I've been watching the 2024 NBA Draft class and it's been... weaker than usual

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

Unready to be a starter, or unready to be a rotational player?

I wouldn’t expect any player to be an immediate starter from this draft, but I could see some being rotational players at least by New Years next year if not sooner. Some, not all. 

I'm a big believer that no rookie is ready to play until he proves it on the court.  I'm 100% against playing someone just because you "want to see what they have".  

[JayBirdHawk]

22 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'm a big believer that no rookie is ready to play until he proves it on the court. 

So how do they prove it if they don't get on the court? .

AJ Grinfinite was forced into playing last season due to injuries and he showed he was ready to play in some capacity.

[KB21]

49 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

So how do they prove it if they don't get on the court? .

AJ Grinfinite was forced into playing last season due to injuries and he showed he was ready to play in some capacity.

You show you are ready by how you are playing against the veterans in practices.  

[NBASupes]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

I'm a big believer that no rookie is ready to play until he proves it on the court.  I'm 100% against playing someone just because you "want to see what they have".  

I disagree, if you watch film and someone is truly advanced, they are NBA-ready. Al Horford was obviously NBA-ready. Chris Paul was obviously NBA-ready. As far as projected role players: Jaquez, Edey, Brandon Clarke, Cam Johnson, Mikal Bridges were obviously NBA ready. 

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

You show you are ready by how you are playing against the veterans in practices.  

This, I do agree with. People didn't know MJ was NBA-ready till the first practice and it was clear, he was NBA-ready. 

[NBASupes]

2 hours ago, bird_dirt said:

Unready to be a starter, or unready to be a rotational player?

I wouldn’t expect any player to be an immediate starter from this draft, but I could see some being rotational players at least by New Years next year if not sooner. Some, not all. 

I believe Risacher ready to start right now in the NBA and be decent right now but he shouldn't go to a team that wants him to be the man. He needs to go to a team where he's just playing a role. 

[Final_quest]

20 hours ago, KB21 said:

I'm a big believer that no rookie is ready to play until he proves it on the court.  I'm 100% against playing someone just because you "want to see what they have".  

Additionally, guys get labeled as **untouchable** and **future star** that turns into **We got to pay this guy who will one day be...**.  Then that turns into **Why do we keep cutting salary?**.  Which is a close cousin to **If only they signed (insert expensive role player) and kept (insert overpaid Hawk draft pick) we would be one of the best teams***

[AHF]

22 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Additionally, guys get labeled as **untouchable** and **future star** that turns into **We got to pay this guy who will one day be...**.  Then that turns into **Why do we keep cutting salary?**.  Which is a close cousin to **If only they signed (insert expensive role player) and kept (insert overpaid Hawk draft pick) we would be one of the best teams***

The GM needs to be smarter than a standard RealGM poster.  A promising young player who is a RFA is not in a great position to get overpaid.  RFA is explicitly designed to give teams bargains and often other teams are unwilling to even seriously big on RFAs for fear of tying up their cap space during time sensitive periods of free agency.  So there should be no progression from "we like our young player" to "we must overpay our RFAs" for a competent executive.

The rest is a simple way of saying that:

1. When you don't use your available money you will have worse players (duh) and fans will not be excited by that when you have a paper thin team; and
2. when you overpay players you didn't need to overpay you end up hurting the team or hurting your pocketbook and owners who won't pay will end up shedding talent instead of adding talent if they don't trade these young players before they overpay them. 

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The GM needs to be smarter than a standard RealGM poster.  A promising young player who is a RFA is not in a great position to get overpaid.  RFA is explicitly designed to give teams bargains and often other teams are unwilling to even seriously big on RFAs for fear of tying up their cap space during time sensitive periods of free agency.  So there should be no progression from "we like our young player" to "we must overpay our RFAs" for a competent executive.

The rest is a simple way of saying that:

1. When you don't use your available money you will have worse players (duh) and fans will not be excited by that when you have a paper thin team; and
2. when you overpay players you didn't need to overpay you end up hurting the team or hurting your pocketbook and owners who won't pay will end up shedding talent instead of adding talent if they don't trade these young players before they overpay them. 

GMs are in a tricky spot with these types of contracts.  It’s easy to say they should know not to overpay, but in actual practice their contract is estimating the value of what they will become throughout those years.  If they go too low it’s saying they project them to be a lower value player.  

It’s being caught between a rock and a hard place.  Not to mention we’re guessing on the actual market, which might be over estimating some of these guys as well.  A lot of factors inflate the number.

A productive asset turns into a negative asset when we miss the mark.  We’ve missed this a couple times the past few years.  That’s why we’re cutting guys and carrying negative deals.  

All we can do is try again, but it’s a painful lesson and process.  I’m overanalyzing.  Self ban.

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

GMs are in a tricky spot with these types of contracts.  It’s easy to say they should know not to overpay, but in actual practice their contract is estimating the value of what they will become throughout those years.  If they go too low it’s saying they project them to be a lower value player.  

It’s being caught between a rock and a hard place.  Not to mention we’re guessing on the actual market, which might be over estimating some of these guys as well.  A lot of factors inflate the number.

