John Collins vs. Ghostman.

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

We only need to look at Dallas who got their franchise player at the same time, literally, as us.  Their rotation this year has 3 guys, 2 starters, that weren't even on their team a year ago.  Kyrie, Grant Williams, Derrick Jones.

Now you can poo poo those guys all you want but they recognized the urgency of surrounding Luka with proven talent and went out and did something.  And last i checked they are doing way better than we are.  

A few years ago we added Gallo, Capela, and Bogi to massively upgrade the roster.  I see that if anything we made too much effort too soon and blew our wad.  Then we extended everyone under the sun.  We also traded up in the draft to get our primary perimeter defender, Hunter.  Drafted more defense with lottery picks Cam and Okongwu.  Going into 2021-2022 we thought we had a full roster, we were completely capped out.  We signed Delon Wright to help our bench. 

Do you honestly believe they didn't try to surround Trae with true NBA starter level talent?  My memory is they have thrown the kitchen sink at it. 

What happened is they failed.  They overvalued Collins and Hunter and had no true secondary shot creator.  The defenders they drafted with high lottery picks were subpar.  The team didn't deliver.  Then they tried to trade for Murray as a hail Mary pass to solve our big problems.  So now we are capped out and have fewer assets to bring in more starters.  

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

We only need to look at Dallas who got their franchise player at the same time, literally, as us.  Their rotation this year has 3 guys, 2 starters, that weren't even on their team a year ago.  Kyrie, Grant Williams, Derrick Jones.

Now you can poo poo those guys all you want but they recognized the urgency of surrounding Luka with proven talent and went out and did something.  And last i checked they are doing way better than we are.  

Swap Luka for Trae and we're probably 11-6 this year and they're probably around .500.  It is what is it at this point, but comparing us to Dallas as a way to argue spending on this roster is not going to get you anywhere.  Their best player is better than our best player.  Let's not make this a Luka v Trae thread...we have enough of those.

Also, our net rating is very close to theirs and if you account for SoS, I think most advanced stats have us about on par with Dallas.  So it's not even a great argument anyways.  And I would not be happy if we acted out of desperation to go sign Kyrie Irving, but that's just a personal opinion.

[AHF]

35 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Helpful to hear more context on why someone believes Tony will not pay the tax.  I think the Huerter conversation won't go away because it's the main piece of evidence that has substance.  You are pointing at timing and return. 

The return:  I honestly think the value is pretty accurate, a first round pick just outside the lottery.  Don't think you'd get much more than that now or then.  Timing: Huerter is a streaky player who did not put up good numbers off the bench, which is where he would have played for us.  You can anticipate him playing well, but what if he doesn't?  You turned down a 1st round pick, and now you have Bogi coming back.  You're stuck.  Why not take the fair value return of a 1st round pick?  

The trade deadline was February 9.  We desperately needed help with perimeter shooting on the wing.  If we are really trying to compete, I think you hold onto Huerter and then deal him at the deadline knowing you could get more or less than what was offered in the summer.  But you could also find a team that is really strong with him and decide that holding him is the right move to make the team a contender.  When you deal him for garbage, you don't have those options so you are coming into the season conceding on the competitiveness of your roster for certainty on the deal and not paying the tax.  I wasn't a fan of how we played that out.  With Bogi out for the first 22 games, we had a glaring need and a good opportunity to showcase Huerter.  Huerter did not put up good numbers when he wasn't on the floor with Trae but with DM and Trae you can shuffle things so that Huerter and Trae play more together than Huerter's previous bench lineups which I think addresses the splits issue.

Quote

When we brought Murray in to play the same position as Bogi and Huerter.  The writing was on the wall.  One of them needed to go.  Assuming that you can trade Huerter for more than a first round pick the moment Bogi is back in the lineup sounds like a naive and foolish idea to me.  It would be different if there were no offers, but there were.  You take the offer so you don't end up with a JC situation, scrapping a guy for a 2nd round pick.  

There are always teams that need perimeter shooting and quality wing players.  I don't think there was much risk of no one wanting Huerter.  Shooting is a prized commodity in the current NBA and a much steadier source of demand than injured power forwards.

