Filling out the roster

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, AHF said:

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.

Not sure why this post was necessary... as-if something was unclear (?).

You indeed said what you thought the team would do.

It is also true that nobody can do anything but give their best guess for what would happen or give their view for what they would do.

My question... to be clear... was the latter, not the former.

You answered the former at first, but then also went on to suggest that there would be no difference for you in terms of either question... hence, "tomaetoe, tomahtoe"... my question was answered after all, then.

Are we good? (I thought we already were.)

[AHF]

38 minutes ago, sturt said:

Not sure why this post was necessary... as-if something was unclear (?).

You indeed said what you thought the team would do.

It is also true that nobody can do anything but give their best guess for what would happen or give their view for what they would do.

My question... to be clear... was the latter, not the former.

You answered the former at first, but then also went on to suggest that there would be no difference for you in terms of either question... hence, "tomaetoe, tomahtoe"... my question was answered after all, then.

Are we good? (I thought we already were.)

I don't think you accurately described my response and you did it by emphasizing this was my call.  I haven't given my opinion on what I would do as I think it is much less meaningful and didn't read the original question as asking for my view because I can't say yes or no on this issue only TS/LF can do that. 

But since you are looking for what I would do if the Hawks fired TS/LF and installed me as the GM tomorrow, if I could get a good big man at a bargain basement price to fill out that 15th spot while staying under the tax line and still get a solid wing then I would do it.  I share your concern about the reliability of Frank's health (and think that is also a risk item for JJ and OO in addition to the normal risks for all players).  However, I would not take a player that Nate is comfortable with and feels he can rely on unless I could exchange them for a comparable player so this potential deal if I were GM would be driven by (a) whether the wing could step into JH's rotation slot and (b) the value of the big man we could sign. 

The problem with this particular deal for me is that Nwaba can't shoot more than 5 feet from the rim (and I don't think that TS has shown much appetite for wings who are useless on offense when they aren't attacking the rim) so he seems like a worse fit as a reserve wing and doesn't bring the knowledge of Nate's system that JH does.  Love the team option on his contract and like his younger age but I don't see him as slotting into the rotation in a significant role which is a prerequisite for me for a wing target to be "solid" or "comparable."  But if I were GM, I would definitely look at this type of deal to try to get a better fit and clear some space for that discount big man if possible.  I don't think it is a really high bar to find a wing who can bring comparable skills to JH (the tougher to replace aspect is his familiarity with Nate's system).

[sturt]

 

Nothing of importance here, but for what it's worth, Chandler Parsons wants Jae in ATL.

[macdaddy]

11 hours ago, sturt said:

 

Nothing of importance here, but for what it's worth, Chandler Parsons wants Jae in ATL.

Crowder is a good fit here.  Don't see how we have what it takes to get him though. 

On Ayton, it's hard to believe that Nets were uninterested in Ayton/Bridges and picks.  They may become interested again in January if Nets aren't playing well. 

[sturt]

Find me a wing who is barely playing and clearly not in his team's future plans, but one with some defensive chops, from a team with a payroll that can easily accommodate an extra $1m more or less.

Let me send out Justin for that guy, and perhaps a very slight sweetner in the form of maybe a 2nd round pick flip.

That will automatically provide the additional space under the lux tax line necessary to sign Derrick Favors to a vet min contract.

Romeo Langford qualifies.

[sturt]

On 11/5/2022 at 10:51 PM, sturt said:

Find me a wing who is barely playing and clearly not in his team's future plans, but one with some defensive chops, from a team with a payroll that can easily accommodate an extra $1m more or less.

Let me send out Justin for that guy, and perhaps a very slight sweetner in the form of maybe a 2nd round pick flip.

That will automatically provide the additional space under the lux tax line necessary to sign Derrick Favors to a vet min contract.

Romeo Langford qualifies.

Seriously. Some of you are holding out on me, I'm sure of it.

 

You've been sitting there this entire time, knowing that my thoughts in this vein were ill-conceived, but said nothing.

Why? Why leave me here on this side of the internet torturing myself for no good reason?

 

All this angst on my part about getting the roster adjusted sufficiently to accommodate a vet minimum contract... knowing... that we are 22 days into a 174-day season... and that if the Hawks signed someone like Favors today to a vet minimum contract, it would actually be pro-rated down to about $1,600,000... which is already easily less than the $1,786,723 of room we have beneath the tax line.

