Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Best Trade/Worst Trade in Hawks History.


Diesel

What was the Worst/Best trade in Hawks History?  

41 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, sturt said:

Dejay, just added you to the PM sent to AHF. Not sure if I save any face having been so severely word-whipped, but I would just re-emphasize, if the question is "what would you do," that's what I would've done (... and if you'll humor me by reading, you'll see why). That's probably, though, a different question than the hindsight question indicated in the OP.

 

Add everyone to the PM, shout it from the top of the mountain 🏔 to everyone that you did so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went Nique 😢 for the worst. 
 

Mookie as the best. Capela is the new best though.

Bittersweet on Willis, obviously loved him but got another one of my fav blue collar Hawks in Grant Long and of course Smitty was great for half a decade for us.

 

ps Hoping down the line we look at moving up to #5 to grab Hunter will be a great one as well. Can’t wait to see him back. 2 way stud.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, sturt said:

Dejay, just added you to the PM sent to AHF. Not sure if I save any face having been so severely word-whipped, but I would just re-emphasize, if the question is "what would you do," that's what I would've done (... and if you'll humor me by reading, you'll see why). That's probably, though, a different question than the hindsight question indicated in the OP.

 

I think there is a stronger case "for" the trade from the perspective of "what decision would you make at that moment."  But it is really more on the long-term perspective that makes that case.

For the short-term view even from the "what you knew at the moment the trade was made" perspective, however, you were choosing not to compete for a title while the window was open or thought that Manning would be the guy to get you a ring both of which are problems for me.  It was a mistake to think the East would remain wide open like it was at the time.  The Hawks' had a decade or so of being shut out as legit contenders because an objectively superior team blocked them off (Bird's Celtics, IT's Pistons, Jordan's Bulls most notably).  The fact that this wide open window had developed while the Hawks were a #1 seed in the East should have been seen as something more precious that Babcock apparently viewed it.   Jordan returning would effectively slam that door shut and you had to be very optimistic to think that Jordan was done forever with basketball in his prime at age 30 when he obviously didn't have the talent to make it as a major league baseball player (his .556 OPS in AA made that very clear, very quickly).   So while Babcock certainly couldn't look at a crystal ball and say when the next juggernaut would arise in the East, he should have been self-aware enough to realize that it was an exception to the rule not to have such a team and that a team built around Manning, Mookie and Augmon, etc. was never going to be such a team in 1993-94. 

Failing to strike while the iron was hot was a big mistake from the perspective of "what would you do in the moment" just as much as it was with the benefit of hindsight.  If Babcock believed that a Manning led team could win a ring that year then I fault his talent evaluation skills on the deal because that obviously wasn't going to happen by taking the guy who was leading his team to a 12-30 record and swapping him out with Nique.  Whether you use a hindsight point of view or look at it at the time, it was a mistake to think this would help us in our goal to win a title that year and I think it was presumptuous to think that there would be a similarly wide open window for any significant length of time in the East even looking through the lens of the moment.  Under either perspective, I think the short-term argument is a slam dunk for keeping Nique and going for it.

For the long-term, I think this is where the case is stronger from a "what decision would you make in that moment" perspective but much worse than the short-term view with the benefit of hindsight.  You could certainly defend a view that Nique was likely to decline in value going forward and that Manning would be a better player to build around for the next 5 years.  This is where you can have debates on whether it is better to take a "flags fly forever" approach and go for a title while the window is open (i.e., keep Nique and go for it) or to make the move that you believe is most likely to keep the team competitive for the next 5 years (i.e., resign Manning).  But as I stated above, I adopt the view for this thread that this should be looked at with the benefit of hindsight and we would have been better playing out the season and letting Nique walk for nothing than doing this trade.  We would have been one first round pick better than we actually were.  And that ignores the upside of getting Nique to resign to lead some Hawks teams that were much, much better than what we got.  So from that perspective I still think it was an abject failure from a hindsight long-term view based on how things played out.  

All of this largely ignores the fan value of having a franchise player play out his time for the team which is an enduring negative legacy of the trade as well.  I don't think that should be ignored but I'm not focusing on it here.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
19 hours ago, Final_quest said:

I’m liking the Capela trade as one of the best as time goes on.  What about trading for Kyle Korver as basically a gift?  That was a cash for Kyle deal.  

Definitely agree on these.  I don't give quite as much credit for the Korver deal since that was just a cap relief deal with another team but that is just my thought process for handicapping trades in this context.  Somebody was going to get KK as a gift.  We happened to be the team that got it and it was great.  Capela is even better, though.  Bigger impact and more of a competitive market for him.  Home run deal for TS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I think there is a stronger case "for" the trade from the perspective of "what decision would you make at that moment."  But it is really more on the long-term perspective that makes that case.

