The Official NBASupes, Sothron, and theCampster Insider Thread - NBA 2022-23 Season

[JTB]

6 minutes ago, Sothron said:

It isn't my scoop per se but my sources agree with what one person initially brought up. I think it is up to that person to share the information if they choose to do so. 

I am not intentionally trying to be vague. I just don't want to take credit from someone else since they brought it up first and I had to verify with my two Hawks sources.

No worries at all. I completely understand. Just do me a favor and let that person know I’m patiently waiting …..

[GameTime]

21 minutes ago, Sothron said:

That's what Ainge was asking for but I can't see us doing that. 

If the other trade happens it would make JC basically redundant on the team and we could just trade him for future picks.

So the other trade doesn't involve JC? Who else? Bogi? Clint

[JayBirdHawk]

On 1/6/2023 at 2:03 PM, JayBirdHawk said:

I get for the 1st. On the court, our already 3pt shooting and ability to spread the floor will again be diminished. Lavert is also more of the same ISO guy. Don't need more of it.

3rd stringers are 3rd stringers for a reason.

 

On 1/6/2023 at 2:19 PM, AHF said:

The biggest issues I have with LeVert are that:

(1) He is a terrible 3pt shooter for a wing and we desperately need 3pt shooting.  He is a career 33.5% 3pt shooter as a wing who is primarily a scorer.  He shot 32.6% and 32.0% his last two seasons.  Take out Bogi who is shooting 41% this season and replace it with him and that is a disaster for spacing with Trae struggling from deep, DM mediocre, JC in a world of hurt, etc.  I just don't think you can be a viable team without multiple quality 3pt shooters in this era.

(2) He overall is an inefficient volume scorer.  He has a garbage .524% TS% for his career.  That stinks.  He also is less efficient than normal this year sitting at .510% TS% this season.  We are complaining about Trae being at .554% TS%.  Now we would be feeding shots to LaVert?  Dropping from Bogi's .579% to LaVert's .510% would be brutal.  Think about how JJ has struggled on offense and he is doing better than LaVert this season (.518% to .510%).  

 

On 1/6/2023 at 2:24 PM, kg01 said:

For Levert to be effective, you have to put the ball in his hands and let him tricky, herky, jerky dribble into a bunch-a contested shots and hope he gets hawt.

Then you lose the game.  Thats the cycle. 

Sign me up for none-a that.

Previous Thoughts on Levert

[Atlantaholic]

49 minutes ago, h4wkfan said:

Unless there is someone else that I’m not seeing as realistic, at least mid season, I hope we do nothing more but to find a way to sure up the bench. When healthy the starters are starting to play well together … bench + backup big could use a boost. 
 

holiday + SRP for Vanderbilt. Tell Ainge to get off the if he thinks JC + FRP is worth that. 
 

 

Our starters have been good, we should be trying to add depth. Unless we are making a transformative soft rebuild type of move the only way we improve the team realistically through a trade is if we trade for efficient scoring decent defensive depth. 

[Sothron]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

Ugh we're going to end up with Crowder aren't we?  And he's going to have to play himself into game shape while trying to build chemistry over the last part of the season.  And then when things start clicking, he's leaving us in FA anyways.  

He is from Atlanta, he's been working at Georgia Tech and low key working out with some hawks players. 

If he's a JC replacement it isn't the end of the world. He's a starting level PF that doesn't need the ball, he can defend and he can hit wide open threes. Look at what he's done in his career. He's always been a plus to any team he's on. 

[Diesel]

9 hours ago, Sothron said:

This is true but what I've heard is Cleveland is trying to make this a three way trade. Beasley goes to Cleveland, JC goes to Utah and we get...spare parts from Utah/Clev to make salaries match. Plus Ainge is asking for an Atlanta first rounder to "take on" JC's contract. 

Utah is pushing hard for JC. They could cut Cleveland out, cut out the demand for the first rounder and swap Beasley and Vandy for JC. I would still expect the Hawks to ask for at least one first rounder to come back to us because Beasley and Vandy just aren't anywhere near JC's value on the court.

Sounds like Ainge is trying to play the young GM?

If Fields goes for any of this...  I'll be very very disappointed. 

 

[ShooterSays]

Interested to know what this other trade is. Guessing it would have to be either Cap or Bogi involved. 

[Diesel]

 

Hey guys.. I have peered into the future.   I don't have sources... I have a 

 

When I went to ask about the Hawks and will JC be traded... this is the answer I got back..