No need to trade Krejci. No need to trade JDay. Or anyone else.

 

It's time to go get Derrick Favors, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

[macdaddy]

If we sign Favors then everyone loses their mind when JJ is no longer getting minutes.   We aren't making any moves as long as we're winning.  We might do something at the deadline depending on injuries and play.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

If we sign Favors then everyone loses their mind when JJ is no longer getting minutes. 

False dichotomy. In a couple of ways, actually.

 

1. JJ's already shown enough that he's not being replaced. Any addition to the roster is an addition to the 3rd unit... not part of the rotation. And again, this is where Favors is a better fit than would be Crowder.... Favors has shown he's not going to whine about minutes, but will take what the coach gives him and do the most with that.

2. In terms of skill set, Kaminsky slots in as replicating more of what JC and JJ give you than does Favors since Favors isn't going to be a 3 pt threat... so, Favors slots in to giving you some grunt work minutes at the 5 when your opponent has an XL big boy and/or when CC or Godzilla are in foul trouble. What's more, Favors is still someone who can close out and who can guard guys his size on the perimeter--he's not slow footed (by comparison) like some other FA options are.

 

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

We aren't making any moves as long as we're winning.  We might do something at the deadline depending on injuries and play.

I'm not one to pretend omniscience as-if having that level of insight... I've learned I really don't know.

Iow, I only deal in "shoulds" not "wills."

And we should add Favors. There is no downside to doing that. He's viewed as a positive locker room guy, and the gaping hole in our roster.... as-if I need to even say it, given how often it's been noted (though typically after a loss)... is in the low post.

 

But then, going to the "will" aspect you've brought up.... it's just not ever been Schlenk's routine... ever... to leave the roster a man short. It's conventionally understood the only reason that's been done this season so far is because of the tax line. Well, now, it's not the same concern.

Someone might point out that there are unlikely incentives that could be earned that could be coming to bear on the decision, and until those unlikely incentives become more clearly "unlikely," there will be some reticence to fill that 15th seat. Plausible. Maybe. Maybe not. I hope not. I hope we don't lose a very solid hometown option to another team, one who legitimately can be signed for a vet minimum since he's already being paid $10.2m for the season by HOU.

 

 

[macdaddy]

Oh how quickly i forgot about our Justin Holiday convo.  Yeah I'm not cutting holiday to sign a 3rd unit big who doesn't play.   I like Favors.  I'd love to have him on the team but we can't cut a guy in our wing rotation to have another big for insurance. 

[sturt]

23 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Yeah I'm not cutting holiday to sign a 3rd unit big who doesn't play.

Huh?

Mac, you're normally more on top of things than this.

Jay, you liked? You too, then.

 

No. Covered that....

19 hours ago, sturt said:

All this angst on my part about getting the roster adjusted sufficiently to accommodate a vet minimum contract... knowing... that we are 22 days into a 174-day season... and that if the Hawks signed someone like Favors today to a vet minimum contract, it would actually be pro-rated down to about $1,600,000... which is already easily less than the $1,786,723 of room we have beneath the tax line.

No need to trade Krejci. No need to trade JDay. Or anyone else.

 

 

(Btw... cutting JDay was never an actual option. But I'm guessing that's understood, and the result of a momentary brain cramp.)

[nathan2331]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Huh?

Mac, you're normally more on top of things than this.

Jay, you liked? You too, then.

 

No. Covered that....

 

Not opposed to adding Favors, but Schlenk might be waiting to see becomes available via buyouts or trades as we get closer to the trade deadline. We're not facing an injury crisis, so there's no real need to sign a guy now when there may be a better solution in time.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

better solution

So, you're reminding that, sometimes, a player gets bought out like a Thad Young for instance... and you want to have the roster slot and some room on the salary spreadsheet to accommodate that guy.

Right.

Well, but... first, those Thad Young type vets who get cut routinely bring to the table something similar in terms of resume' and age as what Favors does. So, "better?" Pragmatically? Probably not. The same, maybe. Maybe.

Then, here's my real beef with your assertion, nathan.... and you know I routinely think the world of your insights, but on this occasion, you seem to forget a critical point: That is, history says ATL doesn't win those in-season free agent sweepstakes.

