I hope the Siakam deal fails to go through.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

We're those 3 all NBA before the trade?

Yes.  Trae and Siakam would be the only two All-NBA players before this trade if it happens.  I am a bit skeptical that DM will level up enough to make All-NBA but it would be great to see happen with or without Siakam.

[givemesome1ce1]

Masai saved us from trading AJ Griffin away…THANK YOU MASAI UJIRI!!! GOOD MAN!!! GOOD MAN!

Edited August 8, 2023 by givemesome1ce1

[AHF]

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

I don't think so...

Here's how NBA.COM defines UFA...

The idea of asset is one that owners would like you to blindly adopt.   But if the FA is joining the team i.e. choosing the team...  then he is certainly not becoming an asset.   The fanbase doesn't view players as assets either.   Fanbases become vested in their players.   Because they are "their" Players.   When Babcock used Dominique as an "asset" saying we trade our stars before they get old on us, the backlash from the city is still felt.  If Landry were to do the same with Trae, the fanbase may not survive it.  That's because Trae is a part of the team and not just an asset. 

 

 

The Definition of UFA Is Not the Key - The Issue is What Rights to Trade a Player Are Owned By the Team -  What you cited is completely irrelevant.  We aren't talking about unrestricted free agents.  We are talking about players under contract.  The team doesn't own the player when they are under contract.  The teams owns certain contractual rights that are defined by the contract.  And some of those contractual rights flow from the CBA.  That package of rights that is owned by the team includes the right to trade the player.  There are restrictions on how the trades may be done under the CBA.  Additional restrictions may come through the actual players contract like a no trade clause.

Nique Does Not Equate to James Harden or Damian Lillard So the Analogy Falls Apart. Additionally, the example you use of Nique is the opposite of the situations we have been discussing.  Harden is already under contract by Philly and is demanding a trade because he wants to leave.  Nique never did that.  Nique wanted to stay in Atlanta.  That isn't the case with James Harden.  With Lillard, it is at least somewhat closer to Nique's situation but is still different in that he now wants to move on and is demanding to go to one single team.  That never happened with Nique.  But let's return to this in a second. 

Teams Own The Right To Trade Their Players Except Where the CBA or Contract Limit That Right.  Otherwise, teams do own those contractual rights including the right to trade Trae.  What you are talking about Trae being a part of the team and not just an asset is not a legal concept but economic blowback from a deal.  Teams absolutely are at risk with the fan base if they trade a popular player and don't get enough in return that the fan base feels like it was a good move.  Trading Nique for a pending UFA when we were in first place in a Jordan-less East was a disaster of a move that no one felt good about once Manning walked.  If, instead, the Hawks had traded Nique and Jon Koncak for say Shaquille O'Neal and Dennis Scott then the fanbase would likely have felt much better about that deal.  But in either case, that doesn't change the fact that the team owned the unfettered right to trade Nique.

The True Trae Young Analogy to James Harden and Damian Lillard.  Now the real example for Trae would be if Trae decided he wanted out of Atlanta.  Under your theory, the team doesn't own the right to trade Trae and so when Trae says he doesn't want to go to Minnesota in exchange for Anthony Edwards he should be able to veto that hypothetical trade and force the Hawks to only deal with the team where he wants to play which let's hypothetically say is Miami who is offering only Tyler Herro and filler.  The problem for you is that your theory is completely unsupported by the CBA and the actual player contract.  Under both of those, it is the Hawks that get to pick Trae's destination not Trae, and Trae has an obligation to fulfill his contract by giving a good faith effort for whatever team holds his rights even where he is traded.  If he refuses to that, he doesn't get paid because he is in breach of the contract.  And this is a good thing for fans because the fans are entitled to a fair market return for Trae if he decides he wants out or if the team decides it needs to rebuild, etc.  The fans are not well served by forcing the team to take Herro instead of Edwards simply because Trae prefers Miami to Minnesota unless he has negotiated a no trade clause or other limitation into his contract.  The alternative is small market teams getting forced to trade their stars for pennies on the dollar when things fall apart between them and the big market teams using this to strong arm favorable trades and stack the deck even more than they already do.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

It seems like Jokic, Giannis, and Steph are maybe the only three guys people think are worth giving anything of value for in a trade, other stars either cost too much or are too flawed.  Yet we have 3-4 guys who have never started that are untradeable. 