For the short-term view even from the "what you knew at the moment the trade was made" perspective, however, you were choosing not to compete for a title while the window was open or thought that Manning would be the guy to get you a ring both of which are problems for me.  It was a mistake to think the East would remain wide open like it was at the time.  The Hawks' had a decade or so of being shut out as legit contenders because an objectively superior team blocked them off (Bird's Celtics, IT's Pistons, Jordan's Bulls most notably).  The fact that this wide open window had developed while the Hawks were a #1 seed in the East should have been seen as something more precious that Babcock apparently viewed it.   Jordan returning would effectively slam that door shut and you had to be very optimistic to think that Jordan was done forever with basketball in his prime at age 30 when he obviously didn't have the talent to make it as a major league baseball player (his .556 OPS in AA made that very clear, very quickly).   So while Babcock certainly couldn't look at a crystal ball and say when the next juggernaut would arise in the East, he should have been self-aware enough to realize that it was an exception to the rule not to have such a team and that a team built around Manning, Mookie and Augmon, etc. was never going to be such a team in 1993-94. 

Failing to strike while the iron was hot was a big mistake from the perspective of "what would you do in the moment" just as much as it was with the benefit of hindsight.  If Babcock believed that a Manning led team could win a ring that year then I fault his talent evaluation skills on the deal because that obviously wasn't going to happen by taking the guy who was leading his team to a 12-30 record and swapping him out with Nique.  Whether you use a hindsight point of view or look at it at the time, it was a mistake to think this would help us in our goal to win a title that year and I think it was presumptuous to think that there would be a similarly wide open window for any significant length of time in the East even looking through the lens of the moment.  Under either perspective, I think the short-term argument is a slam dunk for keeping Nique and going for it.

For the long-term, I think this is where the case is stronger from a "what decision would you make in that moment" perspective but much worse than the short-term view with the benefit of hindsight.  You could certainly defend a view that Nique was likely to decline in value going forward and that Manning would be a better player to build around for the next 5 years.  This is where you can have debates on whether it is better to take a "flags fly forever" approach and go for a title while the window is open (i.e., keep Nique and go for it) or to make the move that you believe is most likely to keep the team competitive for the next 5 years (i.e., resign Manning).  But as I stated above, I adopt the view for this thread that this should be looked at with the benefit of hindsight and we would have been better playing out the season and letting Nique walk for nothing than doing this trade.  We would have been one first round pick better than we actually were.  And that ignores the upside of getting Nique to resign to lead some Hawks teams that were much, much better than what we got.  So from that perspective I still think it was an abject failure from a hindsight long-term view based on how things played out.  

All of this largely ignores the fan value of having a franchise player play out his time for the team which is an enduring negative legacy of the trade as well.  I don't think that should be ignored but I'm not focusing on it here.

I said pretty much the same thing in the PMs. With Larry Brown on the other sideline instead of riding him like that jockey did Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes when he was at Kansas, Manning had the same 'deer in headlights' look on his face as the rest of the team when the Pacers were undressing them in the Eastern semis. There was no 'this BS stops right here' alpha dog on the Hawks' roster who could give an answer when Reggie Miller, Smits, Byron Scott, or the Davis boys started going nuts in Indianapolis. Nique, for better or for worse, was one of the few in that era who was capable of doing just that; even at age 34. That alone is worth keeping him over making a trade for Manning.

And as I've stated a million times, had someone far more competent been running the show, Nique would've had way more help riding shotgun with him than the stiffs that Lenny brought to the party that postseason. Losing teams like the Sixers or Clippers back then didn't have geniuses running the show, so why not call to see what it would've taken to get a Jeff Hornacek or Ron Harper here as opposed to going to battle with Stacey Augmon or Adam Keefe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History lesson.  Something you may not have been told.  Baseball, years and years ago had 16 major league teams.  8 American League and 8 National League.

The trade that was almost, but wasn't:

Near the end of the season.  The two worst teams in baseball, last place in each league.  They worked and worked on a deal.  Finally, they gave up and it didn't go thru.  The deal?  The swap of entire teams.  The National league worst team and the American League worst team.

😃

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

History lesson.  Something you may not have been told.  Baseball, years and years ago had 16 major league teams.  8 American League and 8 National League.

The trade that was almost, but wasn't:

Near the end of the season.  The two worst teams in baseball, last place in each league.  They worked and worked on a deal.  Finally, they gave up and it didn't go thru.  The deal?  The swap of entire teams.  The National league worst team and the American League worst team.

😃

Woah.  I've never heard of that.  Gotta ask which teams were involved and when that happened?  That is crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AHF said:

Woah.  I've never heard of that.  Gotta ask which teams were involved and when that happened?  That is crazy.

I don't remember which 2 teams were involved.  Probably somewhere in the 1950's.  Not completely crazy.  Just think, the teams would then have a completely new, to them, a minor league system and fans who would want to see their new team.

👨‍🌾

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE   - - MINOR LEAGUERS REFUSED MAJOR CALL UP.

