The last roster spot

[AHF]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Possible, sure. Why not.

And who knows, maybe TLC has some dirt on TS... like he recorded him saying, "He's got some Frenchman in him." (*wink*)

Possible. No one can legitimately say it's not.

But the discussion, at least from my perspective, is what's likely given the evidence?

It might be likely had we seen something in preseason that was overwhelming from TLC. But none of us seem to think that, including yourself.

What we did see in preseason is TS' stated pre-camp expectations about Dre's health being somewhat disappointed... the kind of thing where you're not really super concerned, but just enough to prompt some change in reason, and his better angels telling him better to get some wing insurance.

Likely. Highly, just going off what we know.

I'm not sure about that given what we saw last year (where we were fine with limited depth among our big men with known injury issues among our big men on opening night).  The most I'm comfortable saying that I'm highly confident in is that TS viewed TLC as the best fit among wings since that is consistent with the idea that TS was focused on adding wing insurance (perhaps for the reasons you suggest) and also consistent with the idea that TS preferred TLC to all other available players.

[Gray Mule]

What matters most is, Nate and Travis both like Timothe, therefore he's now a Hawk and among the 15 final players on the roster.

If they both like him then we do too!

[sturt]

  

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'm not sure about that given what we saw last year (where we were fine with limited depth among our big men with known injury issues among our big men on opening night).

 

 

Sooooo... you're trying to tell me, when Schlenk said to Kirschner in early August...

 

...he'd forgotten about the start of last season, and failed to include that in his reasoning, and therefore we should disregard the comment as irrelevant.

Okay.

 

Can't go there with you, obviously. Oh well.

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

What matters most is, Nate and Travis both like Timothe, therefore he's now a Hawk and among the 15 final players on the roster.

If they both like him then we do too!

Gray, my friend, that they "like" TLC better than other options is self-evident.

And.

That their judgment would have been affected by a pre-camp expectation of Dre's health not coming to fruition? That's also self-evident.

I'm not sure why it's so important for people to somehow minimize the what we know parts of this and inflate the plausible assumptions parts of this. (My Spidey sense says to remember how our good friends AHF and Jay have each others' backs with no fail as far as I've ever seen... but that itself is mere plausible assumption, so I'll avoid going there.)

Bottom line is this: While, yes, TLC is liked and on our roster, the actually-salient point is so much more that Dre's health remains a bigger question mark than TS had anticipated at this stage.

And 12 games in 20 days (if I counted correctly) is very possibly going to seriously test that health.

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

  

 

 

Sooooo... you're trying to tell me, when Schlenk said to Kirschner in early August...

 

...he'd forgotten about the start of last season, and failed to include that in his reasoning, and therefore we should disregard the comment as irrelevant.

Okay.

 

Can't go there with you, obviously. Oh well.

I don't view this statement as being nearly as strong as you do: "maybe we'll look to address [being a little light at the big spot]."  What he ultimately did is consistent with a view that:

1. Hunter took a turn for the worse and TS shifted his focus to building up the wing spot.  (Your view).
2. TS decided that he preferred TLC over available bigs and so wanted to go with the better player.
3. TS decided that the available bigs were interchangable while wing depth was more scarce and so there was no need to prioritize a big as he could always cut TLC and pick up one of the available bigs or someone of their caliber.
4. TS decided that John Collins is fine to essentially be our third center and he was ok giving Gallo, Hunter and Jalen minutes at PF and filling the SF minutes with Cam, Huerter, Bogi and JJ to fill the gaps if JC ended up playing more in the post.
5. Other reasons or any combination of these.

While I feel confident saying that TS preferred TLC over other wings, I don't have the same level of confidence you do in there being a big downgrade in Hunter's health outlook from a statement that we were a "little" light and that "maybe" he would end up getting a big.

I don't think that is actually a problem.  Just a matter of how much emphasis put on any one statement, factor, etc.  We all have limited information and process it through our own filters.

[sturt]

31 minutes ago, sturt said:

And who knows, maybe TLC has some dirt on TS... like he recorded him saying, "He's got some Frenchman in him." (*wink*)

Possible. No one can legitimately say it's not.