More hyperboyle...

Let's be 1000% honest @Final_quest.   If Siakam wasn't perceived as being available, you wouldn't be saying we should trade for him.   That goes for you too @TheNorthCydeRises.   So that means that this run after Siakam is only because he's perceived as being available.

The hyperboyle is:

1. Nobody is saying that Jokic, Giannis, and Steph are the only guys we think are worthy of trading for...  Show me where anybody has suggested that. 
2. Our young players are not untouchable or untradable. 

But answer my question.... If Siakam's team were stable and he were not close to the Block, would you or anybody else be calling his name?

Personally, I think KAT fills more of our needs than Siakam does.   I would applaud a trade for KAT even though I don't think he has the best work ethic on defense. 

I would welcome BAM, KD, Cam Johnson, Evan Mobley, Markkannen, Banchero,  Kuzma, Even Julius Randle.  And would give up one of our young players for them. 

Here you go...

I would trade AJ, DHunter for Taylor Hendricks and Markkannen.  because I believe that that's a better move for us than to give the same package with Capela for Siakam/Filler. 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

We're those 3 all NBA before the trade?

Yes. Just like Siakam is now.

Each had reached the Conference Finals once, when they had very good help.

Otherwise, a ton of 1st round exits and no playoff appearances haunted that trio.

[Diesel]

45 minutes ago, AHF said:

The Definition of UFA Is Not the Key - The Issue is What Rights to Trade a Player Are Owned By the Team -  What you cited is completely irrelevant.  We aren't talking about unrestricted free agents.  We are talking about players under contract.  The team doesn't own the player when they are under contract.  The teams owns certain contractual rights that are defined by the contract.  And some of those contractual rights flow from the CBA.  That package of rights that is owned by the team includes the right to trade the player.  There are restrictions on how the trades may be done under the CBA.  Additional restrictions may come through the actual players contract like a no trade clause.

Still not an asset.   The player still signs to become part of the team.  Sure, the team has the right to trade the player... that is not in doubt.  My statement is an has been, the player OUGHT to have a say in where he is traded to.. because Just like he SIGNED to PLAY For a TEAM (HIS CHOICE), he should have a CHOICE of where he is going.   You can try to conflate it all you wish.  It's what SHOULD be...  Just like if you went to a car dealer to buy a car.  You picked out the car you want... and then the dealer brings you out something that you didn't ask for...   The Player CHOSE his team.   He OUGHT to have a choice in where he's traded to.  THAT OUGHT to be automatic.. not something that you have to negotiate.   Players are not assets. 

 

[Diesel]

49 minutes ago, AHF said:

Nique Does Not Equate to James Harden or Damian Lillard So the Analogy Falls Apart. Additionally, the example you use of Nique is the opposite of the situations we have been discussing.  Harden is already under contract by Philly and is demanding a trade because he wants to leave.  Nique never did that.  Nique wanted to stay in Atlanta.  That isn't the case with James Harden.  With Lillard, it is at least somewhat closer to Nique's situation but is still different in that he now wants to move on and is demanding to go to one single team.  That never happened with Nique.  But let's return to this in a second. 

Unfortunately, you didn't read the analogy carefully.  I was talking about the effect on the Fanbase.... Not a comparison of any player.   I don't think I mentioned Harden or Lillard.. so where did this come from?  Either way, neither has been traded so we can't really speak on what the effect on the fanbase would be. 

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

9 minutes ago, Diesel said:

More hyperboyle...

Let's be 1000% honest @Final_quest.   If Siakam wasn't perceived as being available, you wouldn't be saying we should trade for him.   That goes for you too @TheNorthCydeRises.   So that means that this run after Siakam is only because he's perceived as being available.

