If Ressler did not "evade" the tax, here is what we would be looking at going into next season.

[AHF]

10 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

They tell you their true feelings with an action, by moving that player as a salary dump.  

Sad thing is we didn't have to pay him that much.  No one else out there was willing to pay him like that.  We did it gratuitously.  I advocated for us to let the market set him price and match but for some reason we bid against ourselves.

In terms of knowing true feelings, I would say it is hard to say.  A salary dump can be a way of getting rid of an unwanted player but it can also be a way a getting rid of a wanted player with an unwanted contract.  If JC was making substantially less he might still be here.  (And expected that  he would move as part of any Siakam deal).

[sturt]

8 hours ago, theheroatl said:

I can’t read your long posts.

True. You cannot. I agree.

[sturt]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

If JC was making substantially less he might still be here.

He would either still be here, or a basketball trade would have brought back some actual basketball talent in return for the coming season.

No question about that, unless one is carrying Ressler water... maybe there's some relationship there, who knows... or unless one is just that stubborn intellectually and needs a 3rd off-season of off-loading a starter in exchange for nothing that would help you win basketball games.

 

Looking at this thread this morning, appears no success in finding that evidence to substantiate the claim that Quin wanted John gone... but I'll check back periodically in case more time is needed.... not soon, but eventually. Jeff is tired of me, and I've exhausted my interest in spending any more time on this, so I'm sure a break will be welcome from both sides.

 

 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

He would either still be here, or a basketball trade would have brought back some actual basketball talent in return for the coming season.

No question about that, unless one is carrying Ressler water... maybe there's some relationship there, who knows... or unless one is just that stubborn intellectually and needs a 3rd off-season of off-loading a starter in exchange for nothing that would help you win basketball games.

My comment on the JC trade was that would wait to see what we actually did with the trade exceptions and with potential trades.  Captain Obvious update is that there has been no follow-through on that to improve the team.  

Still time to add talent through those or through trade but right now nothing to indicate that there was a priority higher than getting under the tax.

[Final_quest]

11 minutes ago, AHF said:

Sad thing is we didn't have to pay him that much.  No one else out there was willing to pay him like that.  We did it gratuitously.  I advocated for us to let the market set him price and match but for some reason we bid against ourselves.

In terms of knowing true feelings, I would say it is hard to say.  A salary dump can be a way of getting rid of an unwanted player but it can also be a way a getting rid of a wanted player with an unwanted contract.  If JC was making substantially less he might still be here.  (And expected that  he would move as part of any Siakam deal).

Goes back to the mistake we made was in the overpay.  If you look at Jeff's original post, that represents our cap situation in a scenario where we trade JC for Siakam. 

By moving JC first they could have been under the second apron next year and still have Siakam.  That's why it made sense to trade JC first.  It sets up your roster better, not for this year, but for next year.    

[sturt]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

My comment on the JC trade was that would wait to see what we actually did with the trade exceptions and with potential trades.  Captain Obvious update is that there has been no follow-through on that to improve the team.  

Still time to add talent through those or through trade but right now nothing to indicate that there was a priority higher than getting under the tax.

True... that also was another option.

Still, to the point of the owner's priorities, it only tamps down rational suspicion had Landry swung a trade that day, or that next day, or that week, or even that month... something that would have justified the June 26 transaction in terms of real basketball talent coming back to the roster. Something that would have negated the conclusion that the owner's thumb was weighing heavily on his front office's decision-making.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

That's why it made sense to trade JC first.  It sets up your roster better, not for this year, but for next year.    

That's right. I'm scratching my head why the "We're all in on competing for the 2025 championship" tag line in the season ticket holder mailing didn't find more success, aren't you?

 

[Final_quest]

20 minutes ago, AHF said:

Still time to add talent through those or through trade but right now nothing to indicate that there was a priority higher than getting under the tax.

How do you explain the Shams report that we aggressively pursued Siakam over the summer?  That is SOMETHING to indicate the highest priority was upgrading the roster.  You can hear that and still believe the goal was simply to dump salary and do nothing? 

It's being deliberately obtuse and shows an emotional need to wag the finger at an owner you have a grudge against rather than look at the stories that say what really happened.  

Edited December 15, 2023 by Final_quest

[Final_quest]

9 minutes ago, sturt said:

That's right. I'm scratching my head why the "We're all in on competing for the 2025 championship" tag line in the season ticket holder mailing didn't find more success, aren't you?