Quote

The JC situation is a little more clear to me on what happened.  You are believing that holding on to JC to be a big piece in a trade would present multiple issues.  Additionally, they tried to trade JC multiple times, and no team values him highly as a trade piece.  They still don't today.  It helps for JC to go away before a deal with Siakam because after getting Siakam you need to extend and pay Siakam, Okongwu, Murray, and Bey the next year.  How are they gonna pay all those guys with an extra $27M on the books? 

Are you saying that we didn't try to include JC in a Siakam deal because I think that is crazy if you believe the insider reports.  If you believe we attempted to trade for Siakam, you have to acknowledge we did so when JC was still on the roster.  If that is the case, then it would make sense to carry him forward into this season if you are really trying to pull a big deal for him or other players.

But consider what it means if they weren't willing to include JC in the deal and always were dumping him for nothing to reduce the cap commitment.  That scenario means the Hawks were never planning to pay the tax this year under any circumstance (other than one where they utilize the trade exception).  They would trade for Siakam, not pay the tax in 2023-24, and then decide who to pay and whether paying the tax was worth it in 2024-25.  

The most likely outcome based on what I've seen is that if we keep Siakam we are salary dumping other players to keep that payroll in check.  So guys like Bey are almost surely gone and probably along with a couple of others unless we are proven contenders at that point (which we will need to accomplish without the benefit of a tax paying roster).

[macdaddy]

11 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

A few years ago we added Gallo, Capela, and Bogi to massively upgrade the roster.  I see that if anything we made too much effort too soon and blew our wad.  Then we extended everyone under the sun.  We also traded up in the draft to get our primary perimeter defender, Hunter.  Drafted more defense with lottery picks Cam and Okongwu.  Going into 2021-2022 we thought we had a full roster, we were completely capped out.  We signed Delon Wright to help our bench. 

Do you honestly believe they didn't try to surround Trae with true NBA starter level talent?  My memory is they have thrown the kitchen sink at it. 

What happened is they failed.  They overvalued Collins and Hunter and had no true secondary shot creator.  The defenders they drafted with high lottery picks were subpar.  The team didn't deliver.  Then they tried to trade for Murray as a hail Mary pass to solve our big problems.  So now we are capped out and have fewer assets to bring in more starters.  

It seems like we are closing in on the same argument.  Yeah we did great when we brought in Bogi, Gallo, Lou.  That was 4 years ago.  Since then we have brought in 2! nba rotation players over 3 years.  While getting rid of twice that many at least.  Do you guys disagree with that?  As you pointed out the front office failed.  That's all i'm saying too.  

As far as Jeff's question, i don't think any one is advocating going into the tax just for the sake of doing it.  Trying to say what we'd want to be in the tax for is impossible.  I'd like KD but you'll say that was impossible.  But hell i'd like Derrick White, Finney-Smith, Bojan, Grant Williams, KCP, aaron gordon.  all guys who were on the move the last couple years.  

But honestly i don't buy the argument that 'someone had to go' with Huerter.  Only Hawks seem to think that way that having too much talent is a bad thing.  Hell Bogi might have suffered a set back and then we're sitting there with the ghost of Justin Holiday as our only 2 off the bench.  We dumped JC because he 'had to go' and now we don't have a single health 4/5 that can make a shot from more than 2 feet away.  

Again, make the case for me that we have brought in sufficient talent in the last 3 years to compete. 

[Final_quest]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

The trade deadline was February 9.  We desperately needed help with perimeter shooting on the wing.  If we are really trying to compete, I think you hold onto Huerter and then deal him at the deadline knowing you could get more or less than what was offered in the summer.  But you could also find a team that is really strong with him and decide that holding him is the right move to make the team a contender.  When you deal him for garbage, you don't have those options so you are coming into the season conceding on the competitiveness of your roster for certainty on the deal and not paying the tax.  I wasn't a fan of how we played that out.  With Bogi out for the first 22 games, we had a glaring need and a good opportunity to showcase Huerter.  Huerter did not put up good numbers when he wasn't on the floor with Trae but with DM and Trae you can shuffle things so that Huerter and Trae play more together than Huerter's previous bench lineups which I think addresses the splits issue.

