In retrospect, how terrible was Travis Schlenk?

[kg01]

Just now, shakes said:

so is John Collins, but we're still talking about him 

We're still talking about you too ... *gasp* ... foreshadowing.....

Oh come on, that was good right?  A taste of some 4D snark for yall.  I'll sit back and wait for the likes. 

[bird_dirt]

2 minutes ago, shakes said:

so is John Collins, but we're still talking about him 

Luka and CP3 were never even on the Hawks and we still talk about them regularly. 

[KB21]

42 minutes ago, AHF said:

Hunter is unique among all the NBA in this regard as far as I can tell.  I haven't seen any other player who the metrics hate like this who is regarded as a top wing by his fans.  Maybe I'm missing someone but the numbers love elite defenders like Kawhi.  At Hunter's age, Kawhi put up 13.7 WS, .277 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, 6.7 VORP which were the best on his team in those collective categories.  (He was also near the top in ORTG, DRTG, etc.)  (For clarification, those are single season numbers not career totals.)

At Hunter's age, Kawhi was in his 6th NBA season.  He had been in the Spurs developmental program for several years.  In Atlanta, Hunter has been just thrown onto the court and has been expected to perform.  There has been little to no development done on an individual basis on his game.  The Hawks didn't try to develop him for a specific 3 and D role from the beginning the way they should have and then let his game progress from there.  That's what the Spurs did with Kawhi.  When Kawhi entered the league, he was an athlete that wasn't a very good shooter, wasn't a very good ball handler, but he had some defensive chops and could rebound.  

Now, I'm not saying to attempt to say that Hunter could be Leonard.  That would have been like the 95th percentile outcome for DeAndre and was unrealistic.  What I am saying is that they should have developed him into the DeMarre Carroll role when he was a rookie and let his game develop from there.  

[JayBirdHawk]

31 minutes ago, shakes said:

so is John Collins, but we're still talking about him 

Years vs Hours? We're allowed.

[Phunkabilly]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Here is my adjusted list:

The Good:

Drafted Okongwu, AJ, JJ, Collins, Huerter, Trae (this is about what we did with the 5th pick and not about the trade)

Signed Bogi and Gallo 

Signed Huerter to a good contract

To Be Determined:

Drafted Hunter and signed him to a big deal before he had a healthy season.  (Clearly would have been nicer to traded up for Mikal Bridges or something on the draft front but we also could have done much worse.  How much improvement Hunter has left in him is an open question for me.)

The Bad:

Traded Doncic for the #5 pick and a future first which became the #10 pick (I'm not convinced this was a mistake given that we have Trae and given some of the cracks in the armor for Luka where the franchise has seemed to move in the wrong direction but I hated the trade on draft day and Doncic has the stronger resume to date so I'll put it here in trying to be fair)

Drafted Reddish

Overpaid Collins (hated the way this was done from about 10 different angles)

The Bad that Was Clearly Ressler and Not Schlenk

Traded Huerter for scraps

Hung on to Collins way too long (reportedly TS had deals he wanted to do on this)

Drafted Spellman.  (Really none of the second round picks were good.)

I think you've summarized my thoughts on the Schlenk era to a T in this post.  I'd give him a solid "B" for the work he did here.  One thing that irks me is when people complain about a GM's draft history by cherry-picking the one or two good players that went after a "miss", but completely ignore the dozens of bad players that went before a "hit".  Schlenk certainly didn't hit on all his picks, but I thought his overall draft portfolio was pretty darn good.

[NBASupes]

Drafting - A- 

Free Agency - A-

Contracts - D-

Roster Management- B

Media Relations - B+

Coaching - C-

Player development- F

Travis report card. Got fired because he wanted to trade Trae. Player development also got him fired because no one improved after their first contract.

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, Phunkabilly said:

I think you've summarized my thoughts on the Schlenk era to a T in this post.  I'd give him a solid "B" for the work he did here.  One thing that irks me is when people complain about a GM's draft history by cherry-picking the one or two good players that went after a "miss", but completely ignore the dozens of bad players that went before a "hit".  Schlenk certainly didn't hit on all his picks, but I thought his overall draft portfolio was pretty darn good.

He drafted well enough that, if he had hired a legitimate head coach and coaching staff that the team would have really progressed.  

[JeffS17]

Only thing I disagree with is Heurters contract being bad.  It was a good contract.

[NBASupes]

1 minute ago, NBASupes said:

Drafting - A- 

Free Agency - A-

Contracts - D-

Roster Management- B

Media Relations - B+

Coaching - C-

Player development- F

Forgot Trades - A-

Travis report card. Got fired because he wanted to trade Trae. Player development also got him fired because no one improved after their first contract.

Most of his picks were the best on the board or close in the 1st round. His only obvious 1st round miss was Spellnan at 30 which is like an early 2nd. 

