Trade Deadline 2023: February 9th.

[macdaddy]

Just now, theheroatl said:

Doesn’t Ainge have enough picks. Greedy AF. Boston won one title on the back of luck.

Also, press for Lauri only. Both Beasley and Vanderbilt are not the prize.

I was thinking this too.  They say they want to build around Lauri now because he's been so good but Ainge also loves to try to win trades so you could probably get him interested.  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

have won six of their last nine games since Jan. 13 and have taken a patient approach with trade talks

These next four... all on the road of course... will have a lot to say about that "patient approach," imo.

 

 

[Diesel]

34 minutes ago, sturt said:

These next four... all on the road of course... will have a lot to say about that "patient approach," imo.

 

 

I don't disagree.   I think we will muddy the waters by going 4-1 or 5-0 over our next 5.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 1/20/2023 at 3:11 PM, macdaddy said:

Interesting.  Their new billionaire owner ain't afraid of no tax.  

The complete opposite from Sarver, who had to have his arm twisted to go over the tax.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

 

 

Thinking the inference to this is that MIL and PHX have agreed on a trade, but MIL has to have Crowder's assurance that he's actually going to play and not pout... which likely is connected, of course, to him having MIL's assurance that they want him for the longer term.

 

[AHF]

4 hours ago, sturt said:

While true, not really the point of bringing it up. Right?

The original question being addressed was rooted in the premise that you have to have a player who has proven capable of reliably putting the team on his back in regular season as a necessary condition to having a team capable of winning a title.

DEN is capable of winning a title. They do need other pieces perhaps, but they've satisfied that most fundamental condition.

And the original question was whether we have satisfied that most fundamental question.

I do think we do. I think that's shown up the last two seasons, but this season's been complicated by the fact that we're trying to incorporate a whole other new major piece in the engine.

And/but, I also would agree, as said in that OP, that we're now at a point where that's got to start showing up in game results like it has at times before... otherwise, the consideration that maybe Trae has hit his ceiling grows, and you have to explore other alpha dog superstar possibilities.

You and disagree on what qualifies a team to be capable of winning a title.  I don't see Denver as being any more or less capable of winning a ring the last few years than the Hawks have been.  Both Trae's Hawks and Jokic's Nuggets have made the conference finals and have made some early playoff exits.  

The argument you are making is that Jokic is putting them on his back to be contenders.  Again, I don't see that.  You do.  Not sure there is much to bridge that gap.

Even if we did agree that the Nuggets and their 5-10 record in the playoffs the last two seasons are confirmed NBA contenders while the Hawks and their 11-9 record are not, I will note that when you look at players other than Trae and Jokic you don't see Denver doing well in the playoffs except in seasons where players other than Jokic are having strong years so I would also hesitate to agree to the word "carried" in connection with "contender."  

I do think there are good arguments that can be made that Jokic has been better than Trae over the last few years and that is a major driver for his team's mid-40 win seasons the last 3 years but I just can't get on the same full page here with your bottomline assessment of either Jokic as the guy carrying his team to true title contender status or Trae as an unworthy star who could never have his team in the same discussion as what Jokic has done the last few years.  

Age 24 Jokic's Nuggets won 46 games

Age 24 Trae's Hawks are on pace to win 42 games despite him having his worst season of his career in some important ways

Is that enough of a gap for me to ditch Trae?  No.  Would I have wanted to ditch Jokic at the same time because 40 something wins isn't good enough?  No.  Again, I think he is a rare talent (as is Jokic) and I'm invested in maximizing the team's success with him if I'm in the GM spot unless I get an offer that just knocks me off my feet.  

Even if I agreed with all of that, however, I'd still be opposed to the idea because trading a star rarely works out well for the team that deals that player.  I think the risk is more heavily weighted towards the team quitting on or otherwise jettisoning their star than it is on the team that takes him.  (I'm thinking of Kawhi to Toronto, the Chuck Wagon to Phoenix, Harden to the Rockets, Vince to the Nets, etc.)  Maybe the best case scenario I can recall was the Nuggets trading away Melo but they sure didn't get back a star in that one and didn't push themselves forward so much as hold their ground after the trade.  High level talent is rare in the NBA and so trading that talent away rarely gets you a comparable return.  I certainly wouldn't risk ruining the relationship with Trae by shopping him around.  I'd listen to the calls and expect not to hear anything that would get me to think hard about the deal.  And I'd be ok if holding him and trying to do better meant I held onto a losing hand for too long because Trae had actually already passed his prime when I was betting on a return to form or further development.  I'd rather be wrong holding onto a guy who isn't as good as I thought than be wrong in giving him away and having him make me regret that trade for years to come.  I feel like the Hawks are already haunted by the Nique trade.  I wouldn't be willing to be haunted by the Trae trade if I were the GM and someone came with an "amazing" offer for my star ala the Gobert trade or something.

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

The argument you are making is that Jokic is putting them on his back to be contenders.