There are always teams that need perimeter shooting and quality wing players.  I don't think there was much risk of no one wanting Huerter.  Shooting is a prized commodity in the current NBA and a much steadier source of demand than injured power forwards.

Are you saying that we didn't try to include JC in a Siakam deal because I think that is crazy if you believe the insider reports.  If you believe we attempted to trade for Siakam, you have to acknowledge we did so when JC was still on the roster.

But what you are saying is consistent with my view.  They were never planning to pay the tax this year.  They would trade for Siakam, not pay the tax in 2023-24, and then decide who to pay and whether paying the tax was worth it in 2024-25.  

The most likely outcome based on what I've seen is that if we keep Siakam we are salary dumping other players to keep that payroll in check.  So guys like Bey are almost surely gone and probably along with a couple of others unless we are proven contenders at that point (which we will need to accomplish without the benefit of a tax paying roster).

Agree to disagree on a couple things regarding Huerter:
1. A post lottery 1st round pick is considered garbage.  Why has this line become a thing with regards to the Huerter trade?  We've hit on several players in this range.  

2. You can trade Huerter at a moment's notice for at least a first round pick with no risk of him having a performance degradation in a 22 game span.  No way.  

There were Siakam rumors before and after JC was traded.  Certainly there were a TON after we traded JC.  A couple times we were on screen refresh alert because it seemed imminent.  Also, I never said we were not gonna pay the tax this year.  If we had landed Siakam, I believe Tony may have hit the spend more button to try to make a title run.  You spend the money when you have the talent.  You don't spend the money with mediocre talent.  

A smart executive spends when a good return is there.  Tony overspent at the wrong times after the ECF run.  He has to be patient and make amends from those mistakes now, but you can't just spend your way out of this problem.  

[Final_quest]

17 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

It seems like we are closing in on the same argument.  Yeah we did great when we brought in Bogi, Gallo, Lou.  That was 4 years ago.  Since then we have brought in 2! nba rotation players over 3 years.  While getting rid of twice that many at least.  Do you guys disagree with that?  As you pointed out the front office failed.  That's all i'm saying too.  

As far as Jeff's question, i don't think any one is advocating going into the tax just for the sake of doing it.  Trying to say what we'd want to be in the tax for is impossible.  I'd like KD but you'll say that was impossible.  But hell i'd like Derrick White, Finney-Smith, Bojan, Grant Williams, KCP, aaron gordon.  all guys who were on the move the last couple years.  

But honestly i don't buy the argument that 'someone had to go' with Huerter.  Only Hawks seem to think that way that having too much talent is a bad thing.  Hell Bogi might have suffered a set back and then we're sitting there with the ghost of Justin Holiday as our only 2 off the bench.  We dumped JC because he 'had to go' and now we don't have a single health 4/5 that can make a shot from more than 2 feet away.  

Again, make the case for me that we have brought in sufficient talent in the last 3 years to compete. 

That isn't the case I'm making.  If you blow your household budget and are in debt you can't also spend more to save your budget. 

Post ECF the fan and front office verdict was:  This is the most amazing roster we've ever had.  Spend everything possible to keep it together.  

Now we have roster debt.  You haven't read the stories that we still have future commitment issues even after trading JC?  Spending more money now on a decent rotation player kicks the debt can down the road.  It's another salary commitment when you already have an over commitment issue. 

It's only worth it if the guys is an all star type player.  When those options went away they made the right move to fold their hand and try again at the trade deadline.  Listening to fans who just want to spend money with little effect is like a dad who thinks you make a whiny kid happy by giving them candy.  

[macdaddy]

6 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

That isn't the case I'm making.  If you blow your household budget and are in debt you can't also spend more to save your budget. 

Post ECF the fan and front office verdict was:  This is the most amazing roster we've ever had.  Spend everything possible to keep it together.  

Now we have roster debt.  You haven't read the stories that we still have future commitment issues even after trading JC?  Spending more money now on a decent rotation player kicks the debt can down the road.  It's another salary commitment when you already have an over commitment issue. 

It's only worth it if the guys is an all star type player.  When those options went away they made the right move to fold their hand and try again at the trade deadline.  Listening to fans who just want to spend money with little effect is like a dad who thinks you make a whiny kid happy by giving them candy.  