Was really hoping for some chuckle... multiple ones, actually... on that one, but maybe even after all these years, the wound is still too fresh... hehe.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Was really hoping for some chuckle... multiple ones, actually... on that one, but maybe even after all these years, the wound is still too fresh... hehe.

That was a good line.  Just focused on the rest of the post so went back and added it.

You do seem to be getting your head wrapped around an axel for all the reasons why I might be disagreeing with you other than the fact that I just don't have the same level of confidence in your conclusion on this issue that you do.  Sometimes there aren't 3 levels of conspiracies and people just see things differently and here we don't even see them very differently.

[Gray Mule]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

Gray, my friend, that they "like" TLC better than other options is self-evident.

And.

 

And 12 games in 20 days (if I counted correctly) is very possibly going to seriously test that health.

Yes!  The NBA made sure that Atlanta would be in great shape for the beginning of the season OR they would buried.  Remember, Nate questioned the team, if they were really in shape?  We're about to find out.

Some Hawks missed pre season games and others had minute limitations on them.  We're not really in game shape yet (unless it has just happened) but we must carry on and hope for the best.

Atlanta is deep.  This will be tested right away.  Wonder how deep our opponents are?  In 20 days we will have the answers to many questions.

GO ATL HAWKS !!

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't view this statement as being nearly as strong as you do: "maybe we'll look to address [being a little light at the big spot]."  What he ultimately did is consistent with a view that:

1. Hunter took a turn for the worse and TS shifted his focus to building up the wing spot.  (Your view).
2. TS decided that he preferred TLC over available bigs and so wanted to go with the better player.
3. TS decided that the available bigs were interchangable while wing depth was more scarce and so there was no need to prioritize a big as he could always cut TLC and pick up one of the available bigs or someone of their caliber.
4. TS decided that John Collins is fine to essentially be our third center and he was ok giving Gallo, Hunter and Jalen minutes at PF and filling the SF minutes with Cam, Huerter, Bogi and JJ to fill the gaps if JC ended up playing more in the post.
5. Other reasons or any combination of these.

While I feel confident saying that TS preferred TLC over other wings, I don't have the same level of confidence you do in there being a big downgrade in Hunter's health outlook from a statement that we were a "little" light and that "maybe" he would end up getting a big.

I don't think that is actually a problem.  Just a matter of how much emphasis put on any one statement, factor, etc.  We all have limited information and process it through our own filters.

Um. Noticed you bothered to cite the quote... and then you didn't speak to what was quoted... or did I miss something?

Clever. Tip of the cap to your professional training. (No sarcasm.) When you offer up something that seems a little specious in hindsight... like that Schlenk simply forgot about 2021 and had he remembered, he wouldn't have reasoned like he was reasoning nor, then, misspoken as he spoke... just put it in the past.

 

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

That was a good line.  Just focused on the rest of the post so went back and added it.

Not that you specifically should have enjoyed it.... but I was quite sure you did.

[sillent]

34 minutes ago, sturt said:

  

 

 

Sooooo... you're trying to tell me, when Schlenk said to Kirschner in early August...

 

...he'd forgotten about the start of last season, and failed to include that in his reasoning, and therefore we should disregard the comment as irrelevant.

Okay.

 

Can't go there with you, obviously. Oh well.

Is his contract guaranteed?

Are there known bigs available right now that would fit our squad?

You may be looking too hard into this one.

As much as I'm not a fan of TLC I do trust Travis and his grand scheme of things. I also know he may not even touch the floor with us during the regular season besides spot minutes and cigar time (blow outs).

True Solo was in this position last yr but Solo lucked up because of injuries and earned his minutes. Honestly I felt about the same with Solo then that I do now with TLC. Maybe TLC surprises like Snell and Solo did last yr before the playoffs.

Nothing wrong with a little short term insurance while we use these next 2 months to figure out our official move with him.

 

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't view this statement as being nearly as strong as you do: "maybe we'll look to address [being a little light at the big spot]."

It is irrefutably "strong" if we're comparing that with "maybe since conventionally speaking we have 6 wings on the roster, we'll look to address wing."

