The cobbled together, stuff we held on to during the playoffs mega super rumor and team direction thread.

[Spud2nique]

10 minutes ago, JTB said:

I strongly believe that Gobert will be a Hawk this off season some how but just not sure for whom yet. It’s definitely going to be a trade package around either Hunter or Collins. Definitely not both of Hunter and Collins in the same deal though.

I also believe Malcom Brogdon is a strong target with Indy rebuilding. 
 

I’ve been playing around with the trade machine to try to get a realistic trade that works for all teams.

 

 

above is my latest trade idea that I believe works all around. 
 

TRADE Breakdowns

Jazz:

Hunter (newly signed contract at 14mil per season) + Huerter for Gobert

 

Since the Jazz is intrigued by Hunter I did a SnT giving Hunter 14m per year (which I believe he will likely get this off season) then added Huerter as a filler who’s liked around the league for Gobert.

I realize that this trade leaves the Jazz thin at Center but I figured since this would be considered a beginning of a rebuild around Mitchell then Jazz would probably resign Derrick Favors to play starting center similar to what they’ve done in the past when Gobert was injured. At the very least Jazz gets their perimeter defender they want in Hunter to pair with Mitchell plus a much younger shooter in Red Velvet.

 

Raptors:

OG for Capela 

Word is the Raptors need a center…a true center not a small ball center. Well with the Hawks acquiring Gobert in trade they can already have a deal on the table with the Raptors as long as the Gobert deal goes through. Trade Capela to the Raptors to give them a true center and get back a two way SF in OG to replace Hunter. Personally looking at the Raps I think with the emergence of Scottie Barnes and Gary Trent Jr , OG could possibly get the short end of the stick or in this case be placed on trade block. 

The Raps getting Capela to pair with Siakam would be big time for them in my opinion. I see this as a fair deal on both sides and one that Ujiri would really consider.

 

Indiana:

Gallo for Brogdon

This one is easy but very interesting. First off the trade is a no brainer Hawks get Brogdon a true secondary playmaker and a guy who can really create his own shot and play good defense (of course when healthy). Pacers get off of Brogdons contract and create cap space by trading and not resigning Gallo on his current contract. Meanwhile they continue to rebuild around Halliburton.

Again easy trade to pull off…I am not concerned about Brogdons injury history. In this day and age all these players have some kind of injury history seem like. I think what’s interesting in this Brogdon trade is that there was apparently some flair up between him and Nate McMillan back in Indy when both were there but I’m confident both are mature enough to get over whatever that was (*cough* offense system).

 

2022-2023 Hawks starting lineup

PG - Trae

SG - Brogdon 

SF - OG Anouby

PF - Collins 

C - Gobert 

Bench

PG - Wright

SG - Bogi (sixth man)

SF - TLC ???

PF - Jalen Johnson 

C - OKungwu 

 

We added an elite yet historic defensive minded center Gobert. A true secondary scorer in Brogdon who can also playmaker and defend well. A two way player in OG who’s actually a better scorer than Hunter at the time. We keep Collins who the front office believes will be more impactful with a better center (Gobert). 
More physical and aggressive players around Trae which I think JC would feed off on.

I kinda dig this. Only reason I hesitate is because Gobert and Brog are made of the same cloth. A conservative quiet cloth. That could be good but both guys being super timid personalities.. I guess it could be good on the other hand.

Im down.

ps I had OG as my target in 2017, we got JC I’m happy but OG is a quiet winner.

Love OG and OO being together.

Ya, where do I sign?

[JayBirdHawk]

31 minutes ago, JTB said:

did a SnT giving Hunter 14m

I don't think you can SnT Hunter since he's not  RFA. you can early extend him but you can use his new salary value in trade.

Injury history or not, I don't see Hunter accepting $14 mil. His salary next season is $9.8 mil. He'll take his chances as a RFA in the hopes of having a healthy season and hoping a team offers him more.