The idea that the only acquisition worth it is an all star type player just makes no sense to me.  I feel like you're trying to say we're in some kind of nightmare payroll situation that no other team is dealing with and that's simply not the case.  Pretty much every other decent team that isn't trying to tank has acquired plus rotation players and added to their talent in the last 3 years.  They all have similar constraints and budgets.  We aren't in debt.  We're in self imposed spending restrictions. 

But we are basically agreeing that the front office has failed.  That's all i'm saying.  Whether they have or had good intentions doesn't mean that much to me.  At some point someone has to be accountable for having a weak roster. 

[AHF]

49 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Agree to disagree on a couple things regarding Huerter:
1. A post lottery 1st round pick is considered garbage.  Why has this line become a thing with regards to the Huerter trade?  We've hit on several players in this range.  

Considering I've never said a post lottery 1st round pick is garbage that seems a strange thing on which to agree to disagree.  I just don't think it is necessarily an optimal return.  For example, a post lottery 1st round pick with a useful player coming back could be better.  The exact same deal with us having gotten 20 games out of Huerter with Bogi out is also considerably better than doing it over the summer.  If the team clicks and becomes an actual contender with the additional depth Huerter provides, that trumps the return in either trade.  But it is a useful piece and not a garbage return.  Just one where we locked in a decent return and a weakened roster at the expense of all the other optionality and flexibility that comes with waiting and dealing based on the actual performance of the team.

Quote

2. You can trade Huerter at a moment's notice for at least a first round pick with no risk of him having a performance degradation in a 22 game span.  No way.  

Also very strange statement here.  I've acknowledged the risk multiple times.  There is upside opportunity and downside risk to waiting to trade him as far as the ultimate returning assets in the deal.  Huerter played the best basketball of his life to start last season so I'm going to have to think we missed out on an upside enhancement more than we avoided a performance degredation but fully acknowledge that things could have played out differently.  Health is always a risk but I think the risk of Bogi having a setback is WAAAAYYYYYY higher than the risk of Huerter suffering an injury that would impair his value.  He had played 4 seasons of 75, 74, 69, and 56 games played and was perfectly healthy last summer and coming into the season so I don't rate the health risk as being very high.  Bogi's downside health risk was high and Huerter was a much stronger mitigation of Bogi's risk than an untested AJ or a broken down JHoliday.

Quote

There were Siakam rumors before and after JC was traded.  Certainly there were a TON after we traded JC.  A couple times we were on screen refresh alert because it seemed imminent. 

Right.  So if we were happy to include JC in the deal then you have to look at the two deal structures and measure which makes more sense when you are acquiring a player who is an UFA next summer and can walk.  I think if you are trading for Siakam you have to go for it now because you could be left holding nothing.  Dumping JC for garbage ensures you will have an inferior roster.

Quote

Also, I never said we were not gonna pay the tax this year.  If we had landed Siakam, I believe Tony may have hit the spend more button to try to make a title run.  You spend the money when you have the talent.  You don't spend the money with mediocre talent.  

If we are willing to pay the tax, you are much better off including JC in the trade and maximizing the talent on the roster during your only guaranteed season with Siakam.  If you aren't willing to pay the tax, then you trade JC for garbage first and ensure you don't have to pay the tax even if you trade for Siakam.  The fact that we dealt JC doesn't give me confidence that Ressler was fully willing to commit to the tax this year.

Quote

A smart executive spends when a good return is there.  Tony overspent at the wrong times after the ECF run.  He has to be patient and make amends from those mistakes now, but you can't just spend your way out of this problem.  

Nor can you expect to contend without paying the tax.  If you are going to be a contender, you need to find a good risk to attack and put your money behind it.  If we trade for Siakam now, we will leave  holes on the roster from people who need to be included in the deal in a way we wouldn't have had to do if JC was part of the deal.  This does not fill me with confidence about Tony's willingness to pay the tax.

[Final_quest]

8 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

The idea that the only acquisition worth it is an all star type player just makes no sense to me.  I feel like you're trying to say we're in some kind of nightmare payroll situation that no other team is dealing with and that's simply not the case.  Pretty much every other decent team that isn't trying to tank has acquired plus rotation players and added to their talent in the last 3 years.  They all have similar constraints and budgets.  We aren't in debt.  We're in self imposed spending restrictions. 

