AJC: " Hawks need to trade Trae Young"

[bird_dirt]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

OK. You claimed people are saying Trae forced the front office to pay JC against their wishes.

You said people think it’s a good idea to give a 22 year old whatever they want.

If it’s not a straw man show me where people are making those statements.  That you are fairly and accurately framing what people on here are saying with regards to Trae’s influence.

No one ever said Trae should get whatever he wants or that he forced them to overpay for JC.  
They are saying Trae put pressure on the front office and it was one of many factors that went into a decision.  You are distorting that view and attacking your misstated version of what no one actually thinks which is a definition of a straw man.

^This. 
I never meant to insinuate that Trae threatened to request a trade if they didn’t pay JC above market rate. But he and JC were tight at the time and from what I recall he strongly expressed how much he wanted them to bring him back. 
I’m sure that was in the back of their mind while negotiating, feeling a bit of pressure to make sure he returned. And credit due to JC’s agent. Travis misplayed that hand. 

[AHF]

12 hours ago, Final_quest said:

OK. You claimed people are saying Trae forced the front office to pay JC against their wishes.

You said people think it’s a good idea to give a 22 year old whatever they want.

If it’s not a straw man show me where people are making those statements.  That you are fairly and accurately framing what people on here are saying with regards to Trae’s influence.

No one ever said Trae should get whatever he wants or that he forced them to overpay for JC.  
They are saying Trae put pressure on the front office and it was one of many factors that went into a decision.  You are distorting that view and attacking your misstated version of what no one actually thinks which is a definition of a straw man.

If this is the weak argument being made then they can stop making a big deal of it.  The front office hears from every player of significance on the team. If they are only hearing from him and making their own decisions then why are we talking about this?

If the front office was going to offer JC that contract anyway then why is anyone complaining about Trae's role in that contract?  Trae told the team that he wanted JC back.  Why are we talking about this 4 years later if people don't think Trae played a causal role in the decision to offer him such a big contract?  

If Trae is not a causal factor in the decision then why are we pissing and moaning about it?  If Trae was a causal factor then the front office did something they would not have done but for the pressure he put on them.  We can then quibble about whether this is forcing the front office or merely putting so much pressure on the front office that they do things they would not otherwise do.  But that seems a distinction without a difference.

 

There are plenty of examples over time and other posters are better at this than I am but here are a few quotes that to me suggest that Trae is the causal factor in the front office making decisions that they would not have made but for Trae's 'demands'.

From this thread:

Quote

Or are you in favor of mortgaging the future for appeasing the star to keep him around a little longer?

You don't think this describes a front office being forced to make moves they know are bad for the team because of pressure from Trae?  How the heck else do you understand "mortgaging the future" to "appease" Trae?

Quote

Trae wants us to trade the number one pick and parts for a specific star to pair with him and if they don’t want to do that then he wants them to trade him. 

You think I'm straw manning the claim that Trae is working to force the front office to make moves against their will?  I'm not sure how else to read the claim that he is saying to trade the #1 pick for a specific player or he is gone.

Quote

Will Trae just come around and say, “you know what, I know I’ve made multiple requests with the FO and you’ve always delivered, but now that you’re not going to, I think you’re right. I’m going to be a good trooper and play along with your plan.”

 I don’t think so. In an ideal world, players play and GMs manage. But in today’s world, players with pull push the buttons. 

This doesn't claim that the front office has made moves specifically because of Trae's demands in the past and that Trae is the one pushing the buttons?

Quote

I recall [Trae]...stepping in and stopping them from trading CC

How is this not Trae forcing the front office's hand?  Doesn't this say the front office was going to trade CC until Trae stopped them from doing so?

 

These are from this thread alone.  Here are a few others at least implying that he was the decision maker / cause on other such as firing LP and Nate or being the cause of Schlenk's departure:

Quote

Its always excuses made for Trae....Two fired head coaches and a GM who never wanted him

Quote

Quinn ain't the head coach.  Trae is...

