Welcome back Vit Krejci!!

[JeffS17]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

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.

Yes, and this is where the good contract extension comes into play (thanks Landry).  IMO we have to get big talent upgrades when they're available like that-- we are not in LA where superstars want to get traded here all the time.  As long as we aren't overpaying guys like Schlenk did, we can always maneuver around fit.

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Yes, and this is where the good contract extension comes into play (thanks Landry).  IMO we have to get big talent upgrades when they're available like that-- we are not in LA where superstars want to get traded here all the time.  As long as we aren't overpaying guys like Schlenk did, we can always maneuver around fit.

Maneuvering around fit is now Landry's big task.  Let's see how well he does.  I don't take it as a given that he does it successfully.  That can be a real challenge.

You are right that without the extension the deal is a trash fire but the extension gives us a path forward.  Good on Landry but the biggest credit goes to DJM himself.  He could have walked and didn't.  He could have held out for more money and didn't.  He gets the big credit from my perspective.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

My thoughts on Hawks not extending Vit:

Disappointed initially since I think we can use him in a much needed role for the play-in. But in the grander scheme of things looking towards next year:

1. If they are interested in giving him a 4 year long term deal, you want it starting next year vs blowing 1 year on the rest of this season.

2. His RFA status on a 2way helps us vs RFA on an NBA deal.

3. It could be that what Hawks offered, Vit and his reps declined. Maybe they wanted more guaranteed years? 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[AHF]

11 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

My thoughts on Hawks not extending Vit:

Disappointed initially since I think we can use him in a much needed role for the play-in. But in the grander scheme of things looking towards next year:

1. If they are interested in giving him a 4 year long term deal, you want it starting next year vs blowing 1 year on the rest of this season.

2. His RFA status on a 2way helps us vs RFA on an NBA deal.

3. It could be that what Hawks offered, Vit and his reps declined. Maybe they wanted more guaranteed years? 

 

Is there anything that would stop us from signing him for just the rest of this year and then signing him to a 4 year deal this offseason?

I'm not sure he has a big role in the long-term future but he sure had a key role to play this post-season if we are going to try to contend.

[macdaddy]

It's pretty dumb that NBA doesn't consider the play-in a playoff game for statistical purposes but players that are ineligible for the playoffs can't play in the play-in.  It should be another regular season game. 

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

It's pretty dumb that NBA doesn't consider the play-in a playoff game for statistical purposes but players that are ineligible for the playoffs can't play in the play-in.  It should be another regular season game. 

Yep.  Pick a lane.

[JayBirdHawk]

59 minutes ago, AHF said:

Is there anything that would stop us from signing him for just the rest of this year and then signing him to a 4 year deal this offseason?

I'm not sure he has a big role in the long-term future but he sure had a key role to play this post-season if we are going to try to contend.

I think if we signed him and not convert him, he loses bird rights and becomes an UFA. Converting him keeps him as a RFA, but then you run the risk of a team offering more than you are willing to match.

These are the options if we wanted to sign him to a long term deal using the following exceptions depending on the length of the deal:

"When converting a player from a two-way contract to the standard roster, the team can use cap room or the non-taxpayer mid-level exception to negotiate a deal of up to four years; the room exception for a deal up to three years; or the taxpayer mid-level exception, bi-annual exception, or minimum salary exception for a two-year deal."

We don't have cap room, we have the NTMLE ($12 mil)for up to 4 year deal, but do we want to dip into a portion of that now or use it on a 'real FA' in the offseason.  Otherwise it's a 2year deal. BAE this year was $4.6 mil per year, but if you're signing him forv2 years, this year counts as 1 year.

I just think they couldn't agree on the  number of guaranteed years.

Vit's caphold will be $1.8 million in the offseason.

[AHF]

57 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I think if we signed him and not convert him, he loses bird rights and becomes an UFA. Converting him keeps him as a RFA, but then you run the risk of a team offering more than you are willing to match.

These are the options if we wanted to sign him to a long term deal using the following exceptions depending on the length of the deal:

"When converting a player from a two-way contract to the standard roster, the team can use cap room or the non-taxpayer mid-level exception to negotiate a deal of up to four years; the room exception for a deal up to three years; or the taxpayer mid-level exception, bi-annual exception, or minimum salary exception for a two-year deal."

We don't have cap room, we have the NTMLE ($12 mil)for up to 4 year deal, but do we want to dip into a portion of that now or use it on a 'real FA' in the offseason.  Otherwise it's a 2year deal. BAE this year was $4.6 mil per year, but if you're signing him forv2 years, this year counts as 1 year.

I just think they couldn't agree on the  number of guaranteed years.

Vit's caphold will be $1.8 million in the offseason.

The fact that an advantage in resigning Vit was weighed as being more valuable than an advantage for our playoff roster says everything to me about what the front office thinks of this team in the post-season.

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The fact that an advantage in resigning Vit was weighed as being more valuable than an advantage for our playoff roster says everything to me about what the front office thinks of this team in the post-season.

I don't think anyone including the Hawks themselves think we can get out of the first round of the playoffs with as banged up as we are.  I'm not sure the front office really wants to win the play in.  

[Gray Mule]

Some way, somehow, the NBA sure knows how to take a simple problem and make it very complicated.  Leave it to the Atlanta Hawks to get caught right in the middle of everything.  Do they plan this, or do we always seem to get burned for no reason?

 

[macdaddy]

4 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

Some way, somehow, the NBA sure knows how to take a simple problem and make it very complicated.  Leave it to the Atlanta Hawks to get caught right in the middle of everything.  Do they plan this, or do we always seem to get burned for no reason?