But we are basically agreeing that the front office has failed.  That's all i'm saying.  Whether they have or had good intentions doesn't mean that much to me.  At some point someone has to be accountable for having a weak roster. 

Well, they did hold Schlenk, the coach, and a few of the players accountable. That's why they are gone.   

Option 1 is go into the luxury tax when you know the roster will not be a contender.  Why?  Because all the other teams do it too.  
Option 2 is go into the luxury tax when you believe the roster is likely to be a contender.  You do it to get into contender position, but the right move has to be available.  When it isn't you hold off.

Essentially you wait to spend on the credit card when you are in Hawaii.  You don't fool yourself that spending on the card during the weekend is just as good.  

Anyone can go into the tax for a middle of the road result.  I'm focused on how to add impact talent.  Paying JC to be a net zero player doesn't help us. 
 

[JeffS17]

The differences of opinion here can be summarized as having good 

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

Considering I've never said a post lottery 1st round pick is garbage that seems a strange thing on which to agree to disagree.  I just don't think it is necessarily an optimal return.  For example, a post lottery 1st round pick with a useful player coming back could be better.  The exact same deal with us having gotten 20 games out of Huerter with Bogi out is also considerably better than doing it over the summer.  If the team clicks and becomes an actual contender with the additional depth Huerter provides, that trumps the return in either trade.  But it is a useful piece and not a garbage return.  Just one where we locked in a decent return and a weakened roster at the expense of all the other optionality and flexibility that comes with waiting and dealing based on the actual performance of the team.

Also very strange statement here.  I've acknowledged the risk multiple times.  There is upside opportunity and downside risk to waiting to trade him as far as the ultimate returning assets in the deal.  Huerter played the best basketball of his life to start last season so I'm going to have to think we missed out on an upside enhancement more than we avoided a performance degredation but fully acknowledge that things could have played out differently.  Health is always a risk but I think the risk of Bogi having a setback is WAAAAYYYYYY higher than the risk of Huerter suffering an injury that would impair his value.  He had played 4 seasons of 75, 74, 69, and 56 games played and was perfectly healthy last summer and coming into the season so I don't rate the health risk as being very high.  Bogi's downside health risk was high and Huerter was a much stronger mitigation of Bogi's risk than an untested AJ or a broken down JHoliday.

Right.  So if we were happy to include JC in the deal then you have to look at the two deal structures and measure which makes more sense when you are acquiring a player who is an UFA next summer and can walk.  I think if you are trading for Siakam you have to go for it now because you could be left holding nothing.  Dumping JC for garbage ensures you will have an inferior roster.

If we are willing to pay the tax, you are much better off including JC in the trade and maximizing the talent on the roster during your only guaranteed season with Siakam.  If you aren't willing to pay the tax, then you trade JC for garbage first and ensure you don't have to pay the tax even if you trade for Siakam.  The fact that we dealt JC doesn't give me confidence that Ressler was fully willing to commit to the tax this year.

Nor can you expect to contend without paying the tax.  If you are going to be a contender, you need to find a good risk to attack and put your money behind it.  If we trade for Siakam now, we will leave  holes on the roster from people who need to be included in the deal in a way we wouldn't have had to do if JC was part of the deal.  This does not fill me with confidence about Tony's willingness to pay the tax.

You're making an assumption that we didn't properly vet the market to include JC in big trades or that we could have gotten a better deal on Heurter.  I doubt either of those things are true.  I'm sure there's a price we could have included JC in a Siakam trade (probably all of our 1st rounders), but you said yourself this would leave holes in our roster anyways.  And you agree that this wouldn't be a prudent way to go all-in and start paying the luxury tax.

So the interesting thing is your acknowledging that making moves to avoid the tax is prudent right now, but you're also using those same moves as evidence we will never pay the tax(?)  I think most of this discussion can be chalked up to a good faith interpretation of Ressler's commitment by me and @Final_quest, whereas most others have a very cynical view of his statements and our insiders reports.  And I still have not seen a single post or scenario where it would have made sense for us to creep into the luxury tax.