My argument is very very precise, and so, nuanced from that sentence.

My argument is that, if you are to be a contender, you must have at least one player who has shown in the regular season that he's capable to put the team on his back and win.

DEN has that. They may not have the other pieces, but they have that, and on the checklist, that's one's required.

 

We had thought we have that. I still believe we probably do. But we're running out of time now for Trae to affirm that we have that.

[AHF]

28 minutes ago, sturt said:

My argument is very very precise, and so, nuanced from that sentence.

My argument is that, if you are to be a contender, you must have at least one player who has shown in the regular season that he's capable to put the team on his back and win.

DEN has that. They may not have the other pieces, but they have that, and on the checklist, that's one's required.

 

We had thought we have that. I still believe we probably do. But we're running out of time now for Trae to affirm that we have that.

I did not get that from your original post.  So we can remove teams that aren't legit contenders from the discussion and focus on the legit contenders then you are probably right that these legit contender teams have someone who has proven they can carry their team and win a lot of games in the regular season.  

I guess I still don't see much that makes me think Trae can't get this team to 48 wins at age 26 like Jokic was last season in his age 26 year.  (Note:  I do think the difference in depth on the Hawks versus the Nuggets is a significant part of their W/L record in addition to my view, and presumably yours, that Jokic has been better than Trae).

So going back to your original post, I think it would have been a mistake for the Nuggets to look at their 48 win total in Jokic's age 26 season and look to unload him because they weren't legit contenders and I view Trae in much the same light.  The major difference is just how much Trae has struggled with his shot this year when Jokic has been ultra elite in that regard this year and the prior 2 seasons.  So I view us as a poor man's 2021-22 Nuggets right now (i.e., a team that is probably underperforming with its record and is not a legit contender but who has a special player that is worth continuing to build around).

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:45 AM, REHawksFan said:

The Hawks as a team have evolved over the last several seasons.  Early on they needed Trae to explode to have a reasonable chance to win. Their roster was that awful. It was Trae, JC and no other NBA players.  Then they added some pieces and really needed him to be elite but not necessarily go nuclear for them to win regularly. But that wasn't good enough in the playoffs because he could be taken away too easily. So now, they've added more pieces and they really just need him to give effort defensively, take care of the ball, and shoot efficiently for them to win consistently.  He'll still be top 15 in pts and top 3 in asts but will be a more rounded player and the guy that the team NEEDS to be that leader. 

It seems to me like Trae welcomed the early roles of being the superstar guy that carried the team.  Then he was ok with just being elite but the team wasn't winning enough so he pushed for additions.  Now he needs to be more of a team player and he just hasn't evolved to that point consistently yet.  We see flashes of it.  But then the "I've got to carry this team" mentality that he justifiably had early in his career creeps back up from time to time. He forces it and when it doesn't work, he looks like a fool.  

Bottom line for me, Trae is still an ELITE player in the NBA.  He just needs to evolve his game to the point where he trusts his teammates more and doesn't feel like he has to be the hero every night.  Just be the hero when it comes naturally.  Defer to DJ or Dre or Bogi when they are hot.  Be smart. 

Do that and he can absolutely be the No. 1 on a title team.  I really believe that.    

I know you're a Trae supporter, so I won't come too hard.  But the issue isn't Trae trying to be the hero.  At the end of the game, a player must be the 'hero'.  They just have to take the best shot available down the stretch, and make it. So whether that player is Trae, Dejounte, or any other player, the guys just have to make winning plays at the end of a game.

Whenever Trae plays passive, the team tends to struggle.  If one of his teammates have it going, by no means he should get them the ball.  But when the team is throwing up bricks, Trae has to be more aggressive, because he's the only one on the team that can make a tough shot, and draw a foul if he happens to miss.

The bigger issue is that we're a soft team on defense.  And it shows every time we play a bigger or more physical team. This is why we can't hold double digit leads throughout a game. And that's why we get killed on the boards. 

 

[REHawksFan]

16 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I know you're a Trae supporter, so I won't come too hard.  But the issue isn't Trae trying to be the hero.  At the end of the game, a player must be the 'hero'.  They just have to take the best shot available down the stretch, and make it. So whether that player is Trae, Dejounte, or any other player, the guys just have to make winning plays at the end of a game.

Whenever Trae plays passive, the team tends to struggle.  If one of his teammates have it going, by no means he should get them the ball.  But when the team is throwing up bricks, Trae has to be more aggressive, because he's the only one on the team that can make a tough shot, and draw a foul if he happens to miss.

The bigger issue is that we're a soft team on defense.  And it shows every time we play a bigger or more physical team. This is why we can't hold double digit leads throughout a game. And that's why we get killed on the boards. 

 

I agree with this.  

But it's also true that the dynamics of the team have changed over time.  We no longer have to talk about Trae getting 30 for the Hawks to win.  That was a REAL situation a few seasons ago because they didn't have anyone else that could get hot and have it going.  Or could reliably produce on offense. Now they do. 