 

There's a reason.  Lack of front office stability.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

I don't think anyone including the Hawks themselves think we can get out of the first round of the playoffs with as banged up as we are.  I'm not sure the front office really wants to win the play in.  

Not making Vit available tells me they clearly don't want to win the play in.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 4/15/2024 at 2:15 PM, AHF said:

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.

People say this all the time.  What does "take turns" mean?   Initiating the offense?

I personally don't see an issue with that, as long as the offense still functions properly.

I think sometimes people see something as a negative, when it's actually an asset.

 

The problem with this team is the frontcourt.  And it's always has been the frontcourt. 

Even when Trae and DJ aren't on the same page, as a collective backcourt, they're still top 10 in the league, especially when you add Bogi to the mix.  The frontcourt is bottom 20 in the league.  Even when JJ is balling out, we're just a 10th - 20th frontcourt at best.

We don't lose games because Trae and DJ aren't in sync.  We lose games because our frontcourt isn't strong enough offensively and especially defensively, to win most games.

Even in that last game.  Trae had a horrible game with the turnovers, but was OK with his shooting.  DJ was outstanding offensively.  But we got blown out because the Pacers frontcourt destroyed our guys.  And this is the case with 75% of the games we lost this season.

[Spud2nique]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

Pick a lane.

Who’s Elaine?  …   Cagey made me do it 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If the Hawks want to sign him to a longer term deal w/o him become a RFA, then I see why they left Vit off the playoff roster.

If we added him, but didn't get out of the play-in, what was the use in adding him?  It would be wasted, and now we'd end up paying more for Vit.

With this move, Ressler can undercut Vit's maximum value, and offer him a decent low level contract.  Someone cited the Bruno deal.  That's the type of deal that Vit would get.

3 yrs / 10 million or 4 yrs / 16 million.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

People say this all the time.  What does "take turns" mean?   Initiating the offense?

Dominating the ball on offense while the other is an afterthought that rarely impacts the play unless the offense resets with the ball in their hands.  Prime Thompson helped space the floor for Curry and Curry did the same for Thompson making each of them better players when they were on the floor together.  Both impact nearly every play directly or indirectly.  Trae and DJM don't do that.  One of them gets the ball in their hands and they look to set up a shot for someone else or get their own shot on the vast majority of possessions.  The other being out there with them instead of Bogi, for example, has almost no impact on the vast majority of possessions.  They are not running a pick and pop or something where they are interacting on offense and putting pressure on the defense in combination.  There is no collaberation or synergy.

Quote

I personally don't see an issue with that, as long as the offense still functions properly.

I think sometimes people see something as a negative, when it's actually an asset.

Both are good offensive players so it isn't a big negative, it just isn't a positive which feels like a missed opportunity unlike other top pairings like Murray and Jokic.  It really isn't an asset.  The offense runs just about as well without DJM on the floor as it does with him.  It just isn't a bad thing either.  

Trae and DJM also rarely have big games together which is worth noting.  In DJM's top 20 scoring games this year which translates to him scoring ~26+ points, Trae scored 25 or more points (average 25.7) only 4 times.  (He missed 11 of them which is not a coincidence.)  This reinforces the idea that they take turns not only on a per possession basis but in terms of big games as well.  Obviously, there are a few exceptions where both had really strong scoring nights but you'd expect a lot more correlation where the team just has a huge offensive nigth and both guys go off.

If they fit together really well on defense, you could absolutely live with the issues that come with their offensive contributions not synergizing but...yeah, they don't fit on defense.  At all.  Both are defensive weak points when playing together and the backcourt is extremely undersized making them easy to scheme for (defensively).

Quote

The problem with this team is the frontcourt.  And it's always has been the frontcourt. 

Even when Trae and DJ aren't on the same page, as a collective backcourt, they're still top 10 in the league, especially when you add Bogi to the mix.  The frontcourt is bottom 20 in the league.  Even when JJ is balling out, we're just a 10th - 20th frontcourt at best.

We don't lose games because Trae and DJ aren't in sync.  We lose games because our frontcourt isn't strong enough offensively and especially defensively, to win most games.

Even in that last game.  Trae had a horrible game with the turnovers, but was OK with his shooting.  DJ was outstanding offensively.  But we got blown out because the Pacers frontcourt destroyed our guys.  And this is the case with 75% of the games we lost this season.

You are ignoring how terrible they are defensively together.  I'll grant you that this terrible defensive fit doesn't mean the frontcourt isn't the biggest problem.  That is true but you sure aren't getting ~$70M in value from Trae and DJM together.  Both are better when the other is out of the lineup.  The team also had a better winning % than the team's total season winning% when DJM was out but Trae was playing and when Trae was out but DJM was playing.

They just don't work well together.  I would trade DJM to upgrade the frontcourt.

[kg01]

Stop fakin the funk.  Sign Vit, build around him, profit.  In that order.

 

 

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Stop fakin the funk.  Sign Vit, build around him, profit.  In that order.

 

 

Ya after that max out Alex Racuso that can can bring home the bacon and fry it too!  Does that foo have a groupie section?  
 

Go Hawks!

ps I’m still looking forward to the real housewives of Sheboygan Wisconsin 

[kg01]

13 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Ya after that max out Alex Racuso that can can bring home the bacon and fry it too!  Does that foo have a groupie section?  
 

Go Hawks!

ps I’m still looking forward to the real housewives of Sheboygan Wisconsin 

Trae+Murray for Racuso and 2 future 2nds?

Sign. Me. Up.