Filling out the roster

[Spud2nique]

4 hours ago, kg01 said:

Girth we don't have. 

 

[marco102]

4 hours ago, kg01 said:

Agreed.  He's a body, at the very least.  Girth we don't have.  It was painful watching the PeliCan'ts center bullying us and us not having a warm body to throw at him.

Frank did fine and once OO played a little more physical in the 2nd and 3rd quarters  he did find against Val. 

This isn't me saying we don't need another big body.  I'd be okay with Whiteside as a 4th big.  I haven't really kept up with favors to comment on him.

[AHF]

23 hours ago, sturt said:

 

Who says no?

 

The Hawks because Nate wants Justin Holiday on his bench.

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

The Hawks because Nate wants Justin Holiday on his bench.

You've taken this not-unreasonable assumption to a higher status than assumption. You get that, right? Correct me, certainly, if I'm wrong, but we have no actual verbage out of Nate's mouth that establishes this level of matter-of-fact affection you've alleged. I'm again happy to grant you the assumption, but not okay with pretending it's something more than reasonable.

 

And. The other part still stands.

Nate is the coach. Fortunately he is not the GM. No one is ignorant of that. Just as no one is ignorant that GMs have to be considerate of their head coach, but still make decisions they believe are in the roster's greater interest ultimately, regardless.

[macdaddy]

37 minutes ago, sturt said:

You've taken this not-unreasonable assumption to a higher status than assumption. You get that, right? Correct me, certainly, if I'm wrong, but we have no actual verbage out of Nate's mouth that establishes this level of matter-of-fact affection you've alleged. I'm again happy to grant you the assumption, but not okay with pretending it's something more than reasonable.

 

And. The other part still stands.

Nate is the coach. Fortunately he is not the GM. No one is ignorant of that. Just as no one is ignorant that GMs have to be considerate of their head coach, but still make decisions they believe are in the roster's greater interest ultimately, regardless.

Nate said before game 1 of the preseason he wanted to get 25+ minutes to the starters and 'top-7 or 8' guys.  Justin played 31 minutes in that game. 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

You've taken this not-unreasonable assumption to a higher status than assumption. You get that, right? Correct me, certainly, if I'm wrong, but we have no actual verbage out of Nate's mouth that establishes this level of matter-of-fact affection you've alleged. I'm again happy to grant you the assumption, but not okay with pretending it's something more than reasonable.

 

And. The other part still stands.

Nate is the coach. Fortunately he is not the GM. No one is ignorant of that. Just as no one is ignorant that GMs have to be considerate of their head coach, but still make decisions they believe are in the roster's greater interest ultimately, regardless.

This is confusing.  You asked a hypothetical question about who would say no in an alternative timeline where this offer was on the table for both teams.  Do you think you are going to get direct evidence of how a team would respond to such a deal?  Seems like you locked yourself into getting assumptions / interpretations, etc. back when you posed the question.

We've already covered I am making an assumption as to how Nate values JH on the bench.  Why would this be surprising that I would think he would protest a marginal deal like this?  I think he would push back on any type of deal that unloads JH in order to fill out the bottom spots on our roster.

Any answer you get to this question is going to be an assumption so I didn't think spelling that out was needed especially when we've already covered this.

But I agree this is just my interpretation / assumption, etc. of how Nate likely views JH.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, macdaddy said:

Nate said before game 1 of the preseason he wanted to get 25+ minutes to the starters and 'top-7 or 8' guys.  Justin played 31 minutes in that game. 

 

(Pardon the "confused" reaction emoticon... it's not accurate that I'm confused, but I can see that the question itself has been confused... )

Acknowledged, but that's not answering the question.

What that answers is "who does Nate consider right now to be in his rotation."

(I've acknowledged that myself, of course... which is the point of concern, that JDay is being counted on to have this fairly remarkable bounce-back season at age 33... if he's part of the 3rd unit, I've said many times now, that's fine)

 

The question posed is different, ie, "does Nate have this slobbering affection for Justin Holiday."

 

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

This is confusing.  You asked a hypothetical question about who would say no in an alternative timeline where this offer was on the table for both teams.  Do you think you are going to get direct evidence of how a team would respond to such a deal?  Seems like you locked yourself into getting assumptions / interpretations, etc. back when you posed the question.

Let me try to help.

When a person asks "Who says no," he might be asking that question straight up... not "who says no" as in "who do you assume would say no"... but "who among us here says no???"

That was/is the case here.

So, if your response had been, "I, AHF, say no, and here's why I'm against the idea..." then that would have been considered a valid retort, almost no matter what support you'd cited for it... even "I suspect that Nate thinks Justin is going to be more valuable than the trends suggest, and my faith is in Nate's assessment"... who can argue that?

No one.

 

(I think you more or less allude to that in the rest of your post, of course.)

 

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Let me try to help.

When a person asks "Who says no," he might be asking that question straight up... not "who says no" as in "who do you assume would say no"... but "who among us here says no???"