The hyperboyle is:

1. Nobody is saying that Jokic, Giannis, and Steph are the only guys we think are worthy of trading for...  Show me where anybody has suggested that. 
2. Our young players are not untouchable or untradable. 

But answer my question.... If Siakam's team were stable and he were not close to the Block, would you or anybody else be calling his name?

Personally, I think KAT fills more of our needs than Siakam does.   I would applaud a trade for KAT even though I don't think he has the best work ethic on defense. 

I would welcome BAM, KD, Cam Johnson, Evan Mobley, Markkannen, Banchero,  Kuzma, Even Julius Randle.  And would give up one of our young players for them. 

Here you go...

I would trade AJ, DHunter for Taylor Hendricks and Markkannen.  because I believe that that's a better move for us than to give the same package with Capela for Siakam/Filler. 

 

Wrong. 

I've been on the Siakam bandwagon since February.  Matter of fact, I've long said that if Collins could do what Siakam does, we'd be straight as a team.

 

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Each had reached the Conference Finals once, when they had very good help.

You know what haunted that trio more than not being together??  Jordan and Shaq/Kobe, San Antonio, and Coaching. 

 

Here's KG's path...

 

 

The year that they made the conference finals...  They had KG, Cassell, and Spreewell and lost to Kobe Shaq 4 games to 2.  That was the best that Flip Saunders could give.

 

These were the Ray Allen years in Seattle...

Do you see what I see?

What will you do with Nate McMillian and Bob Weiss?  Like I said before Rashard Lewis was just as impactful as PP.  Especially in his prime. 

Then there were the PP years..

 

Those young Boston teams had Antwan Walker and Ron Mercer...  These guys were not slouches.   Even Dana Barros.  But look at the coaching.   Rick Pitino was never going to make it as a pro coach.   Who is O'Brien?  Oh, the one time they got to the ECF.... They lose to the Nets in 6. 

 So it's not just a question of talent, I would say the bigger question is coaching and the even bigger question is timing.   If Talent was all there was, Portland would have won several titles. 

 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

12 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Wrong. 

I've been on the Siakam bandwagon since February.  Matter of fact, I've long said that if Collins could do what Siakam does, we'd be straight as a team.

 

While you said that you were looking at Collin's strength.   Mainly that he could shoot from outside.   And focuses on his weakness, not being able to put the ball on the floor.   Well, Siakam has that strength but his weakness is no outside shot.   His defense is not all that good, it's average.   And you just think having him on the team because he's an All Star is going to translate into us being better?  

What will happen.. Teams will pack in their defense and dare us to shoot from outside.   And with no starter shooting over 35% from three, we will look very bad.    DJ will probably take the blame first.   We may even bench him for Bogi and start the DJ trade talks.   Or Maybe it will be Hunter.  But the loudest will be against Trae.   It will be Trae's fault because all people will remember is him trying to make something happen against a defense that's packed in clogging the lane and daring him to shoot from outside. 

Isn't that what happened to Toronto this past year...

They were terrible from outside and everybody blamed FVV because he wasn't doing enough?  Wasn't the ones at fault FVV and GTJ?

You had FVV shooting 9 3pter per game because those were wide open shots...  and they had to do something to get the defense to open up so that PS and OG could go inside and do some work.  But that wasn't the talking point that went out.   The talking point that went out was that FVV was a selfish player. 

 

 

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

22 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Wrong. 

I've been on the Siakam bandwagon since February.  Matter of fact, I've long said that if Collins could do what Siakam does, we'd be straight as a team.

 

Doing a quick search, it looks like I've been advocating Siakam replace JC for over a year now. And it looks like @NBASupes was the first to suggest it back in 2020.

LOL @Diesel trying act like I'm a casual bandwaggoner. 

[Final_quest]

I could at least find a thread back in 2021 where I advocated trading Cam and Gallo to Toronto.  Guess what people said?  Cam Reddish was too valuable to move.  One guy actually was told he had just written the post of the year with inspiring words about keeping Cam.  History is a cycle. 