So now I need Trae to make the right plays to the right people when they are hot.  I'm not talking about when everyone is bricking. Trae is the alpha and the superstar.  He needs to take control when everyone else is sucking. And he'll get his over the course of the game anyway.  But we've all seen times this year when DJ or Hunter or Bogi or AJ had the hot hand and Trae goes down and pulls a 3 in the first 5 sec of the clock.  Even if he hits it, I'd rather him find the hot hand and ride it until bonehead Nate takes the guy out. 

It's a lot easier for Trae to get points than it is for DJ or Dre to string 3 or 4 outside shots together.  So when they hot, ride with it.  That's all I'm saying.  Don't interject yourself and kill the momentum of the other guys.  

[Gray Mule]

It's not just Trae.  It's the Hawks plans to do it this way.  Trae didn't play last night, yet Atlanta lost the game in the closing moments of the game.  This seems to be the pattern every game, regardless of who plays.

[Spud2nique]

Indiana, New Orleans and Utah are among the teams that have expressed interest in Collins, who has been challenging for Atlanta to move with three seasons left beyond this one on his five-year, $125 million contract.

 

– via Marc Stein @ marcstein.substack.com

 New Orleans, Trade, Atlanta Hawks, Indiana Pacers, New Orleans Pelicans, Utah Jazz

 

[Diesel]

How about this...  A force on Phoenix.

 

To me.  It makes no sense to bring in Ayton and Keep OO.    The suns get great value out of this deal and our owner saves money.   He likes that. 

Yall know how I feel about Ayton... but it's a one year experiment with him and Crowder under the strick hand of Nate. 

 

[akay]

22 hours ago, sturt said:

My argument is very very precise, and so, nuanced from that sentence.

My argument is that, if you are to be a contender, you must have at least one player who has shown in the regular season that he's capable to put the team on his back and win.

DEN has that. They may not have the other pieces, but they have that, and on the checklist, that's one's required.

 

We had thought we have that. I still believe we probably do. But we're running out of time now for Trae to affirm that we have that.

How are we running out of time when Trae still has 4 more years on his contract, and Trae has affirmed it once already with our ECF run?

A more creative coach, a vet who can help glue our team together and help close out games, we are having none of these doubts we're seeing today imo. Even if we had won 3-5 more games this season, I don't think we'd be doomin as much as we are, it's a tight race in the East and even with Trae having his worst season so far, he's still playing at a high level and still we're very much MID with the possibility of rising to top level players. 

Nate has been coaching how Nate does, we aren't taking efficient shots, and we're still in a decent position for the playoffs. It could be a lot worse, but I think our floor is the play-ins which isn't where you wanna be with all the talent on our team, but it could be worse. 

I think it only goes up from here, and if being mid is the Hawks floor, I'm excite to see what a good modern coach can do with this team. 

I admit Trae bricking shots at the end of games has demonstrated him not putting the team on his back to win games, but this is a more recent phenomena, and I just don't think Trae has lost his basketball ability. The shooting will come back and we can ride those floaters and deep 3's to victory once again 

[sturt]

14 minutes ago, akay said:

How are we running out of time when Trae still has 4 more years on his contract, and Trae has affirmed it once already with our ECF run?

Good question.

The "running out of time" part regards specifically the question of whether it becomes reasonable to become open to trading Trae. Nothing else.

Not, then, that we should. But that, for the first time since he was drafted, it becomes a legitimate conversation. And if it becomes a legitimate conversation, then, of course, it boils down to what other teams would take interest and do they have something to offer in return that is so compelling that we really would be smart to seriously consider the trade proposal.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

Bones Hyland is one of the players most likely to get traded before the upcoming deadline, sources told Marc Stein of Substack.

The Nuggets are looking for a defensive option with size in return for Hyland.

 

C'mon down Justin Holiday, you are a defensive option with siiiize. (Mimicking Price is Right )

[sturt]

59 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

you are a defensive option

[kg01]

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Bones Hyland is one of the players most likely to get traded before the upcoming deadline, sources told Marc Stein of Substack.

The Nuggets are looking for a defensive option with size in return for Hyland.

 

C'mon down Justin Holiday, you are a defensive option with siiiize. (Mimicking Price is Right )

Trae for Bones?  

Technically he's a defensive 'option' (doesn't specify they want a good one) and he has a size, no?

Edited February 1, 2023 by kg01

[Spud2nique]

3 hours ago, kg01 said:

Trae for Bones?  

Technically he's a defensive 'option' (doesn't specify they want a good one) and he has a size, no?

George Karl just called in to say he hated the deal…. And the players involved.. and you @kg01 

[theheroatl]

Who says no to Jerami Grant for John Collins?

I feel like that is a perfect swap. Grant doesn't disappear in games as much as John. 

https://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/2991070/jerami-grant

https://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3908845/john-collins

 

Now, as far as defense and rebounding.. will need some serious work to get that back up.

Edited February 1, 2023 by theheroatl