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

What he ultimately did is consistent with a view that:

1. Hunter took a turn for the worse and TS shifted his focus to building up the wing spot.  (Your view).

Given what we know, that is... yes, irrefutably... the most likely, since...

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

TS decided that he preferred TLC over available bigs and so wanted to go with the better player.

...none of us, including yourself, have any reason to believe TLC so wowed anyone in preseason that his performance changed TS' mind.

Then, to this...

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

TS decided that the available bigs were interchangable while wing depth was more scarce and so there was no need to prioritize a big as he could always cut TLC and pick up one of the available bigs or someone of their caliber.

... that's not a reason to go with TLC. It's not. If you think you need a wing, you're going to go get the best wing you can get for the price you're willing to pay, and if you think you need a big, you're going to do the same. Using that logic, TS might have just as likely picked up a point guard if he thought the remaining pool was thin. No, that's not logical. You know you need to fill a void, and you fill that void.

It's certainly comforting if TS had that perception that he could get insurance now, and later if Dre's knee became 100%, he could get any of a number of bigs. But that's all that is.

24 minutes ago, AHF said:

TS decided that John Collins is fine to essentially be our third center and he was ok giving Gallo, Hunter and Jalen minutes at PF and filling the SF minutes with Cam, Huerter, Bogi and JJ to fill the gaps if JC ended up playing more in the post.

For this one, it begs the question "what changed?" Did TS learn that JC can be a 3rd center sometime since early August?

 

That's the tipping point between plausible and likely, dontcha know... what changed.

 

The one thing that we know changed is that TS thought Dre would be "full go" to start the season. No assumption.

And, then, that Dre isn't. No assumption.

 

Could there be some nuances here... could there be other factors we have no insight into? Sure. I'd even offer that there often is.

But I keep saying it... I'm examining what we know and concluding what is likely.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, and again, bigger point is not TLC's status, but that Dre's isn't what TS anticipated. Not reason for super concern, but definitely.... reason for concern.

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, sillent said:

Is his contract guaranteed?

Nothing has been reported to say TLC didn't get the same non-guaranteed minimum contract that Solo got last year.... which by the way, is consistent with what Schlenk thought "might be" (... hehe...) what would happen.

[hazer]

5 minutes ago, sillent said:

Is his contract guaranteed?

You may be looking too hard into this one.

 

 

That theeeere is called overthinking, Clark  

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, sillent said:

Nothing wrong with a little short term insurance

To be clear, I'm not upset by the decision. Insurance is important to have, and increasingly so to the degree that you perceive a risk. I'm confident TS made the best decision.

[sturt]

34 minutes ago, hazer said:

 

That theeeere is called overthinking, Clark  

 

Nope.

Might be accurate if the bottom line was "who is our #15 player"... but it's not... and it's not.

That theeeere is called failure to read for comprehension, Lewis Eddie.

 

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Bottom line is this: While, yes, TLC is liked and on our roster, the actually-salient point is so much more that Dre's health remains a bigger question mark than TS had anticipated at this stage.

And 12 games in 20 days (if I counted correctly) is very possibly going to seriously test that health.

 

  

39 minutes ago, sturt said:

Could there be some nuances here... could there be other factors we have no insight into? Sure. I'd even offer that there often is.

But I keep saying it... I'm examining what we know and concluding what is likely.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, and again, bigger point is not TLC's status, but that Dre's isn't what TS anticipated. Not reason for super concern, but definitely.... reason for concern.

 

[hazer]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

Nope.

Might be accurate if the bottom line was "who is our #15 player"... but it's not... and it's not.

That theeeere is called failure to read for comprehension, Lewis.

 

 

 

Eddie. It’s Eddie. Lewis burned down the tree  

Edited October 21, 2021 by hazer

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Um. Noticed you bothered to cite the quote... and then you didn't speak to what was quoted... or did I miss something?

Clever. Tip of the cap to your professional training. (No sarcasm.) When you offer up something that seems a little specious in hindsight... like that Schlenk simply forgot about 2021 and had he remembered, he wouldn't have reasoned like he was reasoning nor, then, misspoken as he spoke... just put it in the past.