I still agree with what I said back in 2021.  Do the Cam posters stand by keeping Cam over trading for Siakam or FVV?  

[Gray Mule]

Here's the deal:  Atlanta sends CC, OO, Hunter, Bogie, Murray & Young to Canada for Siakam and future draft picks to balance the $$$.

As soon as the deal is official and can't be reversed, Siakam announces his retiremant.  Atlanta has a boatlosd of 2nd round picks!

Sounds like a grand deal, doesn't it !!

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

Still not an asset.   The player still signs to become part of the team.  Sure, the team has the right to trade the player... that is not in doubt.  My statement is an has been, the player OUGHT to have a say in where he is traded to.. because Just like he SIGNED to PLAY For a TEAM (HIS CHOICE), he should have a CHOICE of where he is going.   You can try to conflate it all you wish.  It's what SHOULD be...  Just like if you went to a car dealer to buy a car.  You picked out the car you want... and then the dealer brings you out something that you didn't ask for...   The Player CHOSE his team.   He OUGHT to have a choice in where he's traded to.  THAT OUGHT to be automatic.. not something that you have to negotiate.   Players are not assets. 

 

Can  you define "asset"?  I don't think we are using the word the same way.  I am thinking of things that can be sold or exchanged for value or that would be reflected on a business's books.

Here is a definition of asset that is consistent with how I use it to say that a team's contract with a player is an asset:

Quote

An asset is a resource with economic value that an [team] owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. 

Here are examples of assets that might be owned or controlled by NBA teams:

• Draft picks
• Contracts with players
• Contracts with coaches
• Real property
• Contracts with third parties such as a contract for arena naming rights with an advertiser
• Rights to luxury tax payouts under the CBA
• IP rights to team logo and other designs
• Etc.

You are talking about "oughts" not "reality." 

Quote

He OUGHT to have a choice in where he's traded to.  THAT OUGHT to be automatic.. not something that you have to negotiate. 

In your mind, the player OUGHT to have a choice where he's traded.  Reality is that the vast majority of players don't.  And while we can talk about all the consequences that would flow from a different CBA where players get to choose their teams and can't be traded without their consent that is not this CBA.  More to the point, that would fly in the face of how every North American sports league of which I am familiar works.  Players get to choose when they are unrestricted free agents in pro baseball, hockey, football, and basketball today but for >99% of players the contracts they sign say they can be traded without their consent.  

I'm interested to hear how this would work in your world but I do feel like we should first agree that we are talking about a Diesel idea of a hypothetical future NBA and not how things work in the current NBA and every other NA pro sport.  Do we agree on that?  Sean Murphy can be traded to the Braves without his consent unless he negotiates a no trade clause or similar language.  Saddiq Bey can be traded to the Hawks without his consent unless he negotiates a no trade clause or similar language.  The Falcons can trade Matt Ryan to the Colts without his consent unless he negotiates a no trade clause or similar language.  

Do we agree on what is real today before we launch into a hypothetical world where players can block trades if they don't want to go somewhere?

If we are on to hypotheticals, then this is an entirely different discussion and I've got a few questions because I'm not sure I truly understand your proposed hypothetical.