[macdaddy]

8 hours ago, Sothron said:

He is from Atlanta, he's been working at Georgia Tech and low key working out with some hawks players. 

If he's a JC replacement it isn't the end of the world. He's a starting level PF that doesn't need the ball, he can defend and he can hit wide open threes. Look at what he's done in his career. He's always been a plus to any team he's on. 

He's also 32 years old and has been sitting.  he's a 10/5 guy at this point.  I'd say he brings some leadership but he's sitting at home because he thinks he should still be starting so not sure about that leadership.  This is a downgrade for the Hawks and we're already a middle of pack team. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Sounds like Ainge is trying to play the young GM?

If Fields goes for any of this...  I'll be very very disappointed. 

 

If there's anything positive that has emerged from the upheaval of-late, and based on what it is possible to ascertain (bold italics very intentional given the running theme of my posts of-late)... it's that Young Landry is being surrounded by some plausibly useful support structure in the war room. It may be his final decision what to recommend to Ressler for approval on trade X, Y or Z, but that recommendation seemingly will have evolved after input from some plausibly intelligent voices/minds.

And/but.

Given the words of Young Landry and Threezus that just got published, it would be contradictory for them to make any deals at all until there's been time to actually execute the assessment they indicated is now being performed... ie, at least until this rotation with CC reinserted into it would show itself incapable of maintaining a .600+ W/L pct.

[JayBirdHawk]

44 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

He's also 32 years old and has been sitting.  he's a 10/5 guy at this point.  I'd say he brings some leadership but he's sitting at home because he thinks he should still be starting so not sure about that leadership.  This is a downgrade for the Hawks and we're already a middle of pack team. 

All true. I would be very Dissapointed if we end up with Crowder as our starting PF 

[AHF]

35 minutes ago, sturt said:

Given the words of Young Landry and Threezus that just got published, it would be contradictory for them to make any deals at all until there's been time to actually execute the assessment they indicated is now being performed... ie, at least until this rotation with CC reinserted into it would show itself incapable of maintaining a .600+ W/L pct.

I don't know if I'd say it would be contradictory.  At best, I'd say a better comparison would be to trading a player before the season started.  Using DM as an example, there might have been a player we preferred to DM (for projected fit, talent, contract, etc.) during the summer and if we can now swap them I don't think that doing so now would be contradictory to what they say.  Same with any other player on the roster - if a trade makes sense I don't see why they won't make it.  How I read their post is more about avoiding moves driven by feeling a "need" to make a move.  They aren't going to do something "rash" because they will wait and gather the data before they make firm conclusions about the current roster, but I'd expect that all kinds of theoretical moves are still on the table while they are doing that because those are deals they view as "wins" for Atlanta and not deals driven by failures of the current roster.

[AtLaS]

I just don't get it, none of these trades fix our 3pt shooting or rebounding issues.

Simmons - We get worse at rebounding and shooting, AND take on another max contract?  I just don't see how that ever works unless we can get KAT, then we have 4 max contracts.  Capela has to go immediately if we trade for Simmons.  

The Utah trade for Vanderbilt/Beasley.  Absolutely destroys our spacing/shooting.  We would have zero shooting from the 4/5.  Won't work.

Crowder?  Improves our shooting but kills our rebounding.  We going to swap Collins for Crowder at the 4 when we're already getting destroyed on the boards?  You cant play OO and CC together for extended minutes so that's just a nonstarter for me.  

 

All of these deals are going to require major changes afterwards to make it all fit.  Maybe that's the goal, IDK.  

I think we should just wait until the summer if this is all that's on the table.

[macdaddy]

2 minutes ago, AtLaS said:

I just don't get it, none of these trades fix our 3pt shooting or rebounding issues.

Simmons - We get worse at rebounding and shooting, AND take on another max contract?  I just don't see how that ever works unless we can get KAT, then we have 4 max contracts.  Capela has to go immediately if we trade for Simmons.  

The Utah trade for Vanderbilt/Beasley.  Absolutely destroys our spacing/shooting.  We would have zero shooting from the 4/5.  Won't work.

Crowder?  Improves our shooting but kills our rebounding.  We going to swap Collins for Crowder at the 4 when we're already getting destroyed on the boards?  You cant play OO and CC together for extended minutes so that's just a nonstarter for me.  

 

All of these deals are going to require major changes afterwards to make it all fit.  Maybe that's the goal, IDK.  

I think we should just wait until the summer if this is all that's on the table.

