Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Welcome to Atlanta - Vit Krejci


JayBirdHawk

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, sturt said:

Don't get me wrong... every team has to be developing talent, for sure, but when you're a contender, it's a different thing... just necessary, by virtue of limited roster counts and limited minutes, to be less willing to develop players who come to you with less reason for optimism.

Krejci might be a worthy project for some team still.

Just not ours.

You see Sturt,  this is where your substance takes a bad turn and why I addressed it.   You feel as though since we have a contender that we don't have time to develop a project player like Krejci because of limited minutes...blah blah blah.

If that's the case, why should contenders have G-League teams in the first place??  What exactly is the G-League for?  Why do teams even call up G-League players?  

The G-League is the developing arm of the NBA.   Read my Substance again, I said if he does well in the G-League we can call him up and he can COMPETE for time as BU BU SG or BU SF.  Nothing you have said is even close to being relevant to what I said before.  The only thing I see is you trying to make up reason to not have this player in our farm system.   That's not substance, that's an agenda. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Diesel said:

You feel as though since we have a contender that we don't have time to develop a project player like Krejci because of limited minutes...blah blah blah.

The blah, blah, blah part is especially important. More important than the minutes part, so I appreciate why you chose to avoid that by mocking it... 😉

Here's what I said...

9 hours ago, sturt said:

Krejci the player is a project. And not just a project, a project so raw that a team that is in the business right now of developing projects thought wasn't worth any more of their time.

 

And we don't have room on this roster for another project on a big-league contract occupying roster space. We have to have guys proven capable of producing at a replacement-player level... a mere 0.0 VORP... we have to be all-in for these two years that we've got DJM locked in.

We're going with 14 players as it stands now.

 

One of us is advocating for the 14th roster slot to be filled by a legit big... since we only have 5, and conventionally speaking, you want to have 3 of each position. Schlenk himself said after the MIA series that he felt MIA's bigs beat us up (exit interview)... so... ???... our answer to that is to replace Dieng with Kaminsky, and Gallo with Jalen?... ?!?!?!? C'mon.

I argue we need someone with beef, and preferably someone who, again, can justify some optimism he can, at least, be a VORP-zero (replacement caliber) performer.

 

One of us is advocating for the 14th roster slot to be filled by a project wing... since we only have, let's see.... DJM... JDay... Martin... Griffin... BogBog... Dre... that's six... and a two-way who is a project, Culver... that's seven.

But you think what the hay... why not add wing #8....

A guy who I can't get anyone to acknowledge apparently isn't even thought to have a high enough upside to justify one of 15 roster slots on a team that is in the business of development right now, OKC.

No, wait. Worse than that. It's a team with 18 guys under contract, and according to practically every OKC media person, this is the guy who was going to be the first cut... player #18 of 18.

 

I like my substance better than your substance. Your substance falls flat because the likelihood that a 6th big would be important to have is stronger than the likelihood that an 8th wing would be important to have... and all the more so, given that that 8th wing is so raw that he's likely years away still from even registering a VORP of 0.0.

Like you. Don't like your substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 minutes ago, sturt said:

The blah, blah, blah part is especially important. More important than the minutes part, so I appreciate why you chose to avoid that by mocking it... 😉

you said "by virtue of limited roster counts and limited minutes"

Very simply.. what part of that is not answered by G-League play?

Moreover, if that player shows well in the G-League... how does that discount the possibility of him competing for a spot on the big team?

Our roster spots are not set in stone...  Ask Cam.  Ask Delon. 

We love our players but they can be moved if we find a configuration that works better for us.   Sometimes, that just may be a Money move... ask Kev. 

We just called moving Harkness being traded addition by subtracting because it gave more PT and a fulltime roster spot for Jalen who showed his worth in the G-League.  WOW... Imagine that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Very simply.. what part of that is not answered by G-League play?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Obviously, minutes can be obtained by sending a guy to play in G-league.

Obviously, roster slots are roster slots, though... you don't get more by sending a guy to G-league.

 

We don't need another wing. We especially don't need another project at wing. We especially don't need another project at wing who is so raw he can't even make the top 17 of 18 players on a developmental roster.

