Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

2023-24 Insider Information Thread


Recommended Posts

I’m holding out for hope that we can improve our defense. I just don’t see the same jimmy’s and joes improving our defense into the top 3rd of the league.


We don’t need a splash player.

Brook Lopez and Delon Wright could solve this issue really quick. 

That being said we can get scoring out of our backcourt. We have proven to be an above average offensive team and a mediocre defensive team. That needs to be addressed over just trading for a top tier player.

Edited by theheroatl
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

Brook Lopez and Delon Wright could solve this issue really quick. 

Lopez is an example of a player who would be on the court a lot. But there's a lot of reason to believe he'll be back in MIL, and even if he isn't, a lot of reason to think we can't afford him.

Wright is an example of someone who might be attainable given WAS's fire sale. But there's a lot of reason to believe he'd rarely get on the floor unless you send out something of value... potentially if not likely ending up netting a zero sum benefit.

But the overarching point is really really really well-taken.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

So Brad Rowland does have sources?  

That leaped out to me, too.... first time I've ever seen him allege he has "sources."

Brad, if you're lurking, please follow up your tweet and clarify.

Does "prominent" source mean... someone who would know by virtue of their inclusion in the ATL Hawks basketball ops organization chart.......... or......... someone who is "prominent," as-in, say, Bob Rathbun or Kevin Chouinard... a name we all would recognize as a media person with, no doubt, good sources of their own... but the intel is, actually, second-hand then... ???

Not doubting the information so much as, again, you've never  suggested, to my knowledge, that you have what would ordinarily be described as "insider" sources... and even here, it's interesting you choose the term "prominent" which can be read different ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Now that we are past the draft, I am starting a new thread for this discussion.  I am reposting the pinned thread guidance and highlighting an additional qualification:

How Moderators Will Deal with  Posters Who Claim to Have Inside Information - A post passing along 'inside information' tends to draw more attention than an average post on the Squawk and comes cloaked in a higher level of credibility due to the referenced source(s).  Some posters have been skeptical of the legitimacy of the posts and previously indicated they did not want to see them.  Others have showed strong interest in this content.  

As a moderator team, we do our best to assess whether these claims are being made in good faith or not.  If we conclude that there are reasons to doubt whether the poster is making them in good faith, we will generally pull those posts from the board as we do with other bad faith content.  Where the posts are being made in good faith, they will generally be permitted.  I think it is important to stress that we have evaluated this issue specific to Soth, Supes and campster in a couple of ways and our conclusion is that we will continue to permit these posters to share their 'inside information' on the board for these reasons. 

Character of the Posters - First, we looked at the posters themselves to see if there were indicia of bad faith.  I don't need to belabor this so I'll just be direct.  These are veteran posters on the Squawk who have shown themselves to be reasonable, ethical people in the past.  Like with other posters who have shown themselves to be honest men (or women) of character, this earns them a degree of trust from our team in the absence of some compelling reason to think that some ill will is in play.  We see none of that here.  We think that those who are sharing this info are not bull****ing the board for some capricious pleasure or out of some desire for attention and are passing along the information in good faith because they think it will be of interest to some posters.  In particular, I'd note that Sothron has been targeted by a really bad actor in the past who (IMO) criminally harassed him and his wife so he is a great example of someone who not only isn't out for attention but has compelling reasons not to share other than doing what he thinks is good for other people here.  So from the standpoint of bad motives which might be a reason to moderate that content (trolling, using the board to make money, whatever, etc.), we don't see any indication of that and believe in the good faith of all three of these people.  If we had a reason to think any future posts are not made in good faith, we would certainly treat that very differently from where we have some confidence about the good faith of the posters.  Notably, mrh specifically stated in his original post that he was not questioning the integrity or good faith of soth, camp, and supes.

Reliability of the Content -  Second, we took a look at the accuracy of the content that has been shared under the insider label and view the accuracy of that coming to pass as mixed.  This is likely to be expected if real since nobody is getting their leaks from TS (meaning there is a bit of the phone game in terms of degrees of separation from the ultimate  decision maker to the post coming onto the board) and if we use media members who share inside info that is not in the vein of Wojo (i.e., things that are done and happening and just leaked moments before they become verified anyway) this is consistent with their 'accuracy'.  We have no intent of banning media content of this variety so don't see that as being more problematic in terms of poster content.  To the contrary, all three of these posters have been very explicit about the limitations and distance from actionability of their information so there is a degree of caveat emptor for people reading this content.  The posters providing this make no bones about the fact that most of what they share will never result in something tangible because by its nature most trade talk and similar discussions between teams that might be shared by an inside source amounts to nothing and sometimes the inside source is simply wrong.  In sum, there was not a concern about reliability here that rose to a level where we felt moderation was required.

Disinterest / Negative Reaction from Some Posters - Third, we considered that there are some posters who don't want to see this content or simply think it is all garbage that the Squawk would be better off without.  That is fair but I think it isn't that different from posters who are uninterested in other discussion like Diesel's trade threads or arm-chair psychologist speculation on a player's state of mind, off-season work, etc.  That is part and parcel of a board like this.  The approach from the moderators that we will continue going forward is to try to keep most of this content in discrete threads so that it doesn't shut down other content that may be of interest to these posters.  Think of this as being somewhat like the tanking discussions from a few years ago where moderators did affirmatively step in to remove that content from threads.  In those cases, when the OP's subject for discussion was lost due to the thread getting derailed with tank talk we culled the tanking content out of those threads.  Please reach out to a moderator if you see this becoming an issue on the board and we will be happy to help out.  The intent is that this be a topic of discussion and not to overwhelm other topics.  I'm confident we can strike that balance.