Ever.

Either there's a bigger market a player is attracted to... or there's a better opportunity for minutes that a player is attracted to.

Dilly-dally? Why? Granted, history doesn't accurately predict the future every time, but pragmatically, what purpose is likely to be served by waiting?

You have an ideal player who fits in every way you could ask for a 3rd unit big. He's even got less treadwear on his proverbial tire, given the Al Horford treatment that OKC gave him last season.

Strike while you have opportunity, Schleilds. That's my recommendation. You heard it here first. Or, if you didn't, kudos to whoever beat me to it.

 

[macdaddy]

i couldn't follow it all.  Yeah if we can just sign Favors outright then by all means let's do it.   

[sturt]

32 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

i couldn't follow it all.  Yeah if we can just sign Favors outright then by all means let's do it.   

 

[nathan2331]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

So, you're reminding that, sometimes, a player gets bought out like a Thad Young for instance... and you want to have the roster slot and some room on the salary spreadsheet to accommodate that guy.

Right.

Well, but... first, those Thad Young type vets who get cut routinely bring to the table something similar in terms of resume' and age as what Favors does. So, "better?" Pragmatically? Probably not. The same, maybe. Maybe.

Then, here's my real beef with your assertion, nathan.... and you know I routinely think the world of your insights, but on this occasion, you seem to forget a critical point: That is, history says ATL doesn't win those in-season free agent sweepstakes.

Ever.

Either there's a bigger market a player is attracted to... or there's a better opportunity for minutes that a player is attracted to.

Dilly-dally? Why? Granted, history doesn't accurately predict the future every time, but pragmatically, what purpose is likely to be served by waiting?

You have an ideal player who fits in every way you could ask for a 3rd unit big. He's even got less treadwear on his proverbial tire, given the Al Horford treatment that OKC gave him last season.

Strike while you have opportunity, Schleilds. That's my recommendation. You heard it here first. Or, if you didn't, kudos to whoever beat me to it.

 

You're leaving out the possibility of a trade too. Off the top of my head, I don't know what big could be available for cheap and would be a better fit than Favors but Schlenk may have a shortlist. I haven't watched enough games of Favors recently to have a useful opinion about him, but it's also possible Schlenk doesn't rate him too highly. By season's end I expect that 15th spot to be filled, but it doesn't have to happen now. If there was an injury crisis or our bench was severely underperforming then I think you'd see Schlenk move quickly. But the fact that Favors isn't on any roster tells me he's not a particularly hot commodity. He'll probably have to wait some time until teams start shuffling.

Don't forget, if there is a tankathon this year with teams wanting to shed players for Wembanyama, we may be able to capitalize on a team's firesale potentially. The fact that we don't want to be taxpayers this year may limit our options, but there potentially could be a deal done later that isn't possible/forseeable right now.

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

Don't forget, if there is a tankathon this year with teams wanting to shed players for Wembanyama, we may be able to capitalize on a team's firesale potentially.

This is a great point.  May see a ton of buyouts. 

[sturt]

44 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

You're leaving out the possibility of a trade too.

Yes, and no. Yes, I didn't go there, but I didn't go there b/c it's just as likely a good thing to have a player on a vet minimum contract already as it could be to be a negative... when you already have a player on the payroll, and if he's been on your roster long enough, he represents a potential trade chip... one that, had you not picked him up or not picked him up when you did, wouldn't be a trade chip.

44 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

Don't forget, if there is a tankathon this year with teams wanting to shed players for Wembanyama, we may be able to capitalize on a team's firesale potentially. The fact that we don't want to be taxpayers this year may limit our options, but there potentially could be a deal done later that isn't possible/forseeable right now.

 

( I give you credit.... you're trying real hard... )

 

Brother, every year there are teams in fire sale mode.

If we're talking trade, I just spoke to that... it's as likely to help you as it would be to hurt you to already have Favors on the roster, so that's a zero sum.

If we're talking players being cut.... again again... the history is the history, and until we win a championship, it's hard to make the case that we'd be at the head of any player's list, and that's even if we imagine a scenario where it's someone better than Favors.... which, by the way, if he's that much better than Favors, he's probably looking for something better than 3rd unit minutes, too.

