Can we and would you guys want both Collins and Cam next season?

[bobrathbun4pres]

I don't post much so forgive me if I'm rehashing old topics etc. This is the only hawks site I read I'm more so a reader than a poster.

I get theres lots of variables in this situation. Max contract, Lonzo rumors, will cam be what we thought he could be, etc...

Just a personal opinion topic. I personally want both on the team but I'm more so favorable to Collins I've loved his style of play since he got here. I think him and trae will get us to the finals one day with Deandre getting more experience lately. I'm not sold on Cam but I'm not ready to give up on him. He isn't Marvin Williams or Childress. I think a certain coach and/or mindset can get him to the level he needs to be.

Also enlighten me on our cap space etc because I don't pay attention to that much so I'm hoping we can keep John atleast next yr

[warcore]

Cam and DeAndre don't need to get paid for 2 more years. So yes we can and should easily have both next year. 

[AHF]

@TheNorthCydeRises The question was a bit confusing to me but as I read it you are supposed to say “yes this person will be on the roster next year” and not “yes I’d be willing to trade them.”  Did you intend to say that you think JC won’t be on the team next year?  Seeing you in favor of trading Cam for London makes me think you are saying you think Cam will be dealt and we will keep JC.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

@TheNorthCydeRises The question was a bit confusing to me but as I read it you are supposed to say “yes this person will be on the roster next year” and not “yes I’d be willing to trade them.”  Did you intend to say that you think JC won’t be on the team next year?  Seeing you in favor of trading Cam for London makes me think you are saying you think Cam will be dealt and we will keep JC.

Yes.  I think we will keep JC.  And between the two, it'll be Cam that gets dealt. 

We're going to see if Ressler is truly about building a winner, because that costs money.  It also means dipping your toes into the Luxury Tax if need be.   Without the normal revenue stream coming in, a lot of these owners may play hardball about paying any tax.  This is why not maxing out JC, and letting the market set his value, was confusing to me . . at first.   

If the plan all along was to give him a 4 year max deal, based off of what someone else was offering, instead of the 5 year max, then I guess it was a good plan. 

As for Cam, I think if he doesn't start becoming more consistent as an offensive ball player, his status here may be in jeopardy.  He's shown flashes of "specialness", but he still plays like he's in high school at times.  We definitely need to see what Nate can do with his game, to get a better evaluation on his talent.  But as I said in the other thread, if Lonzo Ball is offered for him, I'm pulling the trigger on that.

[AUhawksfan]

Not easy to answer.  JC has proven himself now and has shown he can help us down the stretch of games and I think he should be kept and paid accordingly, so yes to him.

Cam is a yes for now, but his time is running out.  I want to see what he can do with Nate and hopefully him having a more normal offseason and year.  To me his timeline would be about this time next year.  If he hasn't shown much but other teams still see potential I feel we have more than adequate players that could fill in if we were to trade him for assets.

[JayBirdHawk]

6 minutes ago, AUhawksfan said:

Not easy to answer.  JC has proven himself now and has shown he can help us down the stretch of games and I think he should be kept and paid accordingly, so yes to him.

Cam is a yes for now, but his time is running out.  I want to see what he can do with Nate and hopefully him having a more normal offseason and year.  To me his timeline would be about this time next year.  If he hasn't shown much but other teams still see potential I feel we have more than adequate players that could fill in if we were to trade him for assets.

He's played 84 games.  The impatience is driving me crazy. 

Lonzo ball was considered a bust in his early Laker days,  same with Ingram - now he's on a max contract. It took Julius Randle in his 7th season to finally be 'something'

I don't have an issue trading him but it has to make sense.

[AUhawksfan]

10 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

He's played 84 games.  The impatience is driving me crazy. 

Lonzo ball was considered a bust in his early Laker days,  same with Ingram - now he's on a max contract. It took Julius Randle in his 7th season to finally be 'something'

I don't have an issue trading him but it has to make sense.

It's not from an impatience standpoint, it's from a business standpoint.  If a guy is starting to come within a year of his contract and hasn't shown to be a fit for our team or any flashes, how can you justify paying him when you are already paying guys that have proven themselves?  You don't want to overpay based on "potential" but you also don't want them to walk for nothing.

I think a year with a full offseason and new coach is plenty of time to at least show flashes of what we know he's capable of.  I'm not asking him to take over games, but I think it's reasonable to see flashes and a little more consistency and I'd be glad to try to lock him up long term.  That to me isn't asking a lot.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 minute ago, AUhawksfan said:

It's not from an impatience standpoint, it's from a business standpoint.  If a guy is starting to come within a year of his contract and hasn't shown to be a fit for our team or any flashes, how can you justify paying him when you are already paying guys that have proven themselves?  You don't want to overpay based on "potential" but you also don't want them to walk for nothing.

I think a year with a full offseason and new coach is plenty of time to at least show flashes of what we know he's capable of.  I'm not asking him to take over games, but I think it's reasonable to see flashes and a little more consistency and I'd be glad to try to lock him up long term.  That to me isn't asking a lot.