Net Positive to the Board -  Fourth, even in the absence of a violation of the rules we considered whether the board would be better off without this content on the main board and concluded that just wasn't the case.  There are a lot of posters who are very interested in and enjoy discussion of these posts.  For those who don't, they can simply skip the "ask Supes" type of threads that are focused on this content and they will be spared most of it.  Removing this content or gating it in a more limited way we think would not do a lot for the board and would be seen as a real negative for the significant number of posters who are interested in this content.  In short, we think the discussion is overall a good thing for the Squawk and our members.


HOW TO DEAL WITH POSTERS OF 'INSIDE INFORMATION' - A natural corollary to the conclusion that we will permit these posts from these posters (absent some significant change in circumstances) is that we aren't going to have a debate on the board about whether they are lying or full of it, etc.  The mantra all of you are probably sick of hearing from me is "address the post, not the poster."  If you believe a poster is acting in bad faith PM a mod.  If you think that discussion is encroaching on other topics, PM a mod.  You are 100% entitled not to believe a word of these posts in which case it might be recommended to skip the thread entirely.  However, we are not going to move into a referendum on the posters and their good faith on the board. 

Report it if you think there is some compelling reason that there is a problem.  But do not insult the posters, attack their integrity, etc. on the board.  Feel 100% free, to the contrary, to give every reason under the sun you think that the inside information doesn't make sense.  Hopefully he doesn't mind, but I'll use bleach as a good example of how to do this.  There were 'inside information' posts concerning potential Ben Simmons trades that were made.   He did not attack the posters but very vocally stated why he thought that a trade along those lines didn't make sense and would therefore never happen.  That is totally fair discussion.  It is basketball discussion about the content of the post rather than the poster themselves.  That is how to engage on this if you don't think the 'inside info' is credible rather than to challenge the poster.  (Recap:  Engage on a basketball discussion or reach out to a moderator).

CLARIFICATION:  If you want to taunt the posters when their information doesn't pan out, go ahead and self edit that post.  This thread is not a place to dump on someone every time info doesn't pan out.  To try to illustrate this see the difference in the #3 response:

1 - "My source tells me we are going to draft Isaiah Jackson with the #20 in the 2021 draft."

2 - Hawks actually draft Jalen Johnson.  

3 -

"You were wrong.  LMAO."

"The Isaiah Jackson thing never made sense to me because we didn't need a center with CC and OO on the roster.  A PF like JJ was always a much bigger need."

The former is going to get removed and you'll be asked not to repeat it.  The latter is fair basketball discussion.  Focus on basketball, not on the poster and you are going to be fine.  Focus on the poster and you'll have problems.


We appreciate your patience and you giving us the chance to have some discussion among the mods/admin in order to give everyone on that team a chance to voice their opinions more fully before we came back with something more official.  

The Squawk is a great site where all of us are united in our love of the Hawks.  We share the frustrations and celebrations along the way together so let's keep that spirit as we move forward.  Thanks.

Would I get banned if I laughed at this? :er: Comon @AHF he wiffed, I called him out on it, he didn’t like it, you closed the thread and opened this one. 

I think I understand clearly…

If you wanna ban me for making it a fair fight go ahead and do it I don’t care anymore. You got us fighting with our hands behind our backs and you are really protecting your stars ⭐️ (the insiders).

Let it be a fair fight. That’s all I ask.


  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 minutes ago, mountainjim said:

New member, just joined, wanted to say thank you to all the contributors that make these insider threads and this forum so interesting and entertaining.

I tried to join several times in past, always got an error and any emails I sent went unanswered (as I recall).

Been lurking for years, now retired, so around even more.

When I lived in Atlanta, I once was attending a game on my then-wife's corporate seats, entered a drawing for season tickets, then a week or 2 later, I was again at a game in those comped seats when the barrel was rolled out to half-court and my entry was pulled out - winning me season tickets in the Omni. My brother had just gone for beers and was heading back down to our seats when he saw me at midcourt receiving the prize and wondered: What the Hell?   🙂

This was during the 79-80 season, as I recall, or maybe 80-81 - Coach Hubie Brown, assistant Fratello, scorer John Drew, Tree Rollins, Dan Roundfield, Eddie Johnson, Charlie Criss. etc.

Unfortunately, poor record, Hubie fired, but I lived 5 minutes away so it was easy to head over to games after work.

Glad to finally be a member here!






Welcome to the squawk.  Glad you made it!


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kg01 said:

Did somebody just try to send me a pm?

I swear I'm going crazy. 

No but I’d really like to right now. I’m about to pack my bags and leave one way or another. If they do it, fine, if I leave voluntarily, that’s fine too. 

Just sick of having to walk on egg shells around these folks. 

How are you gonna close that other thread 🧵. Cuz dude got caught up? Weak. 

He knows it. The tattletale knows it. Shame on you, this is America 🇺🇸, well it’s squawk within America 🇺🇸. Wow, just amazed that a lawyer can back this. Stunning.


And might I add, Mrs. Ashley Judd would be upset with him about this on my behalf.



  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, akay said:

As long as we learn from our mistakes, last one being the Kevin trade, that's fine.

Tony is a new owner figuring out how he wants to play his role with the Hawks, he made a horrendous decision last year that's still biting us in the ass, but it seems he's learned his lesson.

Glad it's sooner rather than later, I'm excited to see what our team is gonna look like next year - feels like that's when we'll have legitimate deep playoff aspirations. 

There were two mistakes made with Kevin.  First, trading him in a salary dump move.  Second, basing the evaluation of him off of his play under Pierce and McMillan.  His production went up when he was put into a real offense in Sacramento.  

  • Like 2
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

  • Create New...