His max is $30 mil....I can see him being offered $20 mil with the contract details excluding his knee using the exhibit ?? (can't remember letter or number) and/or with guarantees for minimum number of games played - similar to the deal Isaac with the magic signed.

[JayBirdHawk]

26 minutes ago, JTB said:

Pacers get off of Brogdons contract and create cap space by trading and not resigning Gallo on his current contract.

It seems the CBA has closed the loophole: We can only trade the guaranteed portion of Gallo's contract, $5 mil meaning we can only take back about $11 million in salary and not $20 mil.

Also the real bummer is that Indy won't be able to release Gallo at $5 mil for any cap savings. Hawks will hv to guarantee Gallo's $21 mil for next season in a trade or we can only take back a player making ~$11 mil.

Under the current CBA, only the guaranteed portion of a player’s contract counts for outgoing salary purposes in a trade, limiting the appeal of non-guaranteed salaries as trade chips.

This detail is crucial for determining how much salary a team can acquire in a trade — unless a team is under the cap, the amount of salary it sends out in a trade dictates how much salary it can take back. The amount of salary an over-the-cap team can acquire in a trade ranges from 125% to 175% of its outgoing salary, depending on how much salary the team is sending out and whether or not the team is a taxpayer.

In the old system, it might make sense for a cap-strapped club to trade a player with a guaranteed salary for a player earning an equivalent non-guaranteed salary — the cap-strapped club could then waive that newly-acquired player to cut costs. That’s trickier to do now.

Complicating matters further is that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him when his non-guaranteed salary goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

Here’s a practical example: Darren Collison‘s deal with the Pacers featured a fully guaranteed $10MM this season, with only $2MM of $10MM guaranteed for 2018/19. Once the regular season ends this year, Collison would only count for $2MM in outgoing salary for trade purposes.Under the NBA’s old Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect through the 2016/17 season, a player’s full salary (not including unlikely incentives) was used for trade purposes, whether or not it was guaranteed. If a player had an $10MM salary with a partial guarantee of $1MM, his outgoing salary in a trade was the same as it would have been for a player who had a fully guaranteed $10MM contract.

That’s no longer the case under the league’s new CBA, however. While contracts signed under the old agreement still operate by the old rules, contracts signed after July 1, 2017 will be subject to the rules of the current CBA.

[JTB]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I don't think you can SnT Hunter since he's not  RFA. you can early extend him but you can use his new salary value in trade.

Injury history or not, I don't see Hunter accepting $14 mil. His salary next season is $9.8 mil. He'll take his chances as a RFA in the hopes of having a healthy season and hoping a team offers him more.

His max is $30 mil....I can see him being offered $20 mil with the contract details excluding his knee using the exhibit ?? (can't remember letter or number) and/or with guarantees for minimum number of games played - similar to the deal Isaac with the magic signed.

Geeeezzz you really think hunter will get 20 mil per season! …Ouch! I was keeping him around the Huerter ball park due to the offensive inconsistency and injury but if he does get close to 20 mil that’s tough.

 

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

It seems the CBA has closed the loophole: We can only trade the guaranteed portion of Gallo's contract, $5 mil meaning we can only take back about $11 million in salary and not $20 mil.

Also the real bummer is that Indy won't be able to release Gallo at $5 mil for any cap savings. Hawks will hv to guarantee Gallo's $21 mil for next season in a trade or we can only take back a player making ~$11 mil.

Under the current CBA, only the guaranteed portion of a player’s contract counts for outgoing salary purposes in a trade, limiting the appeal of non-guaranteed salaries as trade chips.

This detail is crucial for determining how much salary a team can acquire in a trade — unless a team is under the cap, the amount of salary it sends out in a trade dictates how much salary it can take back. The amount of salary an over-the-cap team can acquire in a trade ranges from 125% to 175% of its outgoing salary, depending on how much salary the team is sending out and whether or not the team is a taxpayer.

In the old system, it might make sense for a cap-strapped club to trade a player with a guaranteed salary for a player earning an equivalent non-guaranteed salary — the cap-strapped club could then waive that newly-acquired player to cut costs. That’s trickier to do now.