He missed on every 2nd round pick. 

Trae over Luka is will forever be his undoing. He could have literally did everything else the same and he would be likely a world champion executive still in Atlanta but he bet on the wrong horse. Trae seems to be falling back in his class as well when he was the clear #2 a couple of years ago. 

The Hunter pick will always make sense, big wings are like 2000s centers, you over draft them because they are damn near impossible to find. 

Cam was a great gamble but a clear miss. Luckily, we got a 1st for him which we used to get an all star via trade in Murray. We bet that we can turn a bad college player into a great NBA player who had the tools and abilities and he just never got much better. 

We hit it out the park with most picks even though and even Trae was a great franchise face which has brought us a massive fanbase. 

Free Agency: Bogi and Gallo worked. 

Trades: Delon, Clint, cap space Trades and all of pre Trae contract worked. Kevin trade was a disaster and ultimately the reason why he has an A than an A+ but he never really wanted to trade Kevin. It was his best value. Luckily, Landry realize you trade your worse value for a low amount so it don't hurt you but TS is smart. He knows trading low will ultimately get you deals from GMs that don't make sense. 

[Gray Mule]

Our terrible Cam Reddish draft pick:  He turns 24 on September 1st.  Salary $6 Million.

I know.  He's not great.  Maybe he's matured.  I hope he does well in Portland.  If we had him back right now I'd want to keep him and hope for the best.  He's gone and not coming back.  Not the worst pick we ever did.

Question:  Does all three of our current rookies go to the Skyhawks this fall?  I know.  Wait until we are thru making moves before we decide.  Watch the summer league and pre-season.

Our new player we obtained in the JC trade - - Will he play 2 or 3 minutes in each half this season?

So many more questions without current answers!!

[NBASupes]

12 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Drafting - A- 

Free Agency - A-

Contracts - D-

Roster Management- B

Media Relations - B+

Coaching - C-

Player development- F

Travis report card. Got fired because he wanted to trade Trae. Player development also got him fired because no one improved after their first contract.

Contracts were always overpays outside of Kevin and NEVER discounts. While I know Dre was market value, I felt he could have gave us some more leverage but the culture here isn't good outside of D. Murray and his crew. 

The JC contract wasn't fully his fault, Tony, Trae, and Rayford had a lot to do with that. Still, he had no business not budging. 

Roster Management was generally always good. In fact this is an A+ if we had Luka. 

He was very transparent. I missed that about him. He also wasn't lying his ass off unlike some people. 

LP- was a good player development guy with a terrific mind who had no clue how to communicate or deal with people on a Management level. Not a bad hire but clearly not a good one. 

Nate- He produced, the Clint Capela of coaches. But yeah, he has his warts. 

LP - D -  he had an A mind, B system, F - personality with a F communication style to players. 

Nate - C - C- across the board while being a B communication style with the players. 

Player development is a F under Nate and while LP had player development skills, his communication with the players was so bad, he blunder it as well. Because of the blunder, he gets a D- but overall, still a F thanks to Nate who simply doesn't develop players at all. 

[KB21]

I'm going to disagree with Pierce having a great mind.  He's a guy that never should have been considered for the head coaching spot.  

[NBASupes]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'm going to disagree with Pierce having a great mind.  He's a guy that never should have been considered for the head coaching spot.  

His peers think he's brilliant. He was a big part of the modern revolution. His work Trae's rookie year was stolen by so many coaches. Almost all of the creative stuff we had came from LP. He was more brilliant than Bud. Bud just miles better at coaching, communicating, shit everything because LP can't communicate as the leader. 

[Mikey]

Anybody that is on here saying Schlenk is terrible has barely followed the hawks and has very little knowledge of what went on behind the scenes. 

He hired an excellent developmental coach (who Trae has even said on his most recent pod was great for his development). Once it became time to win he made some great veteran signings that played a key part in the cf run. Unfortunately for him he got stuck in hiring a coach he never wanted because of the success and that run made ownership very impatient and they began taking control of moves. He drafted extremely very well and turned the hawks roster completely around in just 3 years. Nick ressler is who you guys should be blaming for doing moves that Travis never wanted like trading for DJ 

[Mikey]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Most of his picks were the best on the board or close in the 1st round. His only obvious 1st round miss was Spellnan at 30 which is like an early 2nd. 

He missed on every 2nd round pick. 

Trae over Luka is will forever be his undoing. He could have literally did everything else the same and he would be likely a world champion executive still in Atlanta but he bet on the wrong horse. Trae seems to be falling back in his class as well when he was the clear #2 a couple of years ago. 

The Hunter pick will always make sense, big wings are like 2000s centers, you over draft them because they are damn near impossible to find. 

Cam was a great gamble but a clear miss. Luckily, we got a 1st for him which we used to get an all star via trade in Murray. We bet that we can turn a bad college player into a great NBA player who had the tools and abilities and he just never got much better. 

