Welcome back Vit Krejci!!

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[KB21]

It sucks to see Landry get handcuffed like he’s been.  

[Carmine]

14 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It sucks to see Landry get handcuffed like he’s been.  

Schlenk was handcuffed and still did an admirable job IMO. This guy lacks common-sense in his decision making. I apologize for any positive thing I said about him in his short tenure here. Please move on from this ownership & Landry's frathouse as soon as possible (Korver can stay).

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, Carmine said:

Schlenk was handcuffed and still did an admirable job IMO. This guy lacks common-sense in his decision making. I apologize for any positive thing I said about him in his short tenure here. Please move on from this ownership & Landry's frathouse as soon as possible (Korver can stay).

Schlenk is largely responsible for why this team is in the salary situation it is in.  He’s the one that signed Clint to that extension.  He’s the one who signed Hunter to his extension.  

[Carmine]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Schlenk is largely responsible for why this team is in the salary situation it is in.  He’s the one that signed Clint to that extension.  He’s the one who signed Hunter to his extension.  

Schlenk's marquee was building through the draft. There were trades/moves he would have made which were denied by Ressler (not verified). If he had more autonomy I don't think the Hawks would be in the same position they are now. The Hunter trade is still T.B.D but yes the Clint extension was turrible & unnecessary.

One of Fields first moves was to trade our future draft capital & pair an undersized 2 next to an undersized 1. I was on copium when the news first hit but in hindsight the rest of the N.B.A fanhood was right, not a good trade. The only worse one was what the Cavs gave up to pair Mitchell & Garland together.

So no, I cannot bash Schlenk for not having the time & autonomy to fully realize the vision he had for this team. However, it is clear to me that on a decision-making level there is a level of difference between Schlenk & Fields. We can most likely afford this to the years of experience Schlenk has had prior to his Hawks tenure. We are a good example of why ownership should not meddle in team-building affairs, both GM's seem doomed to fail.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, Carmine said:

Schlenk's marquee was building through the draft. There were trades/moves he would have made which were denied by Ressler (not verified). If he had more autonomy I don't think the Hawks would be in the same position they are now. The Hunter trade is still T.B.D but yes the Clint extension was turrible & unnecessary.

One of Fields first moves was to trade our future draft capital & pair an undersized 2 next to an undersized 1. I was on copium when the news first hit but in hindsight the rest of the N.B.A fanhood was right, not a good trade. The only worse one was what the Cavs gave up to pair Mitchell & Garland together.

So no, I cannot bash Schlenk for not having the time & autonomy to fully realize the vision he had for this team. However, it is clear to me that on a decision-making level there is a level of difference between Schlenk & Fields. We can most likely afford this to the years of experience Schlenk has had prior to his Hawks tenure. We are a good example of why ownership should not meddle in team-building affairs, both GM's seem doomed to fail.

Schlenk forced Bud out, hired an idiot in Pierce, and then promoted Nate.  Landry hired Quin.  That trumps everything Schlenk the tanker did.  

[Carmine]

To be

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Schlenk forced Bud out, hired an idiot in Pierce, and then promoted Nate.  Landry hired Quin.  That trumps everything Schlenk the tanker did.  

To be fair Nate basically earned the job taking us to the E.C.F under the interim tag. I do agree on the Pierce hire but not with Bud. It was clear there was a need for change as our team stagnated, with both sides mutually agreeing to move on. I am hopeful Quin can offset some of Fields inexperience. Give him credit, Quin was a great hire!

Team Asset management/Trades - Schlenk

Team Personnel/Coaching Hires - Fields

Drafting & Team Building - Schlenk

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[macdaddy]

14 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

I've been really high on Vit.  Seems like he has a lot of tools and great size.  But this is starting to feel like a Bazemore kind of deal.  I hope it's a cheap 4 year deal. 

[JeffS17]

20 hours ago, Carmine said:

To be

To be fair Nate basically earned the job taking us to the E.C.F under the interim tag. I do agree on the Pierce hire but not with Bud. It was clear there was a need for change as our team stagnated, with both sides mutually agreeing to move on. I am hopeful Quin can offset some of Fields inexperience. Give him credit, Quin was a great hire!

Team Asset management/Trades - Schlenk

Team Personnel/Coaching Hires - Fields

Drafting & Team Building - Schlenk

 

Schlenk gave out a ton of really expensive contracts that handicapped this team, including Nate's coaching contract.  Also, the Murray trade happened on Schlenks watch, not Landrys.  Landry was the one who signed Murray to a team friendly deal.  Landry has actually been very good by any objective measurement -- the only reason to not be happy with him so far are things he hasn't done, i.e he has not landed some blockbuster trade.  Personally, that gives me comfort more than anything because he's not desperately making moves.

[macdaddy]

11 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Schlenk gave out a ton of really expensive contracts that handicapped this team, including Nate's coaching contract.  Also, the Murray trade happened on Schlenks watch, not Landrys.  Landry was the one who signed Murray to a team friendly deal.  Landry has actually been very good by any objective measurement -- the only reason to not be happy with him so far are things he hasn't done, i.e he has not landed some blockbuster trade.  Personally, that gives me comfort more than anything because he's not desperately making moves.

This could end up being 100% correct but it still irks me that they basically mailed in the season as a 'development' year.  Going into the season with JJ as our only PF on the roster is mind boggling to me and as soon as he got hurt our season fell apart.  Meanwhile we carried 10 guards. 