Quote

Most likely 99 percent of the current Hawks don't like playing with him but are not gonna come out publically and say it.  You see where that got two head coaches and a GM didn't you?

 

 

At the end of the day, I don't know why we are talking about JC's extension and other moves from 4 years ago if we think Trae didn't force the front office to enrich that offer above what they would have otherwise offered.  If the front office was going to make a trade or a contract offer anyway I just don't know why we are even discussing Trae's role.  Why do you think that is still being brought up if it had no causal effect?  If you agree that Trae did have a causal effect and the front office would not have made a contract offer but for pressure from Trae then what is the difference between when I say that Trae forced the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and when you are saying that Trae pressured the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and the front office bowed to that pressure?

[bleachkit]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

If this is the weak argument being made then they can stop making a big deal of it.  The front office hears from every player of significance on the team. If they are only hearing from him and making their own decisions then why are we talking about this?

If the front office was going to offer JC that contract anyway then why is anyone complaining about Trae's role in that contract?  Trae told the team that he wanted JC back.  Why are we talking about this 4 years later if people don't think Trae played a causal role in the decision to offer him such a big contract?  

If Trae is not a causal factor in the decision then why are we pissing and moaning about it?  If Trae was a causal factor then the front office did something they would not have done but for the pressure he put on them.  We can then quibble about whether this is forcing the front office or merely putting so much pressure on the front office that they do things they would not otherwise do.  But that seems a distinction without a difference.

 

There are plenty of examples over time and other posters are better at this than I am but here are a few quotes that to me suggest that Trae is the causal factor in the front office making decisions that they would not have made but for Trae's 'demands'.

From this thread:

You don't think this describes a front office being forced to make moves they know are bad for the team because of pressure from Trae?  How the heck else do you understand "mortgaging the future" to "appease" Trae?

You think I'm straw manning the claim that Trae is working to force the front office to make moves against their will?  I'm not sure how else to read the claim that he is saying to trade the #1 pick for a specific player or he is gone.

This doesn't claim that the front office has made moves specifically because of Trae's demands in the past and that Trae is the one pushing the buttons?

How is this not Trae forcing the front office's hand?  Doesn't this say the front office was going to trade CC until Trae stopped them from doing so?

 

These are from this thread alone.  Here are a few others at least implying that he was the decision maker / cause on other such as firing LP and Nate or being the cause of Schlenk's departure:

 

 

At the end of the day, I don't know why we are talking about JC's extension and other moves from 4 years ago if we think Trae didn't force the front office to enrich that offer above what they would have otherwise offered.  If the front office was going to make a trade or a contract offer anyway I just don't know why we are even discussing Trae's role.  Why do you think that is still being brought up if it had no causal effect?  If you agree that Trae did have a causal effect and the front office would not have made a contract offer but for pressure from Trae then what is the difference between when I say that Trae forced the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and when you are saying that Trae pressured the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and the front office bowed to that pressure?

If Ressler has made Trae de facto general manager then we deserve whatever fate befalls us. You have to set boundaries. Players can't be involved in personnel decisions. Period. Yes LeBron did make decisions in his prime. That was a transcendent generational star with immense, unprecedented leverage. Hear Trae out, let him have a voice, humor him if need be. But under no circumstances should players be making personnel decisions. 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

If Ressler has made Trae de facto general manager then we deserve whatever fate befalls us. You have to set boundaries. Players can't be involved in personnel decisions. Period. Yes LeBron did make decisions in his prime. That was a transcendent generational star with immense, unprecedented leverage. Hear Trae out, let him have a voice, humor him if need be. But under no circumstances should players be making personnel decisions. 

x1000

[Peoriabird]

On 5/14/2024 at 2:15 PM, REHawksFan said:

Honest question.....do you really think Murray is as capable of an offensive player as Trae?  Do you really think the Hawks would be just as good offensively with Murray leading the way as Trae? 