But Cam has, he just has not been consistent on offense. And like I said none of Ball or Ingram showed anything prior to their contract years.  What exactly has Ball and Ingram proven, are they racking up wins?

[macdaddy]

We shouldn't be giving up on Cam now.  Yeah his play has been frustrating but it's going to click at some point.

[marco102]

52 minutes ago, AUhawksfan said:

It's not from an impatience standpoint, it's from a business standpoint.  If a guy is starting to come within a year of his contract and hasn't shown to be a fit for our team or any flashes, how can you justify paying him when you are already paying guys that have proven themselves?  You don't want to overpay based on "potential" but you also don't want them to walk for nothing.

I think a year with a full offseason and new coach is plenty of time to at least show flashes of what we know he's capable of.  I'm not asking him to take over games, but I think it's reasonable to see flashes and a little more consistency and I'd be glad to try to lock him up long term.  That to me isn't asking a lot.

This is good for a team standpoint. You can give him a smaller more manageable contract.  If Cam and Hunter both break out, it means the Hawks will be in the luxury tax. No way you let a 6'8+ SG/SF/PF wing players with great defense and good offense go. 

[AUhawksfan]

I never said I was giving up on the guy, but I also think a year is plenty of time for him to prove himself and if he hasn't I think it's normal to at least see what options are out there for him in the market if nothing has changed.

I guess my question for you all is if Cam stayed "as is" (under 40% FG, low 30s% pt, solid defense) would you be ok to ride out his contract and try to re-sign or would you be over it and ok seeing what was out there for some other team that wants to buy in on the potential?

[Peoriabird]

There is no rush to get rid of Cam.  What would be the point of that seeing that he is still on his rookie contract.  There is no reason to consider trading him.  John is a no drainer.  He is easily the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team right now.  Good players don't grow on trees you know.

[REHawksFan]

6 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

He's played 84 games.  The impatience is driving me crazy. 

Lonzo ball was considered a bust in his early Laker days,  same with Ingram - now he's on a max contract. It took Julius Randle in his 7th season to finally be 'something'

I don't have an issue trading him but it has to make sense.

I'm not getting impatient with Cam and don't really look at it that way.  My question is simply this..."Can you trade the potential of Cam for the reality of Player X and be better off for it given the Hawks expected timeline to compete?"  If the answer is yes, pull the trigger.  If the answer is no, don't.  If the answer is not sure, then we have legit discussion about the player.  I think it all depends on whether the Hawks have seen enough to believe Cam will get to be the player they envisioned when drafted in the right timeframe.  

You make a good point about Lanzo and Randle but the Hawks may just think they don't want to wait 4 years or 7 years for him to develop when it's no guarantee that he will.  IF they can trade that potential for a player that has already developed that better fits the timeline, why not do it?   

Also, I've never been under the impression that all of the Hawks draft picks would be kept and play for the Hawks long term and have expected that some of them will be used to trade for other assets.  I'm NOT necessarily saying that player is Lanzo either.  

[AUhawksfan]

58 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

I'm not getting impatient with Cam and don't really look at it that way.  My question is simply this..."Can you trade the potential of Cam for the reality of Player X and be better off for it given the Hawks expected timeline to compete?"  If the answer is yes, pull the trigger.  If the answer is no, don't.  If the answer is not sure, then we have legit discussion about the player.  I think it all depends on whether the Hawks have seen enough to believe Cam will get to be the player they envisioned when drafted in the right timeframe.  

You make a good point about Lanzo and Randle but the Hawks may just think they don't want to wait 4 years or 7 years for him to develop when it's no guarantee that he will.  IF they can trade that potential for a player that has already developed that better fits the timeline, why not do it?   

Also, I've never been under the impression that all of the Hawks draft picks would be kept and play for the Hawks long term and have expected that some of them will be used to trade for other assets.  I'm NOT necessarily saying that player is Lanzo either.  

This is much more eloquently said but is exactly how I feel.  It’s easy to feel attached and I still am rooting hard for Cam but you have to also have to be able to look at it objectively. It’s easy to cherry pick the guys who have done well in the league after taking time to develop but not everyone is Jimmy Butler or Paul George.  That’s not the norm. That’s why I put out the question if Cam stayed “as is” how would fans feel and do they see the benefit of keeping him long term?

[Buzzard]

I do but ... If I could get Ball for Reddish and a bad second ( not OKC 1st ) I would have to consider it. This absolutely goes to Ressler and Schlenk paying Ball and Collins as well. Not Reddish for a rental on Ball; or if it cost us Collins.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Buzzard

[Watchman]

I'd say there are less expensive good defensive players who are bad on offense.  Thabo Sefalosha and Mario West are still out there.

[JayBirdHawk]

8 minutes ago, Watchman said:

I'd say there are less expensive good defensive players who are bad on offense.  Thabo Sefalosha and Mario West are still out there.