We do need more beef. The 14th player on the roster needs to be a big, and not a developmental one. We're a contender, and we need legitimate 3rd stringers as a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Obviously, minutes can be obtained by sending a guy to play in G-league.

Obviously, roster slots are roster slots, though... you don't get more by sending a guy to G-league.

 

We don't need another wing. We especially don't need another project at wing. We especially don't need another project at wing who is so raw he can't even make the top 17 of 18 players on a developmental roster.

We do need more beef. The 14th player on the roster needs to be a big, and not a developmental one. We're a contender, and we need legitimate 3rd stringers as a rule.

Unfortunately the powers that be disagrees with you.   There are several FA bigs that we could have added.  We could have traded Harkness and the 2nd for a future second or Cash.. if we felt the need to create space.   But instead of that we took Vit. 

It's got to make you wonder... Why?

Why not trade Harkness and a 2nd for Cash considerations...

and 

then sign Greg Monroe or Hansan Whitesides... You know I like Whitesides.  But instead, we didn't do that.. from last year, we just replaced Deing with Frank and moved on. 

I think that they don't agree with the assertion that we need a big.  We didn't even try to draft a Big. 

The words for the offseason were ball handlers and defense. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
14 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Unfortunately the powers that be disagrees with you.   There are several FA bigs that we could have added.  We could have traded Harkness and the 2nd for a future second or Cash.. if we felt the need to create space.   But instead of that we took Vit. 

So, in your world, they wanted the 18th player of 18 OKC contracts so bad that they engineered a trade just for him. Rather than waiting to see if the could scoop this kid up off the open market, who clearly was going to be such a hot commodity.

Got it.

So, unlike me... and virtually anyone else... you don't see the tax line as the primary motivation for this transaction... you don't see OKC's recently being granted the disabled player exception as a factor... you don't see Harkless' salary as fitting neatly into that recently granted exception as a factor... you don't see the fact that, of the three players OKC is generally thought to be releasing, Krejci has the smallest guarantee ($780k) as a factor.

Nah. All of that is secondary. All of that is icing on the cake... this kid is seen as too good. He's going to stick... $780k is too much in today's NBA to just write off as dead money on your books, after all.

Got it.

 

14 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We could have traded Harkness and the 2nd for a future second

So, you have insight into what other options were on the table and being considered... and I take it, then, insight into the teams that had put offers on the table?

Big, if true.

 

We have nothing more to talk about here.

Let's just see how it plays out by opening night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 minute ago, sturt said:

So, in your world, they wanted the 18th player of 18 OKC contracts so bad that they engineered a trade just for him. Rather than waiting to see if the could scoop this kid up off the open market, who clearly was going to be such a hot commodity.

 

I said it was a money move for a project with potential.   There were over the LT, HOW scoop him up?  You and I agree that he's not worth paying Luxury penalties for...  but he's something.   Maybe they looked past the inexperience and the injuries. 

Maybe they saw a tall Guard with good ball handling skills. 

Maybe they saw his March stats before having to have his knee scoped?

Split Value G GS MP FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA ORB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS   FG% 3P% FT%   TS% USG% ORtg DRtg +/-   MP PTS TRB AST
Month October 2 0 9 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2   .000 .000 1.000   .347 17.6 55 118 -5.6   4.5 1.0 1.0 0.0
  November 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0             0.0 0 -232 0.0   0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0
  February 6 0 90 9 21 2 11 2 2 2 11 7 2 0 3 11 22   .429 .182 1.000   .503 11.7 99 121 -4.2   15.1 3.7 1.8 1.2
  March 15 2 374 34 78 25 55 10 11 12 56 28 12 5 14 34 103   .436 .455 .909   .622 11.2 115 122 -9.2   24.9 6.9 3.7 1.9
  April 6 6 217 25 66 5 30 5 7 4 31 22 5 3 11 20 60   .379 .167 .714   .434 16.2 92 122 -22.7   36.1 10.0 5.2 3.

Please excuse my small print. 

But dude shot .455 from 3 in March..  28 assists in 15 gams  and more rebounds than Hunter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
19 minutes ago, Diesel said:

There were over the LT, HOW scoop him up?