Please consider: 

ORTG:

Murray's at 114  (HIGHEST of his career)

Trae at 114 (2nd lowest of his career) 

So Murray at his best = Trae at his 2nd worst  (based on ORtg)

Now PER:

Murray was at 17.7 (2nd best of his career)

Trae was at 20.3 (2nd worst of his career)

Now OWS:

Murray at 3.3 (2nd most of his career)

Trae at 4.0 (2nd worst of his career)

Now OBPM:

Murray at 2.3 (2nd highest of career)

Trae at 4.9 (2nd lowest of career)

 

The REALITY of the situation is Trae is a FAR BETTER offensive player than DJM.  DJM is a capable pg.  He's a fringe all star on a 30-win team IF he's the No. 1 guy. Trae is an ELITE PG.  Trae's WORST SEASON since his rookie year was still largely better than DJM's BEST season of his career.   

I like DJM.  I like his passion and intensity.  But choosing him over Trae would be taking steps away from winning a title.  Not getting closer to it.  

Where are the defensive numbers?

[JayBirdHawk]

8 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

If Ressler has made Trae de facto general manager then we deserve whatever fate befalls us. You have to set boundaries. Players can't be involved in personnel decisions. Period. Yes LeBron did make decisions in his prime. That was a transcendent generational star with immense, unprecedented leverage. Hear Trae out, let him have a voice, humor him if need be. But under no circumstances should players be making personnel decisions. 

Most teams listen and bounce stuff off their stars, but the final decision should always rest with the FO, that is what they are being paid to do.  

 

[Peoriabird]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:35 PM, AHF said:

Agreed.  The last time we traded a star player it was a bit of a disaster and destroyed the most promising season in Nique’s entire run with the team.  Trading him for a lesser talent to avoid paying him was a huge PR and basketball mistake.  Better to hang on to your star a bit too long than to trade him away too early.  Make the most of it.

Didn't the Hawks have the best record in the east after that trade?

[Hawkmoor]

59 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

If Ressler has made Trae de facto general manager then we deserve whatever fate befalls us. You have to set boundaries. Players can't be involved in personnel decisions. Period. Yes LeBron did make decisions in his prime. That was a transcendent generational star with immense, unprecedented leverage. Hear Trae out, let him have a voice, humor him if need be. But under no circumstances should players be making personnel decisions. 

This is kinda going off topic but I'm gonna say it anyway.  I would listen to Trae Young before I would listen to Lebron James nonplaying ass.  Folks know how I feel about Trae.  I never said Trae can't play.  He can play.  I just don't like how he plays.  Thats different. Trae has skills you can see.  Lebron just bowls you over and if he doesn't score the refs put him on the free throw line.  The reason the NBA Allstar weekend is garbage now is because Lebron got away with not being in the dunk contest.  He didn't wanna participate because he would have had to show some creativity which he does NOT have and he knows it.

 Lebron James has been the biggest con in sports history.  Only folks who can't think for themselves and let the programming tell them that Lebron is the goat believe that crap.  Comparing him to Michael Jordan?  Heck, Lebron never was the best in HIS generation of basketball.  Rant over.

Edited May 16 by Hawkmoor

[AHF]

37 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Didn't the Hawks have the best record in the east after that trade?

They had the best record in the East before Manning came on board   When Manning started his first game, we had a 38-16 record (70.3% winning%).  The rest of the season we were 19-9 which was good (67.8% winning%).  However you slice it, we didn't have some big improvement in record from the trade.

Nique averaged 24.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg while Manning averaged 15.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg for the Hawks that season.

Then the playoffs started and we barely escaped the first round of the playoffs (played in an elimination game before winning that series) and then lost in the second round.  With Manning as the top guy, we didn't have the punch to even dominate a 1 vs 8 matchup in the first round.  Then the offseason arrived and Manning abandoned the team.  