Nah. Still the same bottom line here.

 

44 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

I haven't watched enough games of Favors recently to have a useful opinion about him, but it's also possible Schlenk doesn't rate him too highly....

But the fact that Favors isn't on any roster tells me he's not a particularly hot commodity. He'll probably have to wait some time until teams start shuffling.

Now you're getting into the "will" versus "should" area.

I can't know... any more than you can know... what will happen, or for that matter why what hasn't happened hasn't happened.

Viable questions. But viable questions that can't be answered with any certainty.

One can just as easily hypothesize that it's not that Schleilds haven't pursued it, but that Favors hasn't signed with anyone because he's holding out for a multi-year deal.

 

All I'm saying is... what should be the goal from a Hawks perspective. Knowing what we can possibly know, he is an ideal fit for the hard hat role we have open on the roster.

 

 

[nathan2331]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

One can just as easily hypothesize that it's not that Schleilds haven't pursued it, but that Favors hasn't signed with anyone because he's holding out for a multi-year deal.

I doubt he's getting a multi-year deal from anyone. The season has started now and he if he's still a free agent that means he's not a priority for anybody. I'm not trying to put Favors down but the reality is that if he didn't get a suitable offer in the summer, no one is throwing multiple years at him now when he isn't part of any long term plans. Favors may be holding out for a team with real playing time which if that's the case, we probably are not an ideal situation for him.

 

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

If we're talking trade, I just spoke to that... it's as likely to help you as it would be to hurt you to already have Favors on the roster, so that's a zero sum.

If we're talking players being cut.... again again... the history is the history, and until we win a championship, it's hard to make the case that we'd be at the head of any player's list, and that's even if we imagine a scenario where it's someone better than Favors.... which, by the way, if he's that much better than Favors, he's probably looking for something better than 3rd unit minutes, too.

As the season takes shape injuries occur, and teams re-evaluate their positions. The Hawks I'm sure will add a 15th player and it could very well be Favors then. But why do a deal now when Favors or anybody else we could sign aren't getting on the court. If someone gets a long term injury we can move to address it but otherwise the final roster spot is not going to feature for us if we're fully healthy. I know the argument I'm making is completely hypothetical, but the larger point is that the benefit of signing Favors right now is marginal, but if we wait there may be a way to better upgrade the roster.

If we sign Favors now we can't move him. But it's possible that we might be able to do a 1-for-2 or 2-for-3 swap which will be a better addition tha Favors alone. You're absolutely correct we have never been a top destination for free agents, but how many years have we actually been in a position to be considered an attractive destination. If we're at the top of the East in two months, better options than Favors may be willing join us in a ring chasing effort. Favors to me isn't valuable enough for me to not look at other possibilities (but then again like I said I haven't really seen him play). I think these are things the front office is weighing. Favors being on the roster wouldn't be the biggest barrier in the world, but when you factor in our luxury tax avoidance, I think the team will just wait to see how things develop.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

I doubt he's getting a multi-year deal from anyone.

 

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Viable questions. But viable questions that can't be answered with any certainty..............

Knowing what we can possibly know, he is an ideal fit for the hard hat role we have open on the roster.

 

I'm reminded of the saying, "Dismissiveness isn't an argument. It's just dismissiveness."

Look, it's just as plausible that if you're sitting at home drawing a paycheck from the $10m you're getting anyhow, and you're a very well-rested 30 year-old who hasn't exactly done nothing in this league, you might feel you have some time. You don't have to jump at the first call you get with just a minimum vet offer. You can. But you don't have to. And what's more, you might feel some incentive as 30 year old to not accept a minimum vet offer since.... well... you're 30, and if you do that, then you'll be that much less likely at 31 and with each succeeding year to get a multi-year contract.

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

The season has started now and he if he's still a free agent that means he's not a priority for anybody.

You're awfully quick to assume things that we can't know, my friend. You keep speaking from this perspective that it must  be that the teams don't want him. To the contrary, that you aren't dancing with the boys for the first couple of songs might be by your own choice if you're one of the girls who plausibly has options.

 

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

I'm not trying to put Favors down but the reality is that if he didn't get a suitable offer in the summer, no one is throwing multiple years at him now when he isn't part of any long term plans.