Of the 16 major league teams, I believe the western most team was St. Louis.  When the September rosters were expanded, some teams attempted to call up their AAA players from their west coast teams.

Thing was, the major league teams just wanted to see their minor league players.  The major league teams weren't really going any where.  Remember only 2 teams went to the playoffs.  One from each league.  They went to the World Series at season's end.  Everyone else went home.

West coast AAA league was in a hot race for first place and the opportunity to go to the AAA league championship against other AAA clubs.  The players wanted to play for their championship so they refused the call up.  So they stayed with the AAA club.  

Soon after this the New York Giants and Brooklin Dodgers pulled up stakes and moved west.

👨‍🌾

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

I don't remember which 2 teams were involved.  Probably somewhere in the 1950's.  Not completely crazy.  Just think, the teams would then have a completely new, to them, a minor league system and fans who would want to see their new team.

👨‍🌾

Doing a google search, it may have been Frank Lane who reportedly wanted to trade his entire Indians roster to the Tigers.  References don't say what Detroit would have sent back.

A truly bizarre trade that came up with that was the Atlanta Crackers ( :ahf: ) dealing their broadcaster Ernie Harwell to the Brooklyn Dodgers for catcher Cliff Dapper.  Apparently, the Dodger's broadcaster was out with a bleeding ulcer.  Dapper went on to hit .280 for Atlanta.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Man, I really wanted to pick the Gasol trade as the worst...Pete Babcock and his absolute refusal to build through the draft was the bane of my existence.  Le-sigh...  I hated that trade, but the bigger Babcockian wart was trading Nique...and really just banishing him from the franchise.  Terrible.  Hurts my heart to this day.

For me, the best trade, aside from Capela, was Smitty and Long.  I don't consider JJ a trade...we just gave Phoenix two 1sts and Boris.  I don't believe for one second that they would have matched him and surely two 1sts was overkill.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, sturt said:

Happened upon this just now. This guy... not sure who he is, but he does seem to be an independent observer at first blush... captures a lot of my own sentiment albeit in different words than expressed in the PM conversation.

https://hoopsanalyst.com/?p=2158

 

 

My takes in bold:

image.png

I think the idea of the short-term benefit is completely wrong.  As the author acknowledges later, Nique was a better player at the time and even more important he was a proven fit with that roster that season. When you move a player between teams, performance can change.  It did with Manning whose numbers fell off dramatically.  Not shocking considering he went from stat stuffing on a bottom dweller team to joining a top playoff seed.

The idea this would be better in the long-run and that UFA Manning would resign with the Hawks is the best argument for the trade but it turns out these assumptions were completing wrong.  We would have been better in the long-run not making the deal and Manning wanted nothing to do with us.

image.png

Man, this is some weak sauce.  He makes it out like the Hawks were the 8 seed against the 1 seed Pacers.  We were the top seed in the entire Eastern Conference.  We won 57 games compared to the Pacers 47 games.  It didn't take Nique to go on an "unstoppable scoring sreak" be able to "maybe" beat the Pacers.  The Pacers went right on to lose in the next round.  They were not the stuff of legend.

image.png

This one requires some breakdown.

  1. Whether the trade is justified depends in part on your view on how important it was to seize the day and how much of a drop-off came with dealing Nique for Manning.  The author admits Nique was the "better player at the time."  Remember what time this was.  This was the brief window when Jordan wasn't in the NBA and the Pistons and Boston were no longer contenders.  This was a unique opportunity.  From 1980 to 1998, the East was locked down by (a) the Sixers of Dr. J and Moses Malone; (b) the Pistons of Zeke, Dumars, et al, (c) the Celtics of Bird, Parish and McHale and (d) Jordan's Bulls.  Teams just really didn't have much of a chance to emerge from the East in that period.  But right then, the door was wide open.  Was downgrading your chance to take advantage of that window for the future promise of a Danny Manning led Championship contender worth it?  Not for me.  It should have been obvious to everyone under the sun that no Danny Manning led team was every going to be a contender.  He "led" the Clippers to a 12-30 record that year.  He obviously wasn't a superstar.  So the long-term upside was more about Wilkins expected dropoff than it was about Manning being really special.  My problem with the author's calculas is that when you are the #1 seed in a wide open league in a sport where the dynasties tend to strangle the competition, that is precious and the author doesn't acknowledge this dynamic outside of a reference to it in the introduction.
  2. "With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the Hawks probably should not have the trade."  WTF.  Really?  Probably?  This makes me question the author's intellectual honesty.  It is indisputable that with 20/20 hindsight the Hawks should not have made the trade.  If you bet $20 that a die will come up 1-5, that is a great bet when looking forward.  But if you can look back with 20/20 hindsight and see that a 6 was rolled and you lost your cash then of course it was a bad move with the benefit of hindsight.  This is a shocking equivocation given the 20/20 hindsight qualifier.
  3. Agree with the rest of the statement although he also fails to mention that we lost a draft pick to make the trade happen too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...