That was/is the case here.

So, if your response had been, "I, AHF, say no, and here's why I'm against the idea..." then that would have been considered a valid retort, almost no matter what support you'd cited for it... even "I suspect that Nate thinks Justin is going to be more valuable than the trends suggest, and my faith is in Nate's assessment"... who can argue that?

No one.

 

(I think you more or less allude to that in the rest of your post, of course.)

 

 Maybe a hobby?  Knitting is fun. Something to think about.

[sturt]

On 10/16/2022 at 12:16 PM, sturt said:

Since avoiding the tax line is a priority, that requires creating some new space.

Shams reported yesterday that OKC intends to waive David Nwaba. It's not actually been reported to be done, though, and OKC has until tomorrow @ 5pm to settle on their 14 or 15 like everyone else.

 

David Nwaba ($5.0m) to ATL for

Justin Holiday ($6.2m) to OKC... plus $1.2m cash to make up the difference in salary... plus as much as $5.1m more (the allowable cash that can be sent out or received for this season is $6.3m total).

After which, of course, it's to be anticipated that OKC would cut Holiday just like they'd intended to cut Nwaba.

 

Nope. Not happening. Nwaba waived.

*sigh*

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Knitting is fun.

You knit, Spud?

 

That answers a lot of questions. Thanks.

 

[sturt]

Favors officially waved per HoopsRumors.

 

Vit, sorry to tell you this, but we have bigger priorities. See ya.

 

Hello, Derrick? Welcome home, my man. Help us bring a championship to your city.

[Spud2nique]

6 minutes ago, sturt said:

You knit, Spud?

 

That answers a lot of questions. Thanks.

 

Thought maybe it’s funner than going on a merry go round of words with .. I dunno whoever engages.. but.. it’s your  

[sturt]

It's a forum. Sometimes people engage, sometimes they don't. And it's fine either way.

[AHF]

20 minutes ago, sturt said:

It's a forum. Sometimes people engage, sometimes they don't. And it's fine either way.

I engaged.  Atlanta says no for the reasons I mentioned.

Said it before, but my belief is that it will take a trade for someone with sizzle to get JH off our roster.  You clearly disagree as you've tossed out a ton of different deals that would move him for guys who would fill the end of our bench.  We would trade Justin in a second in a Dejounte Murray 2.0 deal.  I don't think we do it in a deal like this.

We had a similar back and forth about whether the Hawks would move under the tax line.  We'll see how this one works out.

[sturt]

58 minutes ago, AHF said:

I engaged.  Atlanta says no for the reasons I mentioned.

You say "no"... for the reasons you mentioned... but tomaetoe tomahtoe.

And no sarcasm, I do appreciate engagement. Engagement good.

[cam1218]

As a GT fan I’m all aboard bringing Favors in, even though his time there was short lived lol. I also think knowing we have been through camp + overseas, and Nate knows what he has now, why throw in a new rotational player so soon? I think it’d be a good idea to give it a couple of weeks to see what we need once we play some regular season game.

[sturt]

11 minutes ago, cam1218 said:

new rotational player

Rotation looks full. This would be essentially the 6th big, ie, 3rd unit.... which, soberly, could be a reason Favors would decline to come home (... pretty sure he lives in ATL even today, but someone correct me if that's wrong).

 

  

14 minutes ago, cam1218 said:

see what we need

We have back-up at PG (Forest) and wing (Culver) as 2-ways.

 

We have... nothing... beyond the 5 bigs.

 

Think we're tempting fate, particularly when the 5th big, Frank, has went down every year the last 4 years. Need to get in some foul trouble in these first games, perhaps, to shake our GM offices out of their slumber.

[cam1218]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

Rotation looks full. This would be essentially the 6th big, ie, 3rd unit.... which, soberly, could be a reason Favors would decline to come home (... pretty sure he lives in ATL even today, but someone correct me if that's wrong).

 

  

We have back-up at PG (Forest) and wing (Culver) as 2-ways.

 

We have... nothing... beyond the 5 bigs.

 

Think we're tempting fate, particularly when the 5th big, Frank, has went down every year the last 4 years. Need to get in some foul trouble in these first games, perhaps, to shake our GM offices out of their slumber.

Players also become available as the season goes on. Definitely fewer players now with the expanded playoffs. I’m fine with waiting, but I get your stance. 

[AHF]

15 hours ago, sturt said:

You say "no"... for the reasons you mentioned... but tomaetoe tomahtoe.

And no sarcasm, I do appreciate engagement. Engagement good.

I said what I think the team would do.  Not sure how that is still unclear.  I don't have a direct line to Travis Schlenk or Landry Fields and ask him about hypothetical trade scenarios.  Of course, when I say the Hawks would reject this I am saying that I think that is what they would do.

Nobody can do anything other than give their best guess for what would happen or give their view for what they would do if they were in the GM chair.  All of that is hypothetical.