertise presented... as-if you're smarter than they are, and too, as-if HS posters, me included, aren't sharp enough to catch the deflection and perceive your disregard.

Second, as a professional arguer, someone whose education is partly devoted to studying the art and science of persuasion, you know that repeating yourself isn't actually a way of countering anything said.

Rather, that's all it is... repeating yourself.

(Aside: But indeed, sometimes people fail to catch that if one chooses the right words and phrasing. And yes, I too am repeating myself, but only in the sense that the same stuff is being floated, and I'm thus naturally repeating some of what I've said previously to that same stuff.)

And what parts you didn't repeat yourself are parts that I myself already raised. So, I'm not sure why it's put forward as-if new information... or, more importantly, new information that somehow changes the bottom line.

For instance, I too had already spoken to the health question. And it still remains the case that the player, given the choice of explaining his lack of an extension on the basis of his underwhelming performance for practically all of his career previously, versus on the basis of his health... it's no mystery what he's going to say... any more than, similarly, it should surprise anyone that the NOP FO has any incentive to not talk as-if they're going to do whatever it takes to re-sign him... motives kinda matter when we're assessing the reality versus the desired perception of reality... what-is versus what-people-would-like-others-to-believe-is.

I don't make the rules. And I'm not even citing rules that everyone otherwise fails to understand. I'm just apparently decidedly less adverse than the "0-1 percenters" to take them into account in assessing the overall Ingram RFA situation.

We agree there was no hurry and nothing wrong with the Pels FO deciding to let him become an RFA.

You get that, right?

Where we disagree, if I understand correctly, is that I maintain that that makes this a qualitatively different situation, while you maintain that merely because you can explain the FO's position as rational (and again, it was), then that somehow automatically restores the overall assessment of Ingram by their FO to what it would have been.

But where we continue to disagree most prominently is that you seem to insist that your perspective is somehow better informed than the GMs who the ESPN reporter spoke with--that they only need to learn at your feet, and then they will come around to understanding what you and the small band of 0-1 percenters are advocating.

That's bass-ackwards.

Is it "bad faith" for me to say it that way? I dunno. Is it a "feeble effort" on my part? I dunno. I bow to your wisdom if you perceive there was/is some better way for it to be communicated than I've communicated it.

I would, though, caution you should consider that it's somewhat different when there is a cheerleading squad on one side of a deliberative process, and not on the other side. In other words, forgive the double-negative, but it is not unnatural for the "other" side in that situation to more or less dispense with filtering words to try to appease anyone's sensitivities. There's a presumption that we're adults, and as long as we keep the substance part of the discussion the substance, it will all be okay, and especially so given that there's a small gang assembled on the other side of the issue who don't seem to give a crap about balance and objectivity anyhow that would be congruent with filtering words.

 

4 hours ago, AHF said:

But I'm the bad guy, of course for agreeing that there is even legitimate reason to doubt. Right? Well, let's qualify that... I'm the bad guy to the 3-4 people who are ad. a. mant. that it's not legitimate to doubt.

And/but I'm okay with that.

(Aside: Someday Jay will like me again. I just know it doggone it.... Spud? Spud likes everyone all the time. He's not foolin anyone... then there's you, and I'm not even sure that you're arguing for the 0-1% thing so much as you're wanting to come to their rescue with some modicum of rationale to allow for some integrity to their position. I say that b/c, in the past, you've seemed much more reserved about it, and arguably dropped a hint or two iirc that you too would lean more toward the 10% than the 0-1%.)

And in closing shop for the night... and I've got 8 hours of travel tomorrow, so again it's very likely the floor will be yielded for awhile after I click "submit"... I still am not sure if you actually are committed to the 0-1% side of this.

Now, maybe you are. Maybe once you latched onto this new question, and you got some attaboys from the band, you did persuade yourself after all that your insight based on a sample size that numbers zero... or if we set aside the comparison of being offered an extension, grows to an entire one other comparative player... over the insight of people who are actual GMs who did not see the same certainty that the 0-1 percenters see.

But previous to this newest exchange, that didn't come across. Instead, as I said before, it was my perception (perhaps erroneous) that your comments, sparing as they may have been, seemed to indicate an appreciation for the GMs insight and maybe even some of the other logic and factoids presented as evidence.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But if that's more right than you'd like to admit, it's understandable anyhow how that might have evolved. It's uncomfortable to agree with someone that some of our better friends aren't agreeing with.

 

Ultimately, of course, none of it matters because we all agree it is unlikely that Schlenk will be successful if he pursues Ingram, and it is also true that it is unlikely that Schlenk will willingly allow any pursuit he might mount to be made public. I'm on record that there's about a 60% chance NOP re-signs him (ie, a "landslide" in presidential election terms, of course), and if not NOP, there's about a 30% chance NYK gets him signed to an offer sheet.