I don't know any way the Manning trade could be viewed as successful but the worst part for me is that Nique was the franchise player who had not broken through in the playoffs during the era where Bird's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls ruled over the East.  Then we finally had a year where Bird was retired and Boston was in the lottery and Jordan was playing baseball and out of the league.  The door was open like never before and the Hawks were the best team in the East.  And then we traded our franchise player and so fans never got to see what the Hawks and Nique could do with the best team in the East.  It is the ultimate "what if" for the Hawks of my youth.  It still hurts.

 

[Peoriabird]

10 minutes ago, AHF said:

They had the best record in the East before Manning came on board   When Manning started his first game, we had a 38-16 record (70.3% winning%).  The rest of the season we were 19-9 which was good (67.8% winning%).  However you slice it, we didn't have some big improvement in record from the trade.

Nique averaged 24.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg while Manning averaged 15.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg for the Hawks that season.

Then the playoffs started and we barely escaped the first round of the playoffs (played in an elimination game before winning that series) and then lost in the second round.  With Manning as the top guy, we didn't have the punch to even dominate a 1 vs 8 matchup in the first round.  Then the offseason arrived and Manning abandoned the team.  

I don't know any way the Manning trade could be viewed as successful but the worst part for me is that Nique was the franchise player who had not broken through in the playoffs during the era where Bird's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls ruled over the East.  Then we finally had a year where Bird was retired and Boston was in the lottery and Jordan was playing baseball and out of the league.  The door was open like never before and the Hawks were the best team in the East.  And then we traded our franchise player and so fans never got to see what the Hawks and Nique could do with the best team in the East.  It is the ultimate "what if" for the Hawks of my youth.  It still hurts.

 

Nique didn't have much playoff success either

[bird_dirt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

If this is the weak argument being made then they can stop making a big deal of it.  The front office hears from every player of significance on the team. If they are only hearing from him and making their own decisions then why are we talking about this?

If the front office was going to offer JC that contract anyway then why is anyone complaining about Trae's role in that contract?  Trae told the team that he wanted JC back.  Why are we talking about this 4 years later if people don't think Trae played a causal role in the decision to offer him such a big contract?  

If Trae is not a causal factor in the decision then why are we pissing and moaning about it?  If Trae was a causal factor then the front office did something they would not have done but for the pressure he put on them.  We can then quibble about whether this is forcing the front office or merely putting so much pressure on the front office that they do things they would not otherwise do.  But that seems a distinction without a difference.

 

There are plenty of examples over time and other posters are better at this than I am but here are a few quotes that to me suggest that Trae is the causal factor in the front office making decisions that they would not have made but for Trae's 'demands'.

From this thread:

You don't think this describes a front office being forced to make moves they know are bad for the team because of pressure from Trae?  How the heck else do you understand "mortgaging the future" to "appease" Trae?

You think I'm straw manning the claim that Trae is working to force the front office to make moves against their will?  I'm not sure how else to read the claim that he is saying to trade the #1 pick for a specific player or he is gone.

This doesn't claim that the front office has made moves specifically because of Trae's demands in the past and that Trae is the one pushing the buttons?

How is this not Trae forcing the front office's hand?  Doesn't this say the front office was going to trade CC until Trae stopped them from doing so?

 

These are from this thread alone.  Here are a few others at least implying that he was the decision maker / cause on other such as firing LP and Nate or being the cause of Schlenk's departure:

 

 

At the end of the day, I don't know why we are talking about JC's extension and other moves from 4 years ago if we think Trae didn't force the front office to enrich that offer above what they would have otherwise offered.  If the front office was going to make a trade or a contract offer anyway I just don't know why we are even discussing Trae's role.  Why do you think that is still being brought up if it had no causal effect?  If you agree that Trae did have a causal effect and the front office would not have made a contract offer but for pressure from Trae then what is the difference between when I say that Trae forced the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and when you are saying that Trae pressured the front office to do something they would not have done on their own and the front office bowed to that pressure?

The series of events show an increasing level of input being applied by Trae, each one raising the impact of his involvement leading up to the current rumor of his request to trade the pick for a star or to trade him instead (the first time he has potentially threatened a trade request).
 