 

Well, if you don't give any thought to your payroll for the next season you are repeating the same problem you created a couple years ago that forced you to offload players for nothing.  At some point you have to rip that band aid off.  It's now or later.  Everyone wants to ignore the reality of Jeff's original post. 

[sturt]

38 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

They tell you

To be fair to you, we agree of course that it almost never happens that a head coach makes public his preference to see a player moved.

 

To be fair to my assertion, I'm only responding to the initial claim that the head coach certainly wanted his starting PF moved, and asking the apparently weird question... "how are you going to substantiate that with any plausible evidence?"

To be fair to my assertion, believe him or not, Quin was asked more than once last season following his hire about his input regarding personnel decisions, and every time, claimed he had his lane, and he was not going to deviate from his coaching lane. In fact, the last time I recall him answering it, he went on at length about it, seeming to attempt to dissuade any further questions about it.

To be fair to my assertion, it is not unheard of, of course, that a head coach would insert into a postgame presser his appreciation of the contribution of a player even though not asked about that player... but it is at least some reason to believe the HC would not be predisposed to want that player gone.

To be fair to my assertion, too, what head coach doesn't want the very most talent on his roster #1 thru #15 regardless, under the assumption that you have 15 John Collins, all of whom have proven to the nth degree that they are team-first, not complainers.

Now, what we might see is a coach playing a player substantially less often. Did Quin play JC less as the season wound down? Go look for yourself if you want to just confirm it, but the answer is no, he did not.

 

So, circling back to your words, FQ... "they" in that sentence is distinctively the owner and his front office. And it's entirely appropriate to call out people "where's the evidence" when a claim is made that serves the purposes of a preferred conclusion, but for which there isn't a whole lot to hang one's hat on, in reality.

 

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Everyone wants to ignore the reality of Jeff's original post. 

That's a lie. You're not following the conversation very well if you think his assertion isn't understood, no offense.

No one is really arguing against Jeff's assertion, including me. We all get that there was a financial side to this. In fact, speaking for me, I even agree it was reasonable for a person to make the decision to part with John Collins if the money is the priority.

THAT'S THE THING... money is the priority.

We were given reason to be suspicious after trading one starter for no help in return.

We were given reason to be lock certain after trading another starter the next off-season for no help in return.

 

It's not my money. Ressler has a right to guard his money and be as risk exposure adverse as he wants to be.

No argument.

 

The thing Jeff is trying to tamp down, for whatever reason, is the conclusion that... money is the priority, and as a consequence, winning a championship is second... and then, connected to that necessarily then... if money is the priority, then really, a championship is only important to the degree that it will serve to make money.

Look, few people here were bigger defenders of Ressler previously. I liked the guy. In fact, it's fair to say (as I just said in a post yesterday) I believed he brought everything to the table that a Cowboys fan like me should like about Jerry Jones, and at the same time, none of Jerry Jones' downside. This has not been a conclusion I wanted to accept. But the analogy holds... when you open a bedroom door and find your spouse and someone else in that bed, that's in the vein of the kind of shock it was to discover this situation, and to be left with the conclusion that I was a dupe... I believed what I wanted to believe... and that what I thought was a common goal between us, was instead a sham, a fraud. True to Atlanta, my ass.

 

 

[Atlantaholic]

10 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Sigh.

This.is.not.it! 

Timing matters.

And returns

[AHF]

57 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Goes back to the mistake we made was in the overpay.  If you look at Jeff's original post, that represents our cap situation in a scenario where we trade JC for Siakam. 

By moving JC first they could have been under the second apron next year and still have Siakam.  That's why it made sense to trade JC first.  It sets up your roster better, not for this year, but for next year.    

It isn't necessary to trade JC first to avoid the second apron and still have Siakam.  Lots of different options to achieve the same goal without doing that.  My guess is that Toronto didn't want JC on his current contract which in combination with wanting to avoid any possibility of paying the tax is why they moved to a pure dump trade that hurt the team's competitiveness for this season.

[macdaddy]

10 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

 

Here it is.  The "competitive", ultra expensive -- deep into the second apron -- roster that we could have in place if Ressler would just pay the tax.  This would be the second most expensive roster in the league for this season.  Anyone that looks at this and seriously thinks we shouldn't have offloaded assets to get under the tax is delusional.  This would be GM malpractice.  I don't even like looking at it.