 

Spoke directly to the quote not sure what you are talking about.  He acknowledged we were a "little light" on bigs and that we "might" use the last roster spot on a big.  That is the same action he took under the same dynamic in 2020.  I then offered different reasons this might be the case.  Not sure what else you are looking for.  

I'm just going to speak to this one since all the others are you interpreting the quote as being a stronger and more definitive statement of TS's intentions than I read it:

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

Then, to this...

TS decided that the available bigs were interchangable while wing depth was more scarce and so there was no need to prioritize a big as he could always cut TLC and pick up one of the available bigs or someone of their caliber.

... that's not a reason to go with TLC. It's not. If you think you need a wing, you're going to go get the best wing you can get for the price you're willing to pay, and if you think you need a big, you're going to do the same. Using that logic, TS might have just as likely picked up a point guard if he thought the remaining pool was thin. No, that's not logical. You know you need to fill a void, and you fill that void.

 

I don't know if you've ever been a GM or played fantasy sports or done anything like this but this is absolutely a reason to make a move like this.  We are talking about the 15th roster spot which shouldn't really play many if any minutes this season since spots 1-14 are all good players.  We don't have an immediate need to fill today.  So we are talking about a developmental player or a contingency option.  If there is scarcity at a particular position and not at another that is absolutely a good reason to fill the spot with the position of scarcity.  If 6 weeks from now we need the player in that 15th roster spot and the need is for a big, we can just go pick up Okafor or some other interchangable big (using the assumption built into the premise that TS views the available bigs as interchangable).  But if he needs a wing and availability is scarce, there may be no one available comparable to TLC in TS's eyes. 

Fantasy is an easy point of comparison.  In fantasy baseball, it is the case in many league formats that you are better off holding an extra closer on your roster rather than an extra outfielder because every viable or high potential closer is taken while comparable outfielders are a dime a dozen.  If you later need to pick up an OF, just pick up one of your choice because all the available ones will be fairly comparable but if you end up needing another closer then you will have no viable options to pick from.

For a non-fantasy example, it is like being offered a rib sandwich or hamburger.  You don't know what you are going to want for lunch in an hour but if you want the rib sandwich you have to take it now whereas if you want a hamburger you know there will be a dozen of them to grab that are all interchangable.  In that situation, the logical move is to grab the asset (rib sandwich) that won't be available later knowing you can always get a hamburger later if you decide to dump the rib sandwich (i.e., cut the non-guaranateed TLC) and flip to a hamburger.

Between wing and center, there are two positions where you can make a case for a "break in case of emergency" need for more depth.  I think there is less chance of that with 4 PGs healthy and available but if there were interchangable wings and centers and only one or two good PGs available then it might very well be logical to go with that candidate.  

In any event, I firmly disagree with the notion that it is logical to take the fungible asset over the scarce one if you preserve perfect flexibility to change between them down the line.

[sturt]

36 minutes ago, AHF said:

Spoke directly to the quote not sure what you are talking about.

Nope. But that's okay.

 

He'd forgotten about the start of last season when he said this?

 

Nah. He was cognizant of last season when he said this.

[sturt]

39 minutes ago, AHF said:

We are talking about the 15th roster spot which shouldn't really play many if any minutes this season since spots 1-14 are all good players.  We don't have an immediate need to fill today.  So we are talking about a developmental player or a contingency option.  If there is scarcity at a particular position and not at another that is absolutely a good reason to fill the spot with the position of scarcity. 

You have to decide what you need for today. That is, where is it more likely a contingency option will be needed?

Because this is only a non-guaranteed contract, you can go get something different whenever (of course). And the pool for that position today is the pool for that position today.

If you perceive you need something different in two weeks, you gain nothing from having chosen a different position player due to a scarcity in the pool previously.

Nothing. Nothing.

You gain no advantage at either point, now, or later.

1. Getting what's best for you right now from the pool doesn't hurt you from getting what's best in two weeks or help you in two weeks.

2. Getting what's best for you in two weeks doesn't have any retroactive impact on your choices today.

"Non-guaranteed minimum" is key here.

Otherwise, it would be as you're asserting that you have to be cognizant of the pool today and what the pool might look like later.