Diesel. Surely you know this. You can sign any player anytime to a minimum contract if you have the roster slot available. I think that might even be the case if you're hard-capped, but I'd have to go look to be certain... but regardless, we weren't hard-capped and we did have a roster slot available.

We agree that it was a money move.

Full stop.

It only worked out b/c OKC didn't want to add another player to their roster, but did want to take advantage of the DPE given to them. As someone at CBS Sports suggested, OKC effectively paid $3m for a ATL 2029 2nd rounder, and ATL was able to maneuver back under the tax line.

Okay, but let me grant you this much... it's plausible that they'll let him try to win a roster slot in training camp and not release him immediately.

But it's implausible that they won't have any semblance of a 3rd PF, beef or no beef... at least someone like Solo or like Harkless. Silva's going to get every chance, I figure, to win that 14th roster slot.

And if they keep Krejci, someone who thought they were playing for the Hawks is going to be on the street... hard to figure who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, sturt said:

But it's implausible that they won't have any semblance of a 3rd PF, beef or no beef... at least someone like Solo or like Harkless. Silva's going to get every chance, I figure, to win that 14th roster slot.

And if they keep Krejci, someone who thought they were playing for the Hawks is going to be on the street... hard to figure who.

The beginning was a long winded way to say you agree with what I said.. OK, progress. 

Let's talk about this above then...

Did you listen at all to Nate.   As Nate talked about Vit, he said he can play 2-4.  The 2, the 3, and the 4.   As Landry talks about Hunter, they talk about him as a 3 and a 4.   Capable of playing the 4 in JC's absence, we have JJ, OO, Frank, Tyrese, Hunter and Vit.   While I'm not rushing to put somebody under 200 lbs at the 4, the leadership might.   So let's look at where we are and what we know without having to speculate:

  1. We are now under the LT.   
  2. Vit is a player with potential who costed us very little. 
  3. Nate talked about Vit playing in the G-League specifically.
  4. At the 2, 3, and 4 spot, our roster is very versatile because we have a lot of players who can migrate to those positions. 
  5.  We have done very little to obtain a 5 outside of signing Frank the Tank. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Diesel, I've got a big day, so not much time for this, but I'll give you 5 minutes...

First, yes, it's good that we agree that this was a contracts/money deal, not a basketball one. If we or OKC get a basketball benefit out of it somehow, that's all good, but it's not really anticipated. OKC is happy that they were able to exploit the DPE, effectively receiving a future draft pick, without adding player #19 to a roster already in need of slicing down to 15. ATL is happy they were able to maneuver under the tax line. The rest, as they say, is gravy.

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

The beginning was a long winded way to say you agree with what I said..

You asked how we would scoop up the player given that we were over the LT.

I answered your question.

("Long-winded?" Two sentences. Really? C'mon... the side-digs crap isn't warranted, and more importantly, irrelevant. Stick to substance and we'll be good.)

So, anywho, I'm left to take it that you didn't realize that was an option. Progress. We could have pursued Krejci in free agency after OKC cut him if that was something considered a priority.

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

Did you listen at all to Nate. 

I'm not sure if I heard what you heard, b/c I don't recall anything about G-league. Please provide a link.

In what I saw last night, I do recall him saying something about Krejci defending 2-4... which made me suspicious that he really was ill-informed to answer the question. And I say that b/c it's just as notable that he evidently wasn't aware that Krejci has routinely played at the 1 as it was that he thought pencil-thin 195 lb. Krejci can play the 4. Honestly, Diesel, this kid has been on my radar for months (strictly as a consequence of him being on OKC's roster), and I know of no one who has ever suggested you could play him as a 4.

McM's post-practice comment that I just watched....

... is notable as much for what he didn't say as what he said.

He was specifically asked what the plan is.

No "plan" came out of his mouth. After some niceties, he said "I'm looking forward to seeing him on the floor with our guys."

There was no "We've had interest in this kid." To the contrary, there was admission that he couldn't recall seeing Krejci play last season. He had seen some video evidently since the trade, just like the rest of us had.