[KB21]

4 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

This could end up being 100% correct but it still irks me that they basically mailed in the season as a 'development' year.  Going into the season with JJ as our only PF on the roster is mind boggling to me and as soon as he got hurt our season fell apart.  Meanwhile we carried 10 guards. 

It's hard for a GM to do everything he needs to do when he has an edict from ownership to avoid the tax at all costs.  

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

It's hard for a GM to do everything he needs to do when he has an edict from ownership to avoid the tax at all costs.  

Oh i agree 100% but still we'd have been a lot better team if the money spent on Patty and/or Wes was put toward a similar PF/big. 

[JeffS17]

51 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It's hard for a GM to do everything he needs to do when he has an edict from ownership to avoid the tax at all costs.  

He doesn't have an edict from ownership to avoid the tax at all costs, but my guess is ownership is not going to greenlight going into the tax to retain Kevin Heurter or John Collins -- not that any GM worth their salt would do that regardless.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

Also, the Murray trade happened on Schlenks watch, not Landrys. 

By all/most accounts.... Schlenk wasn't a fan of the trade, which ultimately lead to him leaving.

Quote

The Dejounte Murray trade with San Antonio was the beginning of the end, as sources say it went down despite Schlenk expressing his concerns about the price being paid (three first-rounders, a first-round pick swap and Danilo Gallinari) and with Nick Ressler known to be a driving force behind the deal. League sources say Fields and several other team officials were in favor of the deal as well. As our John Hollinger detailed on Monday, the Murray deal essentially cost the Hawks Kevin Huerter as well when they had to trade him to Sacramento to get under the luxury tax

https://theathletic.com/4086123/2023/01/13/atlanta-hawks-trae-young-nate-mcmillan-power-structure/

[theheroatl]

6 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

By all/most accounts.... Schlenk wasn't a fan of the trade, which ultimately lead to him leaving.

https://theathletic.com/4086123/2023/01/13/atlanta-hawks-trae-young-nate-mcmillan-power-structure/

The catch is.. DJ is actually a really good player and had a great season.

 

it’s the other areas of the team that were severely lacking

[Gray Mule]

22 hours ago, KB21 said:

Schlenk forced Bud out, hired an idiot in Pierce, and then promoted Nate.  Landry hired Quin.  That trumps everything Schlenk the tanker did.  

Nate took all the players and coaches that Lloyd Pierce had and he used the same plays that LP had.  Hawks went to the EC finals with this arrangement.  That off-season Nate dismissed all of LP's assistants, replacing them with his own.  We've never sniffed the EC finals again.  Give the idiot LP some credit.

We live in hopes that the experience that our young players gained due to so many Hawks being out with injuries will be a great help to next year's team.  Our GM, along with Quin Snyder, know what the team needs.  Three different avenues will be open for this Hawk team to gain what it needs.  Trades, free agency and the draft all await us after a brief pause for the play-in.

[JeffS17]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

By all/most accounts.... Schlenk wasn't a fan of the trade, which ultimately lead to him leaving.

https://theathletic.com/4086123/2023/01/13/atlanta-hawks-trae-young-nate-mcmillan-power-structure/

Yeah, he wasn't a fan but still at the helm, probably depends on your perspective how much you want to attribute the move to him or Landry or Ressler.

This article is interesting framing, anyways, as they call Heurter a "cost" to the deal, without saying the first we got for him should realistically be netted against the assets in the trade -- and that one of those three first rounders was unlikely to convey.  So the correct framing was we "traded" Heurter/Gallo and a first round pick and a first round pick swap for Murray.  It was never as expensive as a deal as people framed it to be and Murray >>>>> Heurter so we had a huge net talent upgrade which should help as we continue to shape the roster.

So Landry's biggest criticism is that he upgraded our talent but (debatably) paid too much, while Schlenks biggest criticisms are he extended a bunch of mediocre talent on expensive contracts that crippled our flexibility and put a ceiling on our performance.

[JeffS17]

Schlenk is a great scout that got promoted beyond his skillset imo

[AHF]

31 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Yeah, he wasn't a fan but still at the helm, probably depends on your perspective how much you want to attribute the move to him or Landry or Ressler.

This article is interesting framing, anyways, as they call Heurter a "cost" to the deal, without saying the first we got for him should realistically be netted against the assets in the trade -- and that one of those three first rounders was unlikely to convey.  So the correct framing was we "traded" Heurter/Gallo and a first round pick and a first round pick swap for Murray.  It was never as expensive as a deal as people framed it to be and Murray >>>>> Heurter so we had a huge net talent upgrade which should help as we continue to shape the roster.

So Landry's biggest criticism is that he upgraded our talent but (debatably) paid too much, while Schlenks biggest criticisms are he extended a bunch of mediocre talent on expensive contracts that crippled our flexibility and put a ceiling on our performance.

The bigger problem is that neither makes the other better, they don't work together well on offense (they take turns), and they are an anti-synergy on defense where they make each other worse than either would be having a decent defensive SG next to them.  So the deal hasn't worked at all.  The team had a winning record and net positive rating in the two seasons before these two got paired and has had a losing record and net negative rating in the two seasons together.  That isn't all on them (CC's regression is a big factor for example) but it clearly isn't working as our GM very helpfully acknowledged in a public forum.

For the deal to end up working, we will need to end up flipping one of them for a better fitting asset, imo.  Otherwise, it will have been time spend going down the wrong road.

And this is with some really good news juicing the value of the trade as in DM didn't walk as an UFA and actually signed a much better deal than FVV or other similar players.