A productive asset turns into a negative asset when we miss the mark.  We’ve missed this a couple times the past few years.  That’s why we’re cutting guys and carrying negative deals.  

All we can do is try again, but it’s a painful lesson and process.  I’m overanalyzing.  Self ban.

I think it is a lot simpler than that.  You don't pay more than the market requires you to pay.  The better the player is the better that contract is.  If the market requires you to pay more (i.e., you have to match another team's offer) than you think the player's future play will justify then that is the only thing that gets complicated because you can talk yourself into overpaying rather than watching the player walk (ala Bogi and Sacramento) but until another team forces you to match, the analysis is pretty simple for a GM:  pay as little as possible while offering enough to retain the player.

This is why Mikal Bridges got less money than DeAndre Hunter.  His GM understood the assignment -- not because his GM thought Bridges would be worth exactly what he was being paid.  You pay based on the what the market requires and pass on paying when the market requires you to pay more than someone is worth (and only consider over paying when the alternative to over paying is worse like letting that key player walk).  

Our more recent contracts for DJM, OO, etc. I think reflects that we are now operating logically on this.  You never pay a player based on what you hope he becomes unless forced to do so by the market.

[Final_quest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I think it is a lot simpler than that.  You don't pay more than the market requires you to pay.  The better the player is the better that contract is.  If the market requires you to pay more (i.e., you have to match another team's offer) than you think the player's future play will justify then that is the only thing that gets complicated because you can talk yourself into overpaying rather than watching the player walk (ala Bogi and Sacramento) but until another team forces you to match, the analysis is pretty simple for a GM:  pay as little as possible while offering enough to retain the player.

This is why Mikal Bridges got less money than DeAndre Hunter.  His GM understood the assignment -- not because his GM thought Bridges would be worth exactly what he was being paid.  You pay based on the what the market requires and pass on paying when the market requires you to pay more than someone is worth (and only consider over paying when the alternative to over paying is worse like letting that key player walk).  

Our more recent contracts for DJM, OO, etc. I think reflects that we are now operating logically on this.  You never pay a player based on what you hope he becomes unless forced to do so by the market.

I don't believe we know enough to say that the market was significantly lower and that we just overpaid.  Coming off of an ECF run Collins is an essential part of a Big 3 on a contender.  Could have had JC for ..... is completely revisionism.  It's an easy claim to make, but as easy as it is to make that claim nothing backs it up either.  

You yourself were saying you wouldn't trade Collins for the #1 pick in the draft, Anthony Edwards.  Now you are saying no good GM hands out a deal like that to JC.  He's better and has more potential than anyone in a draft class but now saying he wasn't worth signing to a big deal, sounds like a perspective that has shifted.  

 

[AHF]

8 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe we know enough to say that the market was significantly lower and that we just overpaid.  Coming off of an ECF run Collins is an essential part of a Big 3 on a contender.  Could have had JC for ..... is completely revisionism.  It's an easy claim to make, but as easy as it is to make that claim nothing backs it up either.  

You yourself were saying you wouldn't trade Collins for the #1 pick in the draft, Anthony Edwards.  Now you are saying no good GM hands out a deal like that to JC.  He's better and has more potential than anyone in a draft class but now saying he wasn't worth signing to a big deal, sounds like a perspective that has shifted.  

 

LMFAO.  It could not be more clear.  We let JC go and market himself to other teams and he didn't come back with a single offer and ended up signing the exact same deal we already offered him.  You could not ask for a more clear example of someone that the market didn't value as much as we were willing to pay him.  It is backed up by the clearest of facts.

Your argument might hold water if JC didn't shop himself around after getting our best offer but it is painfully transparent that the market wasn't there for him to get another cent or he would have done it.  My own uncertainty about Edwards as a prospect is a non-sequitor.  Every GM in the league had their shot at JC and he didn't come back with a single offer.

[NBASupes]

41 minutes ago, AHF said:

LMFAO.  It could not be more clear.  We let JC go and market himself to other teams and he didn't come back with a single offer and ended up signing the exact same deal we already offered him.  You could not ask for a more clear example of someone that the market didn't value as much as we were willing to pay him.  It is backed up by the clearest of facts.

Your argument might hold water if JC didn't shop himself around after getting our best offer but it is painfully transparent that the market wasn't there for him to get another cent or he would have done it.  My own uncertainty about Edwards as a prospect is a non-sequitor.  Every GM in the league had their shot at JC and he didn't come back with a single offer.

Anthony Edwards was a bad basketball player as a prospect. Just extremely talented with a terrific frame and he was an elite athlete. That said, he wasn't certain for success even though his upside was through the roof. 

I don't think @AHF is wrong in not wanting to move JC who's metrics were off the charts for his age. I obviously would do it but I didn't believe in JC at all. 

Edited March 13 by NBASupes

[Final_quest]

12 hours ago, AHF said:

LMFAO.  It could not be more clear.  We let JC go and market himself to other teams and he didn't come back with a single offer and ended up signing the exact same deal we already offered him.  You could not ask for a more clear example of someone that the market didn't value as much as we were willing to pay him.  It is backed up by the clearest of facts.