[AHF]

Just to make this clear as to why a deal with JC in it is better for this season:

If you deal JC, you might end up trading Hunter, JC and 2 first round picks in one scenario.  In another scenario without JC, you might end up dumping JC for garbage and trading Hunter, Bogi and 2 first round picks.  Both trades end up with the same roster for this year except we have Bogi in one scenario and we don't in the other.  The scenario with Bogi is a substantially stronger potential contender than the roster without him.  Now that creates salary challenges for next year but I think that is inevitable.  

You need $11-25M to match salaries if you are assuming Hunter is part of the deal.  Including JC loses us nothing compared to our current roster.

Other possibilities:

Bogi

OO + Patty

Saddiq + Patty + Kobe

JJ + OO

JJ + Patty + Kobe

AJ + OO

JJ + AJ + Patty

Etc.

 

There isn't a scenario where we are more likely to be a contender if we trade for Siakam after dumping JC than if we include JC in the deal.

[Final_quest]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

Considering I've never said a post lottery 1st round pick is garbage that seems a strange thing on which to agree to disagree.  I just don't think it is necessarily an optimal return.  For example, a post lottery 1st round pick with a useful player coming back could be better.  The exact same deal with us having gotten 20 games out of Huerter with Bogi out is also considerably better than doing it over the summer.  If the team clicks and becomes an actual contender with the additional depth Huerter provides, that trumps the return in either trade.  But it is a useful piece and not a garbage return.  Just one where we locked in a decent return and a weakened roster at the expense of all the other optionality and flexibility that comes with waiting and dealing based on the actual performance of the team.

Also very strange statement here.  I've acknowledged the risk multiple times.  There is upside opportunity and downside risk to waiting to trade him as far as the ultimate returning assets in the deal.  Huerter played the best basketball of his life to start last season so I'm going to have to think we missed out on an upside enhancement more than we avoided a performance degredation but fully acknowledge that things could have played out differently.  Health is always a risk but I think the risk of Bogi having a setback is WAAAAYYYYYY higher than the risk of Huerter suffering an injury that would impair his value.  He had played 4 seasons of 75, 74, 69, and 56 games played and was perfectly healthy last summer and coming into the season so I don't rate the health risk as being very high.  Bogi's downside health risk was high and Huerter was a much stronger mitigation of Bogi's risk than an untested AJ or a broken down JHoliday.

Right.  So if we were happy to include JC in the deal then you have to look at the two deal structures and measure which makes more sense when you are acquiring a player who is an UFA next summer and can walk.  I think if you are trading for Siakam you have to go for it now because you could be left holding nothing.  Dumping JC for garbage ensures you will have an inferior roster.

If we are willing to pay the tax, you are much better off including JC in the trade and maximizing the talent on the roster during your only guaranteed season with Siakam.  If you aren't willing to pay the tax, then you trade JC for garbage first and ensure you don't have to pay the tax even if you trade for Siakam.  The fact that we dealt JC doesn't give me confidence that Ressler was fully willing to commit to the tax this year.

Nor can you expect to contend without paying the tax.  If you are going to be a contender, you need to find a good risk to attack and put your money behind it.  If we trade for Siakam now, we will leave  holes on the roster from people who need to be included in the deal in a way we wouldn't have had to do if JC was part of the deal.  This does not fill me with confidence about Tony's willingness to pay the tax.

You literally said in the previous post "when you deal him for garbage."  Implying the return of a first round pick was garbage, or that's how I took it.  

Trading JC before trading for Siakam is way better for us.  Why? JC is off the books and you have more runway for next year's raises which would be enormous.  Four players would have included Bey, Okongwu, Siakam, and Murray.  That is like $40-50M more in salary increase maybe higher.  

Bottom line you don't have an expensive mediocre roster.  

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

The differences of opinion here can be summarized as having good 

You're making an assumption that we didn't properly vet the market to include JC in big trades or that we could have gotten a better deal on Heurter.  I doubt either of those things are true.  I'm sure there's a price we could have included JC in a Siakam trade (probably all of our 1st rounders), but you said yourself this would leave holes in our roster anyways.  And you agree that this wouldn't be a prudent way to go all-in and start paying the luxury tax.