Now, will some reporter learn from Ingram's agent that ATL is in the hunt? Maybe. But to be fair, that again will be questionable because his agent has every incentive... like every agent will this time around, given ATL's cap space... to push that as reality, even if it's only illusion... like the girl flirting with the other guy only, in reality, to try to make her actual target show her more attention/interest and do more to win her affection.

Ultimately, it also will be questionable if Schlenk denies pursuing Ingram. He, like Ingram's agent, only has incentive to admit to that if, indeed, it benefits him... in this case, that means that an offer sheet with ATL gets signed and gets presented to NOP.

And one more "ultimately," and the most important one from my perspective, even as I also have to preface that you've heard this one before... this discussion for me is only a case support for the larger proposition... so, it's not actually about Ingram, not actually about Davis, not actually about Wood, or anyone else...

It's about the larger proposition that says if we take what Schlenk has said in the past and what he's said recently, it all congeals around supporting his guiding philosophy which he has openly advocated... first, to accumulate high-end talent through the draft... then second, just before that talent begins to transition to veteran contracts from the cheapo rookie ones, use the cap space he's accumulated through judicious previous vet free agent contracts to accumulate the top-most tier of talented players he can... and, then, last and the part barely discussed... third, having amassed the greatest amount of talent he can, to sculpt the roster through trading some of it, to better balance the roster at the various positions.

Over and out. But know I still love you, bro, even if you still refuse to abandon the boneheaded attitude and position of the 0-1 percenters. 

[AHF]

Still no justification for or backing off accusing me of bad faith.  Bad form.

 

On the odds of Ingram coming to Atlanta, that is dependent on two factors:

1 - Is TS interested and willing to outbid the competition?

I think this is not certain but very possible.

2 - Is NO prepared to let him go in FA if his ultimate contact exceeds their desired budget?

I think this is extremely unlikely and that they would keep him to trade him ala GS and Russell even if they didn’t want to keep him long term.  But I do ultimately concede that none of us are in the budget discussions for the Pelicans and you therefore can’t rule this out completely.  I would definitely put this higher than 0% but much lower than 10%.  Not sure the exact number matters but I guess I would speculate it is 1-2 times out of 100 such scenarios that a team with RFA rights would allow a player of Ingram’s status (potential, past productivity, attitude, etc) to leave and join another team in FA.

[kg01]

10 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

What's going on in here?

Smells like a bar room brawl is a' brewin'.  I'm innocent this time. 

[Peoriabird]

12 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

What's going on in here?

Isn't this an "Ask Supes" Thread? So you should be telling us!

[ShooterSays]

Yeah can we take the back and forth arguing somewhere else? Hate having to flip through multiple pages of nonsense just to find Supe's latest update in an "Ask Supes" thread.

[Spud2nique]

3 minutes ago, ShooterSays said:

Yeah can we take the back and forth arguing somewhere else? Hate having to flip through multiple pages of nonsense just to find Supe's latest update in an "Ask Supes" thread.

Sure Supes no problem.

[JayBirdHawk]

8 minutes ago, ShooterSays said:

Yeah can we take the back and forth arguing somewhere else? Hate having to flip through multiple pages of nonsense just to find Supe's latest update in an "Ask Supes" thread.

Maybe @AHF can move the discussion to the appropriate thread?

[AHF]

Who do you want to target?  What price point do you hope to get them at?  What, if any, ramifications does this have for the rest of the roster?  Do you think TS will go hard or conserve money for the future?

Why are you dumping posts from other threads in here?  Well - for that one because this thread is intended to clean up Supes thread and to serve as a broad topic for our approach to free agency.

 

Forgot that threads populate in chronological order regardless of the opening post.  Copied this to the first post.

[Buzzard]

I did not think of this player but I like his shooting. Word is the Pistons tried to move him at the deadline for a pick. Langston Galloway. They call him a combo guard but I don't see any comparison to a PG except he is only 6'1".

If we overpay for Bertans, Harris, or Harrell etc  ( which is what I also read ) then Galloway could be a cheaper option as one more shooter on the bench.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Buzzard

[kg01]

I still hope we target Grant as a backup.  Dunn as a backup.  Both would really help us.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I did not think of this player but I like his shooting. Word is the Pistons tried to move him at the deadline for a pick. Langston Galloway. They call him a combo guard but I don't see any comparison to a PG except he is on 6'1".

If we overpay for Bertans, Harris, or Harrell etc  ( which is what I also read ) then Galloway could be a cheaper option as one more shooter on the bench.

He does two things:

(1)  Shoots 3's pretty well

(2) Doesn't turn the ball over (lowest to% in the league each of the last two seasons)

 

You could do worse knowing he is a limited role player.

[JayBirdHawk]

Backup PG, Wing, PF.

Besides the usual high target UFA names: VanVleet, Harris, Bertans, Harrell....

At the trade deadline I wanted us to trade for Beasley and Hernangomez...I guess we can pursue them in FA. Likely than Minny matches RFA offer for Beasely though. Bring him home to GA.