I agree 100% but remember the order of priorities

1. stay under the tax at all costs

2. surround Trae with approved players

3. hope we win

[sturt]

@AHF let's walk through this, shall we?

1. The premise of any trade for a team intent on contending is to "get better"... is it not?

Surely we agree on that much.

2. The definition of "contradictory" is that there is a logical incongrence between two things... statements, actions, etc...

The dictionary says as much, and is the widely regarded authority on that one.

3. To say, "we're making this deal because it makes us better" is a shorter way of saying, "we have assessed (past tense) our current situation as accurately as we think we can, and by making Change X, it is our projection that our situation will improve."

Right?

4. The word-for-word statement following the lead-up (paraphrase, "You say it is not working yet," and the equally operative term in that sentence is "yet")... "Like, we need to see guys, and actually, we haven't had a great sample size (to) really judge WHAT IS (working or not working) just YET."

 

5. It, then, is a logical incongruence to have just said, in essence, "we can't determine for a fact what is working yet," but then turn around and strike a deal that we're going to claim "makes us better." (...  I mean, short of something stupid incredible where we'd get some elite player for a meh player out of some implausible motive).

 

I would be stunned and amazed... you'd see me doing the Fred Sanford heart attack thing... if a deal of consequence to the rotation is made even while this rotation's outcomes are suggesting "it's working."

Big tests coming right up, of course.

[JayBirdHawk]

If it's one thing I've learn is never to fully take GM speak as fact, semi-fact, actual intention. Etc. Things happen fast, things change, the unexpected happens etc.

 

 

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

If it's one thing I've learn is never to full take GM as fact, semi-fact, actual intention. Etc. Things happen fast, things change, the unexpected happens etc.

While that's true, the converse is also true and even more so.... you can't rule out that the GM is telling you what you should expect. In fact, it's that way so much more of the time, just naturally... people in those positions tend to not to be making 90 and 180 degree turns except in those relatively infrequent times that something weird happens to prompt them doing that.

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

While that's true, the converse is also true and even more so.... you can't rule out that the GM is telling you what you should expect. In fact, it's that way so much more of the time, just naturally... people in those positions tend to not to be making 90 and 180 degree turns except in those relatively infrequent times that something weird happens to prompt them doing that.

Yeah...we've been down this rabbit hole before with the LT, Bogi's return etc.

[yungsta]

29 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

All true. I would be very Dissapointed if we end up with Crowder as our starting PF 

 

I agree, this makes no sense. I thought the reason we overpaid for Dejounte by giving up 3 picks was to maximize Trae's prime years by going all in and surrounding him with as much talent as possible. Why are we so focused on destroying years of asset accumulation to cut cost?

How does the front office expect us to get better? Do they expect talent to walk through the door and beg to play for us at a discount?

I'm very disappointed in the direction, we are arguable in a worst position than last year. We gave up picks to still be a fringe play-in team.

If the ownership wasn't willing to pay the luxury tax at all cost to hoard as much talent as possible. I would love to know the rationale on why we made the trade in the first place. I rather have huerter and the 3 picks back then what we have now.

[sturt]

20 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Yeah...we've been down this rabbit hole before with the LT, Bogi's return etc.

1. They're not in trouble with the LT right now.

Non-sequitur, unless you're suggesting it's on the table to substantially or entirely blow-up the roster. You'd be welcome to that, but I don't see you or anyone else on that train, right?

2. BogBog's return wasn't a matter of GM decision-making as-if it could be "decided" BogBog was fully recovered ahead of him actually being healthy enough to return.

Non-sequitur.

 

We may disagree, but as a rule, I do not believe GMs intentionally lie to you in the context of an interview like we've just read. Rather, GMs do give you a glimpse of their thinking even if that glimpse is incomplete.

It's an especially well-grounded glimpse if, in conveying that glimpse, they also tell you their reasoning for thinking that way.

That's happened here.

 

The debate here is not what will  happen. That, of course, is a common overstep that people make, but one I especially try not to make. I'm not omniscient. I'm not a god.

The debate here is what should one expect will happen.

 

We should expect what I've asserted... not because I asserted it, but because it is well-grounded in what the GM and his Assistant told us. Just told us.

How long should we expect that? That's also up for debate. I dunno. They didn't give us any insight into what they consider to be a "great sample size."

If you're going to argue with me, argue that point... that is a valid thing to debate.

If you ask me, a super-minimal sample size is 6 games... but conventionally, I'd say 12 games is probably sufficient.