1. Would you eliminate the draft and let players sign with whatever team they want ala the Premier League?  So in this world, Miami could have signed LeBron, Wade and Bosh right as they entered the league?
2. If you still have a draft or some system to allow all teams to get access to star talent, would you read the automatic no trade clause into rookie contracts? 
3. Would you eliminate RFA?  That is a step farther that what you are talking about.  You sign with one team and never even get to play with them when your team matches.
4. For veterans who are UFA under today's CBA, would you read a no trade clause into all contracts?  
5. How broad would the no trade clause you want automatically included in every contract be?  Would the player be able to block a certain number of teams?  Every team in the league?  Would the player just be able to ban certain teams or would they also get to reject the trade itself?  Example:  Rudy Gobert demands to be traded to the T-Wolves but when Utah and Minnesota agree on a deal would you let Gobert block the trade under his no trade clause if he had some other reason he didn't like it such as thinking the T-Wolves were giving up too much and would not be sufficiently competitive in his mind after the trade?
6. What would you do for players who demand to be traded or becomes actively hostile to his team?  Example:  James Harden had all the right in the world under his existing contract to choose his team this year.  He could have declined his option with the Sixers but he chose to exercise it instead.  Now, Harden is demanding to be paid the $35M owed under his option but also to be traded because he doesn't want to play for Philadelphia.  Are you saying that you will let him block trades that the Sixers might agree to with another team even when he both opted into this deal and demanded a trade?  If he has a no trade clause automatically included in his contract, presumably you would allow him to block every trade the Sixers agree to until he approves of it.
7. How would you compare the expected return on a trade where a player has a single team they want to play for (i.e., the Lillard example) in light of how broad you would make the no trade clause automatically included in every contract?  For example, if Rudy Gobert went and told Utah last year that he was done playing for the team and would not approve a trade to anyone other than the Lakers how much do you think the Lakers would offer in return beyond salary filler to make the trade work and how do you think that would compare against what they actually got from the T-Wolves?

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Can  you define "asset"?  I don't think we are using the word the same way.  I am thinking of things that can be sold or exchanged for value or that would be reflected on a business's books

My original introduction to this conversation was that

• I was not upset with Lillard asking to be traded.  
• I was not upset with Lillard asking to be traded to the Heat. 
• I was not upset with Lillard saying if he goes anywhere other than the Heat, he would not report

I said that I'm not upset because PTL looks like they have made moves to move on from Lillard after having signed him and therefore they have shown him no loyalty, why should he be loyal to them?

I said at that point, he is not a chess piece on a chess board but he's a human who has a family and livlihood.   He is not an ASSET. 

I think you or somebody said, Lillard is breaking his contract and therefore that should make people upset.   or something to that effect.  And you doubled down later by saying if he signed the contract and took the money then he becomes that team's asset.

To that I say that it ought to be that if he signs a contract to play with a certain team, he ought to have say if that team decides to move him to some place that he has not chosen to play.

The New CBA is coming.  Until that is put into place, I'm not mad at any player who would rather retire than be forced to play for a team that he doesn't want to play for because players are not assets. 

Even now, you are trying to equate a player with a draft pick.  Just because you can trade players for draft picks don't mean that they are equal.   Players have lives my friend.  If I choose not to play in Milwaukee and you trade me there... It's my prerogative to retire.  Until Players get the right to have some say as to where they are traded without having to negotiate that right, I say I don't blame any one of them for sitting out. 

Like I said before, it was wrong for the powers that be to make Philly Pay Ben Simmons a dime.  He chose not to play.  So everybody knows the consequences of not upholding the contract.   However, Owners need to understand that your money didn't buy you an asset. 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

An asset is a resource with economic value that an [team] owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. 

I see you carefully chose your definition... Here's what a quick google search gave me...

property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments, or legacies.

So every signed player is property now?

Yeah.. you avoided this definition because even you realize that people are not property.   That's all I'm saying.   Players are not property.   Just because the owner gave the player a contract and agreed to pay him so much... it doesn't mean that the Player is PROPERTY and therefore the owner does not control that player's future.   

[Diesel]

@AHF  In your arguing that a player is an asset, have you ever even questioned if a person can be an asset.

I will let you argue with these people.

Can People be assets 1

Quote

A human being or a person cannot be considered an asset like tangible fixed assets such as equipment, because people cannot be owned, controlled or measured for future economic benefits in money terms, unlike physical assets.

Can People be assets 2

Quote

 People are not assets like tangible fixed assets such as equipment. People cannot be owned. People do not depreciate. If they are assets, people are intangible assets.

Can people be assets 3

Quote

The word "Asset" is also a noun and means a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality. For companies, assets are things of value that sustain production and growth. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash.