And otherwise, his answer, both here and in what I saw last night, was pretty much the pat answer that any coach gives about any new end-of-the-bench player on his roster... complimentary, positive, polite... non-committal.

Krejci is a new toy, I understand. I hope he has such an outstanding training camp that I have to eat crow. I feel good about my conclusions and the support I've offered for my conclusions.

Now on with a busy day....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My day is very busy too... and in principle we agree on these things that I said earlier:

1.  He was a money move.

2.  He has potential.  That doesn't mean that he will become a starter at all.  That doesn't mean he will be cut for Sturt's big finish either. 

3.  He will play in the G-League if anything (for the Hawks).   Nate said that.

4.  At less than 200 lbs, I wouldn't play him at the 4... Unless in an extreme emergency.  But he's got the height to do it. 


My points that you seem to ignore are these..

1. If he shows well, he may be able to compete for one of our spots covered by less talented players.   i.e. BU SF or BU BU SG. 

2.  I don't really care about OKC need for moving him.  I didn't care about San Antonio's need for moving DJM either.  I didn't care why NJ chose to trade us Mookie Blaylock either.  I didn't care why Utah gave us Dominique for John Drew, Freeman Williams and Cash.  I only care about what our people thought/think of him. 

3.  When the trade was finalized for DJM did Nate say I'm looking forward to seeing him play with our guys?  How about when we picked up either Holiday?  How about Frank the Tank?  My memory says No.  I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  But based on what you deduced from what Nate didn't say... since his time as HC, he hasn't liked anybody that we have acquired!  Damn, Nate must hate his job.  Just having players he don't want thrusted on him. 

My problem with you putting words in Nate's mouth with the things he didn't say is that you ignore the fact that you're using your words... Not his.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

He will play in the G-League if anything (for the Hawks).   Nate said that.

I asked for a link. I missed it if he did. If he did... "we'll be sending Krejci to G-league" or words to that effect... that would be important b/c it would explicitly express an intention to keep him for certain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, sturt said:

I asked for a link. I missed it if he did. If he did... "we'll be sending Krejci to G-league" or words to that effect... that would be important b/c it would explicitly express an intention to keep him for certain.

 

Looking forward to seeing him on the floor with our guys @ 5:15

Nate didn't exactly use the words G-League but he said "he will be a part of our development.  Similar to our other young guys. "

I took that to mean G-League.  Similar to other young guys like JJ and Reef.   Vitt is a young guy who hasn't had a lot of in game experience.  But he still has potential.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 minutes ago, Diesel said:

3.  He will play in the G-League if anything (for the Hawks).   Nate said that.

 

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

Nate didn't exactly use the words G-League but he said "he will be a part of our development.  Similar to our other young guys. "

I took that to mean G-League.

 

So, let's just be clear... he did not make that commitment after all.

He made a commitment that Krejci will be treated like the other young guys... and in context... we're at training camp, of course... the logical conclusion would seem to point to how they're being treated in training camp.

And on that much we agree... for as long as he's not cut, he will be treated like "our other young guys."

 

 

13 minutes ago, Diesel said:

My points that you seem to ignore are these..

1. If he shows well, he may be able to compete for one of our spots covered by less talented players.

Ignore?

10 hours ago, sturt said:

Okay, but let me grant you this much... it's plausible that they'll let him try to win a roster slot in training camp and not release him immediately.

...And if they keep Krejci, someone who thought they were playing for the Hawks is going to be on the street... hard to figure who.

Nope. Didn't ignore. (Why do you do this?)

Also don't know which player you're persuaded they would cut in order to keep him. I don't think there is one, but again, maybe they'll give him a chance and not cut him.

 

15 minutes ago, Diesel said:

2.  I don't really care about OKC need for moving him.  I didn't care about San Antonio's need for moving DJM either.  I didn't care why NJ chose to trade us Mookie Blaylock either.  I didn't care why Utah gave us Dominique for John Drew, Freeman Williams and Cash.  I only care about what our people thought/think of him. 

Second time in 12 hours you've seemed to suggest you have insight the rest of us don't have.