So the interesting thing is your acknowledging that making moves to avoid the tax is prudent right now, but you're also using those same moves as evidence we will never pay the tax(?)  I think most of this discussion can be chalked up to a good faith interpretation of Ressler's commitment by me and @Final_quest, whereas most others have a very cynical view of his statements and our insiders reports.  And I still have not seen a single post or scenario where it would have made sense for us to creep into the luxury tax.

I don't see any scenario where it makes sense for us to trade for Siakam and not pay the tax this year.  He can literally walk away after this season and leave us with nothing and we have to match his $38M in a trade.

I follow the dollars when assessing potentially self-serving statements by our owner.  Other owners move right into the tax when they have a playoff team to try to get them to the next level.  We have gotten rid of two useful players for nothing the last two offseasons.  

I will fully cop to being more skeptical than you of his intent to deliver on his promise.  I think "cynical" is a bit of a loaded term and I don't want to get into whether trusting in his public statements is "good faith" or "pollyanna-esque" etc.  

I'm comfortable saying I'm more skeptical of his intent to pay the tax in the near term.  I don't rule out that it could happen but under the current construction of the team I don't see it.  If something changes, I am open to re-evaluating the likelihood that this actually happens.

(FWIW, I don't think I've said anywhere on this thread that avoiding the tax is prudent right now.  I think you can make a solid case that avoiding it if you aren't making a big deal is prudent but that it is self-defeating to chase a big deal while also hamstringing yourself by unloading useful players to reduce your spend.)

[macdaddy]

5 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

The differences of opinion here can be summarized as having good 

You're making an assumption that we didn't properly vet the market to include JC in big trades or that we could have gotten a better deal on Heurter.  I doubt either of those things are true.  I'm sure there's a price we could have included JC in a Siakam trade (probably all of our 1st rounders), but you said yourself this would leave holes in our roster anyways.  And you agree that this wouldn't be a prudent way to go all-in and start paying the luxury tax.

So the interesting thing is your acknowledging that making moves to avoid the tax is prudent right now, but you're also using those same moves as evidence we will never pay the tax(?)  I think most of this discussion can be chalked up to a good faith interpretation of Ressler's commitment by me and @Final_quest, whereas most others have a very cynical view of his statements and our insiders reports.  And I still have not seen a single post or scenario where it would have made sense for us to creep into the luxury tax.

Well i felt like i listed players we could have acquired but yeah i can't lay out a bunch of specific deals in hindsight. 

But i haven't seen any justification for a team that was looking good 3 years ago to have only acquired 2 players via trade or free agency in a three year span while at the same time losing a bunch of talent.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find another team having that little success in acquiring talent.   So how do we call the org 'aggressive' when that's all they've accomplished?

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

You literally said in the previous post "when you deal him for garbage."  Implying the return of a first round pick was garbage, or that's how I took it.  

Trading JC before trading for Siakam is way better for us.  Why? JC is off the books and you have more runway for next year's raises which would be enormous.  Four players would have included Bey, Okongwu, Siakam, and Murray.  That is like $40-50M more in salary increase maybe higher.  

Bottom line you don't have an expensive mediocre roster.  

That is fair.  I meant "garbage" as far as how the trade return impacts that season.  We got absolute garbage back in the deal and locked in a weaker team from that perspective.  I've never said the pick was garbage - it just might not convey for years and the rookie that is drafted might not be ready to contribute for a year or two after that.  (So we could be talking about on-court value add in 2026 or 2027 for example).  It remains a potential trade asset during that time which could bring more immediate help.

I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse to assume that there will be an agreement between Siakam and the Hawks to resign.  He can walk away.  He can demand a max contract that we don't want to do.  Etc.  All we have if we trade for him that is guaranteed is this season.  Once you do the deal you try to make the best of it but Bey could demand $22M per or something.  There are lots of ways that could play out where we don't ever end up with a legit roster capable of contending.  You are kind of ensuring you have a mediocre team if you don't go in after trading for Siakam, imo.  Getting rid of JC just to give yourself more offseason flexibility for the 2024-25 season at the expense of the 2023-24 team seems counterproductive to me.  Siakam can walk and at 30 years old his performance could decline significantly going forward (he has also been a bigger health risk the last 4 years than Huerter was and you factored that in as a material reason to unload him so I think at his age and with his track record you have to say Siakam's risk is higher even if I would probably place age related decline as a higher risk than strict injury risk).