 

It's a good exercise and i get what you are saying but I'd say there would have been different decisions made had we hung onto Kevin and JC.  Especially Kevin.  I don't think anyone is suggesting we just hang onto everyone and do nothing.  I think we're saying casting out talent and not acquiring much new talent isn't a good thing.  The proof is on the court. 

 

[AHF]

52 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

How do you explain the Shams report that we aggressively pursued Siakam over the summer?  That is SOMETHING to indicate the highest priority was upgrading the roster.  You can hear that and still believe the goal was simply to dump salary and do nothing? 

It's being deliberately obtuse and shows an emotional need to wag the finger at an owner you have a grudge against rather than look at the stories that say what really happened.  

One has little to do with the other, imo.  We can pursue Siakam and still dump someone just to be under the tax.  In other words, we didn't need to dump JC and not use any of the exceptions created by the trade in order to trade for Siakam.  

Example:  You could use the exceptions to acquire expiring contract players and you preserve all your flexibility for next year's payroll while having a roster that isn't filled with a bunch of has beens and never will be's like Matthews, Mathews, Forrest, Mills, and (apparently in the eyes of the coaching staff based on usage) Fernando.  Having a couple vets who can't contribute much on the floor is one thing.  It is another entirely to have a bench comprised primarily of old guys who can't contribute much and young guys who aren't good enough to be worthy of minutes.

 

[sturt]

57 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

How do you explain the Shams report that we aggressively pursued Siakam over the summer?  That is SOMETHING to indicate the highest priority was upgrading the roster.  You can hear that and still believe the goal was simply to dump salary and do nothing? 

I know that seems like a reasonable question to you, FQ, but you're not thinking about it in the detail necessary... ie, how trades have to be structured when you're using an exception, in this case, to acquire a Siakam. And secondly but as importantly, you're not considering timing.

To trade for Siakam and use the exception gained from the JC trade would have meant sending out enough draft pick inventory to compensate TOR.

The misnomer it seems that sometimes people (maybe not you) envision is that you can take, say, a $10m slice of the exception, and pair that with, say, a $20m contract, and get a $30m player.

That's not how it works.

So, the reality is that there wasn't a lot of dickering to be had if the rumored Siakam trade was somehow going to involve the JC trade exception.

Rather, everything revolved around sending out current ATL contracts... having nothing to do with the JC trade exception, then.

Meaning then... the two transactions were mutually exclusive of each other in terms of making the Siakam trade happen.

 

You may legitimately reply, "But we would need to move the starting PF to accommodate a new starting PF."

And that's where the second point comes in... it was premature to do the JC deal, then. You don't do that JC deal until you actually have the Siakam deal done or nearly done... unless... it's not actually about the Siakam deal anyhow... your priority is on salary relief anyhow, and you're going to take the biggest tub of popcorn anyone offers you just to achieve that goal.

And here we are. Arguing things that are pretty clear, but as-if they're somehow cloudy. *sigh*

 

[Spud2nique]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

We can pursue Siakam and still dump someone just to be under the tax

I want your avatar  

[sturt]

(It's been a pleasure, boys and girls... well "pleasure" might not be the right term, but whatever... enjoy your weekend... and Merry Christmas if I don't talk to you b/t now and then... )

[Final_quest]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

To be fair to you, we agree of course that it almost never happens that a head coach makes public his preference to see a player moved.

 

To be fair to my assertion, I'm only responding to the initial claim that the head coach certainly wanted his starting PF moved, and asking the apparently weird question... "how are you going to substantiate that with any plausible evidence?"

 

 

So, circling back to your words, FQ... "they" in that sentence is distinctively the owner and his front office. And it's entirely appropriate to call out people "where's the evidence" when a claim is made that serves the purposes of a preferred conclusion, but for which there isn't a whole lot to hang one's hat on, in reality.

 

I'm saying there is a lot to hang your hat on.  A player being moved for nothing, and by the way his next team also wants him gone, suggests that multiple parties didn't find value in him. The best evidence is the ACTION.  

The coach playing him has no bearing.  Monty Williams wanted Ayton gone, or so it appeared, but still played him.  You are hanging your hat on a coach saying good things about a good dude like JC and not on the ACTION that he got moved, and simultaneously maintaining anyone reading into the action is doing so without any EVIDENCE.

From my POV you have the most flimsy evidence to believe that Quin wanted to keep JC.

[JustSomeGuy]

And it’s like all guards that fit the same profile.