First, it was that we had other options on the table we were considering... and since we didn't take those options, you alleged it said something about the enthusiasm for the player, not just the player's contract.

I simply don't believe you. I don't think you have that insight.

Same here.

I simply don't believe you have any better clue than the rest of us have any clue "what our people thought/think of him."

 

I do care what another team thinks about the player only because it's a better, more informed opinion than I would have myself... and, yes, at that point that my own team makes clear how they think about the player, I tend to give their opinion priority.

 

You assume a lot, Dies. You just do. We don't know what we don't know.

So far, all of our team's comments about the player are polite comments that you'd anticipate... and it's not like they're going to be candid, unless indeed, the really and truly are over-the-moon about what they were able to obtain.

No such grandiose comments have been made. In fact, again, there's reason to believe the head coach wasn't even well-acquainted enough with the player to know he primarily has played PG.... and to know he's never been regarded as someone who can guard PFs.

 

34 minutes ago, Diesel said:

3.  When the trade was finalized for DJM did Nate say I'm looking forward to seeing him play with our guys?  How about when we picked up either Holiday?  How about Frank the Tank?  My memory says No.  I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  But based on what you deduced from what Nate didn't say... since his time as HC, he hasn't liked anybody that we have acquired!  Damn, Nate must hate his job.  Just having players he don't want thrusted on him. 

To your actual words verbatim here, I don't recall that Nate's been interviewed very much this off-season. I do believe someone reported he was excited by the DJM trade, but I don't remember even anyone reporting either way on any of the other acquisitions.

To the point I think you're trying to make (?)... no, I don't think you can read into "I'm looking forward to seeing him play with our guys" to be anything more than face value.

He is, indeed, looking forward to seeing him play. Nothing more, nothing less.

You know this. When a coach is genuinely enthusiastic about an acquisition, he both makes that clear and proceeds to explain why he's so enthusiastic.

Pointing out that that didn't happen in this case is a legitimate point. Pointing that out in combination with Nate's apparent lack of awareness that the player has been a PG and never or almost never has been asked to guard PFs further makes the legitimate point.

You're wanting this to be so much more, and our information at present is that it's not... there are reasons to believe this player will be kept for some part of training camp... and that's it. We have no information that there are any intentions beyond that.

 

Lunch time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
40 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Oh... and by the way....

 

How is it that you cite that link, unaware evidently that the very same link is posted above?

Are you even reading what I write?

Diesel, I specifically cited the exact phrase that you just did.

3 hours ago, sturt said:

McM's post-practice comment that I just watched... [youtube link] ... is notable as much for what he didn't say as what he said.

He was specifically asked what the plan is.

No "plan" came out of his mouth. After some niceties, he said "I'm looking forward to seeing him on the floor with our guys."

 

So, the natural response to my question would not have been to recite the very same link I'd just provided myself.

Admit it. You're not even reading my posts.

Seems mighty disingenuous to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right!  Squawk posters have a new Hawk to discuss.  Vit Krejci is a long, tall drink of water with very long arms.  He's had some, but not a lot of NBA experience.  He's been injured.  His playing days were at the guard position.  Nate is looking forward to watching him work out with the other Hawks as they prepare for that 1st pre-season game, coming soon.

Vit may or may not make the cut to the final 15.  Or 14.  He's borderline.  Hawks already have 2 players on 2-way contracts.  That's all you are allowed.  Still, he could end up with the Skyhawks with his current contract.  He needs to be playing.

😇

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, sturt said:

Oh... and by the way....

 

How is it that you cite that link, unaware evidently that the very same link is posted above?

Are you even reading what I write?

Diesel, I specifically cited the exact phrase that you just did.

 

So, the natural response to my question would not have been to recite the very same link I'd just provided myself.

Admit it. You're not even reading my posts.

Seems mighty disingenuous to me.

When I originally read your post, I thought you were saying that because Nate didn't say... He wanted to see him with the team... You see, I think it kind of fell in your "I Learn from what Nate Didn't say" Diatribe for me. 

My fault if I miss quoted you.  But I did watch the video but didn't listen to Nate as intently because usually he never talks strategy which is what I really look for. 

 

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...