We hit it out the park with most picks even though and even Trae was a great franchise face which has brought us a massive fanbase. 

Free Agency: Bogi and Gallo worked. 

Trades: Delon, Clint, cap space Trades and all of pre Trae contract worked. Kevin trade was a disaster and ultimately the reason why he has an A than an A+ but he never really wanted to trade Kevin. It was his best value. Luckily, Landry realize you trade your worse value for a low amount so it don't hurt you but TS is smart. He knows trading low will ultimately get you deals from GMs that don't make sense. 

His undoing when the owner wanted Trae and luka had a list of teams he wanted to go too??? Come on man y’all just get on here and misplace blame all the time 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

At Hunter's age, Kawhi was in his 6th NBA season.  He had been in the Spurs developmental program for several years.  In Atlanta, Hunter has been just thrown onto the court and has been expected to perform.  There has been little to no development done on an individual basis on his game.  The Hawks didn't try to develop him for a specific 3 and D role from the beginning the way they should have and then let his game progress from there.  That's what the Spurs did with Kawhi.  When Kawhi entered the league, he was an athlete that wasn't a very good shooter, wasn't a very good ball handler, but he had some defensive chops and could rebound.  

Now, I'm not saying to attempt to say that Hunter could be Leonard.  That would have been like the 95th percentile outcome for DeAndre and was unrealistic.  What I am saying is that they should have developed him into the DeMarre Carroll role when he was a rookie and let his game develop from there.  

No excuses under Quin.  Let the Hunter era begin!  

 

As an aside, Kawhi was a good shooter from day 1.

Here are the numbers:

Rookie Season 49.3% FG% / 37.6% 3pt%

Sophomore 49.4% FG% / 37.4% 3pt%

Third Year 52.2% FG% / 37.9% 3pt%

Today, Kawhi's career 3pt% is 38.7% so it isn't even like he leveled up dramatically over time.  Two of Kawhi's best three seasons shooting the 3 ball have been in LA.

(I also don't expect Hunter to ever approach Kawhi levels and didn't mention Kawhi to draw that comparison so much as to say elite defenders don't have to have garbage metrics.)

[KB21]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

No excuses under Quin.  Let the Hunter era begin!  

 

As an aside, Kawhi was a good shooter from day 1.

Here are the numbers:

Rookie Season 49.3% FG% / 37.6% 3pt%

Sophomore 49.4% FG% / 37.4% 3pt%

Third Year 52.2% FG% / 37.9% 3pt%

Today, Kawhi's career 3pt% is 38.7% so it isn't even like he leveled up dramatically over time.  Two of Kawhi's best three seasons shooting the 3 ball have been in LA.

(I also don't expect Hunter to ever approach Kawhi levels and didn't mention Kawhi to draw that comparison so much as to say elite defenders don't have to have garbage metrics.)

What I'm saying is that he was a sub 30% three point shooter in college.  His game was built around mostly put backs and dunks.  His work with Chip Engelland in San Antonio and the fact that they developed his corner three point shot first was what allowed him to become the shooter he became.  He didn't develop his in between game till year 4 or 5 in the NBA.  

Bottom line is, he wasn't just thrown to the wolves on the court like Hunter has been.  There was structure to his development.  There was pace to his development.  

[NBASupes]

30 minutes ago, Mikey said:

His undoing when the owner wanted Trae and luka had a list of teams he wanted to go too??? Come on man y’all just get on here and misplace blame all the time 

Luka wanted to come to Atlanta. Tony was the one who wanted Luka. Travis wanted Trae. And Peterson wanted JJJ. Travis convinced them that this trade plus Trae was the best move. 

[JayBirdHawk]

15 minutes ago, KB21 said:

What I'm saying is that he was a sub 30% three point shooter in college.  His game was built around mostly put backs and dunks.  His work with Chip Engelland in San Antonio and the fact that they developed his corner three point shot first was what allowed him to become the shooter he became.  He didn't develop his in between game till year 4 or 5 in the NBA.  

Bottom line is, he wasn't just thrown to the wolves on the court like Hunter has been.  There was structure to his development.  There was pace to his development.  

Part of Hunter issue was not being able to stay on the court which impeded some of his oncourt development as well. Can't spend offseasons rehabbing and not developing.

[Mikey]

28 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Luka wanted to come to Atlanta. Tony was the one who wanted Luka. Travis wanted Trae. And Peterson wanted JJJ. Travis convinced them that this trade plus Trae was the best move. 

Lol this just isn’t true whatsoever. Tony wanted the guy people hyped in college for ticket sales. Travis wanted luka he even said he was gonna draft him in the opening presser. Luka had a list… Phoenix was on it, Dallas was on it. Sac Memphis atl weren’t on it.