Nathan, my friend.... he didn't get a suitable offer this summer because he wasn't a free agent this summer. He only became a free agent when HOU made its last cuts right before the season.

I'm not suggesting teams are eager to throw multiple years on the table--that much we can agree on. Such is the negotiation process. I'm not even suggesting that that is definitively the reason for him not being signed. It's just one possibility among several.... including this one you mentioned, and kudos to you....

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

Favors may be holding out for a team with real playing time which if that's the case, we probably are not an ideal situation for him.

 

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

why do a deal now when Favors or anybody else we could sign aren't getting on the court.

You're asking me?

My answer is because there is no player in free agency right now with his combination of attributes who also matches up with the hole in our roster that we seem to universally recognize, but mostly only after a loss in which we felt we needed another big to combat their bigs.

He is productive on both ends of the floor. He's 30, but he's a well-rested 30. He's used doing the dirty work... wear the hard hat... and far from being a complainer, he accepts the role he's been asked to fill. He can conceivably be had for a fraction of what he would be able to command on the open market. And he lives in ATL.

Bird in the hand.

How many movies tell the story of girl who is waiting for some Superman cartoon character to commit to, when the ideal person is obviously the humble best friend already in her life?

It doesn't get any better than this.

Favors checks all the boxes on a 3rd unit hard hat big.

To wait serves no Hawks purpose, unless the issue is contract related (and again, it could be).

That to say, obviously, I disagree with the statement, "the benefit of signing Favors right now is marginal, but if we wait there may be a way to better upgrade the roster." For the reasons just elucidated.

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

If we sign Favors now we can't move him. But it's possible that we might be able to do a 1-for-2 or 2-for-3 swap which will be a better addition tha Favors alone.

Don't have a lot of reason to be interested in any trade at this moment in time, nor for the next 6 weeks. If you sign Favors within this next 6 weeks, though, you've added, at worst, a potential trade chip for the trade deadline.

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

If we're at the top of the East in two months, better options than Favors may be willing join us in a ring chasing effort.

Sounds nice, but again again... that better option isn't likely someone who welcomes being part of the 3rd unit, even if they really don't care to join a higher profile franchise (... and then again, maybe they do care).

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

Favors to me isn't valuable enough for me to not look at other possibilities (but then again like I said I haven't really seen him play).

Translation I'm left to take from that: "Look, I'm just going by reputation and some vague impressions I have of the player." While I appreciate your confessing that's the case, you surely can understand to have spent all this time engaging you on the topic, only to come to this sentence... that's a little frustrating... why be so dug-in to an opinion which, then, turns out, you haven't even given the serious study that the rest of your comments have implicitly led the other person to think you've given it.

 

2 hours ago, nathan2331 said:

when you factor in our luxury tax avoidance, I think the team will just wait to see how things develop.

The only way this factors in is if one believes the unlikely incentives are a priority for the front office.

If that were the case, the payroll would need to be reduced to about $2m below the tax line. To our knowledge, there has been no effort made to achieve that.

But to be fair to you and anyone else taking the contrarian view here... indeed, this is the only viable argument I can imagine to have legs (ie, apart from the idea already cited that maybe they can't come together on contract terms).... it is plausible that the front office wants to get a better read on whether any of the unlikely incentives could end up being earned before they make it harder on themselves to deal with that eventuality.

My point remains even still... in terms of what we can know, signing Favors makes all the basketball sense in the world.

 

 

[nathan2331]

33 minutes ago, sturt said:

My point remains even still... in terms of what we can know, signing Favors makes all the basketball sense in the world.

I don't think many Hawks fans would be in disagreement that signing Favors makes sense. I'm not against signing Favors. The whole point of my posts were to suggest reasons why the front office hasn't done it. Thank you for the correction about the timeline on Favors becoming a free agent, but I still don't think teams are rushing to sign him. Not because Favors is bad, but teams already have started their seasons with their personnel in place and it'll take time to evaluate what changes they need to make. Favors' agent would know better than I do what's on the table for him though, he can sign anytime and prove me wrong.

While Favors would be a fine signing for our last roster spot, the Hawks may have plans on moves that may make use of the extra roster spot. There's other guys they could be looking to move in a trade and we might get an extra player in return. I'm only coming up with hypothetical reasons why Schlenk or Fields haven't signed Favors or anybody yet.