As you read these definitions you would be right in saying that a company does not "own" people, employees or customers, so therefore they cannot be seen as an asset and from an accounting perspective this is correct.

 

As much as you would like to believe that the CBA transferred the ownership of players into the hands of the owners... It did NOT.  The player always has the choice of weather he will play or not.  Ask the Spurs about Kawhi. 

 

[Spud2nique]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:52 PM, givemesome1ce1 said:

I just don’t think it makes sense for the Hawks to get Siakam. There are just so many questionable things about it. 
 

First, what we have to give up. You can’t give up Onyeka because he’s obviously going to be the starting center of a Siakam deal happens. Capela and Siakam spacing would be terrible. And it would be pretty awful to trade a guy who was top 10 in blocks despite coming off the bench. He could be amazing in a starting role.You can’t give up Jalen. His skill set mirrors Siakam which makes him a very likely candidate in a trade, but he’s also the best perimeter defender we have on the team. There is a possibility he could be huge somewhere and be an already better player than he currently is right now, especially if he improves his 3pt shot.
 

You can’t give up AJ, who is being ridiculously treated like an add-on by a lot of people in the hawks community. He had 2 game winners, almost had a 50/40/90 season, and saved the beginning of last season when we basically had no spacing. He has shown he can be a three level scorer at NINETEEN years old and could improve even more. AJ could be our best wing player in the future. You can’t even give up on Bufkin. He improved every summer league game running the offense as a point guard (a role he usually isn’t suited for). He showed great defense throughout the summer league and could be the key that could make the Trae-Dejounte stagger work. 
 

The only young player that probably makes sense to give up is Saddiq Bey and even so, his contribution was important to the team as it helped provided the shooting and spacing this team desperately needed for the whole season. 
 

Even if we get Siakam, most people have not been able to explain on here how Dejounte and Siakam (two below average three point shooters) would be able to work together. Someone will say “Great players will always make it work!”, but that’s not a real answer. The spacing and shooting is going to be real concern. And how are we going to pay Siakam the max? Should we even pay Siakam the max at 30 years old? That could be one of the worst contracts in the league in a few years.

And what if Siakam decides to walk in free agency? Someone may say that we have a bunch of cap space now, but I see that as we just wasted picks and a young player for absolutely nothing. 
 

I get there are a lot of older impatient hawks fans who want to win now, but those fans haven’t been able to answer any of those questions above. I rather us just go into the season with an extra POA defender and see what happens. Let the young guys play and let them grow into great players this year. 

Too late toots!  

Apparently it happened..

  

 

[AHF]

16 hours ago, Diesel said:

I see you carefully chose your definition... Here's what a quick google search gave me...

property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments, or legacies.

So every signed player is property now?

Yeah.. you avoided this definition because even you realize that people are not property.   That's all I'm saying.   Players are not property.   Just because the owner gave the player a contract and agreed to pay him so much... it doesn't mean that the Player is PROPERTY and therefore the owner does not control that player's future.   

The contract the player has signed is the asset not the player.  You are trading the contractual rights.  It is only our shorthand that says you are trading the player.  Human beings are not owned.  I didn't think that was a real discussion here, but I guess I'll say it anyway.

That changes nothing about our conversation because players don't get any say in where they are traded unless they negotiate no trade rights in their contract.  

The problem behavior we focused on previously with Lillard is him threatening to breach his contract.  That is problematic for the health of the league.  I.e., this is not a situation where he is retiring, he is just threatening to breach his contract by refusing to play for teams in order to tank his trade value and try to force his trade to the Heat.  That is a huge problem and would undermine much of how the league operates which is why the league reacted strongly to it and appropriately imo.

Again, to be clear:

18 hours ago, AHF said:

a team's contract with a player is an asset

 

 

[kg01]

20 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Too late toots!  

Apparently it happened..

  

 

Squd, I'm flummoxed by this blatant use of our intellectual property.  Time ta sue!