Complicating matters further is that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him when his non-guaranteed salary goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

Here’s a practical example: Darren Collison‘s deal with the Pacers featured a fully guaranteed $10MM this season, with only $2MM of $10MM guaranteed for 2018/19. Once the regular season ends this year, Collison would only count for $2MM in outgoing salary for trade purposes.Under the NBA’s old Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect through the 2016/17 season, a player’s full salary (not including unlikely incentives) was used for trade purposes, whether or not it was guaranteed. If a player had an $10MM salary with a partial guarantee of $1MM, his outgoing salary in a trade was the same as it would have been for a player who had a fully guaranteed $10MM contract.

That’s no longer the case under the league’s new CBA, however. While contracts signed under the old agreement still operate by the old rules, contracts signed after July 1, 2017 will be subject to the rules of the current CBA.

Well damn…shit just keep getting worse. In my opinion we don’t have a ton of options to truly improve and at the very least I thought this was a sure easy trade if hawks were interested in Brogdon but in order to make that deal work to Indy we would have to include Bogi and Huerter I’m assuming …..which would not be a good deal for us.

 

is it possible to release gallo and take on Brogdons contract for draft compensation back to Indy ? 

[JayBirdHawk]

12 minutes ago, JTB said:

Geeeezzz you really think hunter will get 20 mil per season! …Ouch! I was keeping him around the Huerter ball park due to the offensive inconsistency and injury but if he does get close to 20 mil that’s tough.

 

Well damn…shit just keep getting worse. In my opinion we don’t have a ton of options to truly improve and at the very least I thought this was a sure easy trade if hawks were interested in Brogdon but in order to make that deal work to Indy we would have to include Bogi and Huerter I’m assuming …..which would not be a good deal for us.

 

is it possible to release gallo and take on Brogdons contract for draft compensation back to Indy ? 

Re: Hunter, I'm saying he will more than likely bet on himself vs taking $14 mil.  All it takes is one team to offer him a RFA deal.

Releasing Gallo for his $5 mil guarantee still leaves us over the salary cap, so no capspace to take on Brogdon's deal for a pick without sending out matching salary.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

24 minutes ago, JTB said:

I thought this was a sure easy trade if hawks were interested in Brogdon but in order to make that deal work to Indy

Guarantee Gallo's contract and the trade can work. Hawks take on 3 years of Brogdan at $22 mill/yr, Indy gets Gallo's expiring contract for next season.

[REHawksFan]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Guarantee Gallo's contract and the trade can work. Hawks take on 3 years of Brogdan at $22 mill/yr, Indy gets Gallo's expiring contract for next season.

If the Hawks package Gallo at $5M with another player in a trade and the receiving team then cuts him, can the Hawks resign him on a lesser deal? 

[JayBirdHawk]

14 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

If the Hawks package Gallo at $5M with another player in a trade and the receiving team then cuts him, can the Hawks resign him on a lesser deal? 

If I read the CBA right....We can take back a player with up to an $11 mil contract for Gallo. Here's an example: Derrick Favors $10.1 mil for Gallo, OKC has capspace to take on Gallo's $21 million.

No, once traded, and waived Gallo can't resign with Hawks for at least 1 year.

[REHawksFan]

55 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

If I read the CBA right....We can take back a player with up to an $11 mil contract for Gallo. Here's an example: Derrick Favors $10.1 mil for Gallo, OKC has capspace to take on Gallo's $21 million.

No, once traded, and waived Gallo can't resign with Hawks for at least 1 year.

I know he has to be or should be included in a trade.  I just wish there was a way for him to be back on the Hawks on a smaller deal.  I like his offensive game off the bench.  Can never have too many shooters, imo.  

[JTB]

4 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Guarantee Gallo's contract and the trade can work. Hawks take on 3 years of Brogdan at $22 mill/yr, Indy gets Gallo's expiring contract for next season.