Your argument might hold water if JC didn't shop himself around after getting our best offer but it is painfully transparent that the market wasn't there for him to get another cent or he would have done it.  My own uncertainty about Edwards as a prospect is a non-sequitor.  Every GM in the league had their shot at JC and he didn't come back with a single offer.

It’s still not as clear as you’re saying.  Most RFA don’t get offers because teams don’t want to waste their time.  

The Hawks just needed a big enough offer to send a message so the market would not get involved.  The market knows it’s not our highest and best offer and prefers to pursue a realistic opportunity avoiding Collins.  

I literally suggested we trade Collins and a pick for Sabonis.  The resounding opinion in response was JC is better than Sabonis.  You guys putting on a front that you weren’t in love with Collins as a future star.  All the posts say otherwise.  

Gonna disagree with Supes, too.  No NBA GM would have traded the #1 pick in that draft for Collins.  That phone call would be over quick.  

[AHF]

49 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

It’s still not as clear as you’re saying.  Most RFA don’t get offers because teams don’t want to waste their time.  

This is why smart teams leverage RFA to get cheaper contracts.  We paid as if he was an UFA.  You don’t give a huge offer AND let him shop himself.  That is flipping RFA on its head.

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

This is why smart teams leverage RFA to get cheaper contracts.  We paid as if he was an UFA.  You don’t give a huge offer AND let him shop himself.  That is flipping RFA on its head.

Teams make offers to RFAs trying to sign them before they "shop themselves" all the time, probably more often than letting a player they value shop themselves.  How do you know Okongwu shopped himself to get his offer first and then we signed him?  

[JayBirdHawk]

7 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Teams make offers to RFAs trying to sign them before they "shop themselves" all the time, probably more often than letting a player they value shop themselves.  How do you know Okongwu shopped himself to get his offer first and then we signed him?  

OO couldn't shop himself as he was not a RFA. He was an early signee.

Hawks tried to early sign Collins the year prior before he hit RFAcy.  They couldn't come to a deal.

[AHF]

33 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Teams make offers to RFAs trying to sign them before they "shop themselves" all the time, probably more often than letting a player they value shop themselves.  How do you know Okongwu shopped himself to get his offer first and then we signed him?  

Here is the key:  You don't overpay before the person shops themselves.  If you can agree on a contract before they shop themselves great.  You try to sign them to a deal that you think is a below free market value.  That is exactly what happened with OO.  He signed and everyone said, "wow that looks like a nice discount for Atlanta."  That was exactly no one's reaction when JC signed.  When JC wanted even more he then went and shopped himself and to no one's surprise no team was interested in beating what Atlanta was generously offering.

Here is how it should work:

Early Signee Period:  Team offers a very conservative deal that should be a steal for the team.  If the player won't agree to that type of deal move to RFA.

RFA Stage 1:  Before the player can shop himself around, the team offers another conservative deal informed by the intervening year's play and the team's understanding of the FA market. 

RFA Stage 2:  Before the player shops himself around, you can make a final offer that comes off the table if they shop themselves.

RFA Stage 3:  The player shops themselves around. 

RFA Stage 4:  *  If the player signs a deal with another team, the team chooses whether to match or let them go. 

*  If the player doesn't get an offer from another team, the team's leverage has increased from stage 2 and the team can basically choose the number with the player's only threat to be to sign a QO and become an UFA next year (usually foregoing a lot of money in the meantime).

*  If the player doesn't sign but has a tentative offer in hand then they have more leverage.  Usually this is done so that the interested third party team does not tie up their cap space and because that third party team is concerned that you will match.

RFA Stage 5:  If the player comes back with a soft offer from another team, the GM needs to decide what they want to do.  If they are fine to match then they let the player sign the deal and match (or offer the same to sign directly).  If the team is not willing to match the offer, they can negotiate a sign and trade with the other team to get something back (if memory serves we offered something small to Sacramento to do a S&T and they refused when he ended up getting Bogi).  Worst case, they don't negotiate a S&T and let the player walk with nothing coming back (what ultimately happened with Bogi).

 

In no case should the team offer a ton of money, let the player shop themselves while your offer remains on the table, and then maintain that elevated offer even when the player doesn't get a single offer.

[Packfill]

The problem with some of the contracts the Hawks have, and have given out, is that the team is not winning.  Someone putting up modest stats on a 60 game winning team is fine, because they are "contributing to winning."  Do the same on a loser and those same stats seem hollow.  

Paying for wins is okay.  Paying for empty stats is not.

[KB21]

I would add this.  The John Collins extension and the DeAndre Hunter extension were both done by Travis Schlenk.  The Oneyka Okongwu extension was done by Landry Fields.  

[AHF]

39 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I would add this.  The John Collins extension and the DeAndre Hunter extension were both done by Travis Schlenk.  The Oneyka Okongwu extension was done by Landry Fields.  

Fields has done a much better job with the DJM and OO extensions than TS did with the JC and DH ones.