[JayBirdHawk]

Huerter and Collins are the most prominent...but the bigger issue started with Delon Wright and not even offering him an extension when he saud he was interested in returning. We also received Jock Landale in the Murray trade and traded him for cash to stay further under the salary tax after getting under the tax by $1.1 million with the Huerter trade which was a salary dump.

[macdaddy]

I'll say this.  Whatever disagreement we have here will be largely settled by the trade deadline in my mind.  Standing pat and being a .500 team again would be really bad.  We'd be looking for an overhaul in the summer that would include everyone but trae and jj imo.  But we aren't going to get a ton of value out of any of those other guys.  Certainly not 'all star' level players.  So likely we're in for another rebuild of sorts unless we can lure a free agent which isn't our strong suit. 

[Gray Mule]

Believe me.  I know from experience.  You can't spend yourself out of debt.

Can this team, with it's current roster, get better?  If not, why not?  Some players are expensive.  Hawks have players from the cheap side to the very expensive.  

Whether a player is cheap or expensive, fit is more important than anything else.  Currently Atlanta has JJ and two rookie draft picks out with injuries, probably until January.  All three should make the team better and we don't have to do anything but hang on until they are well.

Desperation?  Nope.  Not yet.  Season is a long and winding journey.  Quin Snyder's defense has yet to make an appearance.  

GO ATL HAWKS !!

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse to assume that there will be an agreement between Siakam and the Hawks to resign.  He can walk away.  He can demand a max contract that we don't want to do.  Etc.  All we have if we trade for him that is guaranteed is this season.  Once you do the deal you try to make the best of it but Bey could demand $22M per or something.  There are lots of ways that could play out where we don't ever end up with a legit roster capable of contending.  You are kind of ensuring you have a mediocre team if you don't go in after trading for Siakam, imo.  Getting rid of JC just to give yourself more offseason flexibility for the 2024-25 season at the expense of the 2023-24 team seems counterproductive to me.  Siakam can walk and at 30 years old his performance could decline significantly going forward (he has also been a bigger health risk the last 4 years than Huerter was and you factored that in as a material reason to unload him so I think at his age and with his track record you have to say Siakam's risk is higher even if I would probably place age related decline as a higher risk than strict injury risk).

To me Siakam signing an extension or walking is a separate conversation.  I'm looking at why we think Ressler is cheap or not today.  I agree that if you trade for Siakam you spend, but I still would have traded JC in a separate deal. 

How I would handle adding more to the roster is by using the MLE and the other lesser one whatever it's called.  I'd rather deal JC before the Siakam trade goes down to give a shot at bringing Bey back the following year.  Trade for Siakam and then add a couple guys with the exceptions.  Resign everyone next year and really go deep into the tax at that point.  

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Huerter and Collins are the most prominent...but the bigger issue started with Delon Wright and not even offering him an extension when he saud he was interested in returning. We also received Jock Landale in the Murray trade and traded him for cash to stay further under the salary tax after getting under the tax by $1.1 million with the Huerter trade which was a salary dump.

I think it was fair to Delon Wright to let him go.  At the time we were anticipating Murray to replace both Huerter and Delon Wright.  Bogi was gonna be the SG to play off the bench, and Delon didn't really have a role at that point.  In hindsight he would have been a good rotation player, but at the time Murray was set to be the backup PG and defensive backcourt player filling Wright's role.  Once Bogi came back Aaron Holiday didn't play.  A guy like Delon deserves assurance of being in the rotation, and we couldn't offer that.  

Jock Landale would have been awesome as well for when Capela went down.  After you moved off of Huerter and Wright, it made no sense to go into the tax for a third string center.  If they kept Huerter and Wright, they may have kept Landale as well.

To get to Jeff's question.  Are you guys saying keeping Huerter, Wright, and Landale gives you the pieces to justify being a luxury paying team?  We'd be better, but not sure that pushes us far enough.