Right but then there’s no benefit to Indy. At least not this off season as I’m sure they wouldn’t want to keep Gallo. 2023 would be the cap savings for Indy however.

[JTB]

Sometimes I wonder if just need tougher players who aren’t afraid to get physical instead of the tall and long approach….

A player like Julius Randle may not be a great fit but he may help will us to some wins .

Edited May 14, 2022 by JTB

[warcore]

10 minutes ago, JTB said:

Sometimes I wonder if just need tougher players who aren’t afraid to get physical instead of the tall and long approach….

A player like Julius Randle may not be a great fit but he may help will us to some wins .

So whatch'r sayin izzzz...... Gobert sux?

[JayBirdHawk]

22 minutes ago, JTB said:

A player like Julius Randle may not be a great fit but he may help will us to some wins .

Nope....he's not that tough physical guy..looks the part, but nope

[JTB]

32 minutes ago, warcore said:

So whatch'r sayin izzzz...... Gobert sux?

I’m not …I just hope there’s a plan to bring in more then just Gobert….IF there’s a plan to trade for him anyways.

16 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Nope....he's not that tough physical guy..looks the part, but nope

I don’t know to me he’s always been a physical player even at Kentucky….I just don’t think he can ever be a #1 option. The only reason he wouldn’t be considered here is because he’s not that effective in the pick n roll.

[kg01]

1 hour ago, JTB said:

I’m not …I just hope there’s a plan to bring in more then just Gobert….IF there’s a plan to trade for him anyways.

I don’t know to me he’s always been a physical player even at Kentucky….I just don’t think he can ever be a #1 option. The only reason he wouldn’t be considered here is because he’s not that effective in the pick n roll.

The reason Randle was exposed this year is because of the increased physicality allowed in the league.  He's a fake tough guy.

[shakes]

2 hours ago, JTB said:

Sometimes I wonder if just need tougher players who aren’t afraid to get physical instead of the tall and long approach….

A player like Julius Randle may not be a great fit but he may help will us to some wins .

I’ve been saying all along we need to get tougher and change the culture, but there is no way Julius Randle is a tough player.  Far from it.

[Spud2nique]

40 minutes ago, kg01 said:

He's a fake tough guy.

Now, whose on your all time “Fake tough guy list”? - a clearly excited Rick Kamla  

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, shakes said:

I’ve been saying all along we need to get tougher and change the culture, but there is no way Julius Randle is a tough player.  Far from it.

Nurkic. The Bosnian ? 

[JayBirdHawk]

18 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

I know he has to be or should be included in a trade.  I just wish there was a way for him to be back on the Hawks on a smaller deal.  I like his offensive game off the bench.  Can never have too many shooters, imo.  

The only way he returns is if we release him for the $5 and we resign him. The question is how much are you willing to sign him for? (And if he wants to be back)

If Gallo's role remains strictly off the bench, sure....but we've had to rely on him for too many starter minutes at PF and even Center.

Unfortunately Gallo wasn't good at shooting in the playoffs - 26.7% from 3.

That's why it's unfortunate we didn't see what JJ could give us.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The only way he returns is if we release him for the $5 and we resign him. The question is how much are you willing to sign him for? (And if he wants to be back)

If Gallo's role remains strictly off the bench, sure....but we've had to rely on him for too many starter minutes at PF and even Center.

Unfortunately Gallo wasn't good at shooting in the playoffs - 26.7% from 3.

That's why it's unfortunate we didn't see what JJ could give us.

I agree that Gallo had a terrible playoffs.  However, it would be criminal to have replaced him with JJ simply based on his history.  On many nights, Gallo transformed into our best offensive players.    To have played JJ and sat Gallo would have been worse than not playing JJ.  The place for JJ to have played was in place of JC.   JC couldn't give us anything but a lukewarm body.   In my heart, I believe JJ would have given us more.  That's not a slight on JC, just a realization that he was far too injured to be playing.  Thanks Nate.