The series of events lays out a history of him directly going to the FO to sway them in one direction or another with the roster. The increasing impact/pressure going from wanting to resign a player, to blocking trading away a player, to advocating for trading for a new player, to a potentially laying out an ultimatum with the threat of requesting a trade shows the nuance of the events. 

That last example is what was being referenced wrt mortgaging the future to appease the star. 

[AHF]

28 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

The series of events show an increasing level of input being applied by Trae, each one raising the impact of his involvement leading up to the current rumor of his request to trade the pick for a star or to trade him instead (the first time he has potentially threatened a trade request).
 

The series of events lays out a history of him directly going to the FO to sway them in one direction or another with the roster. The increasing impact/pressure going from wanting to resign a player, to blocking trading away a player, to advocating for trading for a new player, to a potentially laying out an ultimatum with the threat of requesting a trade shows the nuance of the events. 

That last example is what was being referenced wrt mortgaging the future to appease the star. 

I don't see the same pattern you do.

I see our FO failing to leverage RFA and being careless with money with multiple players including JC and Hunter.  I don't blame that on Trae.

I see an internal fight among the FO over DJM with Fields and Nick winning out over Schlenk and then a makeover of the front office as a result.  I don't blame that on Trae.

I'm not aware of any deal we passed on with CC that we were going to do for any reason let alone just because of Trae.

I see a pattern of front office decisions made by and with responsibility lying on the front office -- not by our 22-25 year old point guard.

I also don't credit things like shop talk from former players saying the Hawks should trade the pick for a star as being the equivalent of or good evidence of an ultimatum by Trae to Fields that he needs to trade the #1 pick for a specific player or Trae is walking.  It is a hell of an accusation to make so I don't believe that happened without better evidence for it.  I do believe Trae has messaged to them that he wants to compete and not be part of a rebuild.  (I don't see that as an ultimatum especially since I think that not only are there ways to retool while enhancing our competitiveness but that this is exactly the path the Hawks should walk going forward.)

[bird_dirt]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't see the same pattern you do.

I see our FO failing to leverage RFA and being careless with money with multiple players including JC and Hunter.  I don't blame that on Trae.

I see an internal fight among the FO over DJM with Fields and Nick winning out over Schlenk and then a makeover of the front office as a result.  I don't blame that on Trae.

I'm not aware of any deal we passed on with CC that we were going to do for any reason let alone just because of Trae.

I see a pattern of front office decisions made by and with responsibility lying on the front office -- not by our 22-25 year old point guard.

I also don't credit things like shop talk from former players saying the Hawks should trade the pick for a star as being the equivalent of or good evidence of an ultimatum by Trae to Fields that he needs to trade the #1 pick for a specific player or Trae is walking.  It is a hell of an accusation to make so I don't believe that happened without better evidence for it.  I do believe Trae has messaged to them that he wants to compete and not be part of a rebuild.  (I don't see that as an ultimatum especially since I think that not only are there ways to retool while enhancing our competitiveness but that this is exactly the path the Hawks should walk going forward.)

I agree with you about the FO screwing the pooch on multiple occasions. 
The CC trade was something I recall Supes or some other insider mentioning maybe a couple years ago. Hawks had a deal in place to trade him (to Houston maybe?) but Trae said no I don’t want him traded so they killed the deal. 
The ultimatum (however firm or soft it may have been) was something mentioned by Soth I believe. I feel confident in my recollection of those being mentioned, but I’m not motivated to dig them up. I do think care that much about it. 
I know you want hard proof on everything (lawyers, go figure), but most of my conjecture is based on insider reports that haven’t or won’t ever be verified. May be true, may not be. But I guess if I put weight into anything they say, then I’ll put weight into most everything they say knowing there’s room for error. 

[AHF]

20 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

I agree with you about the FO screwing the pooch on multiple occasions. 
The CC trade was something I recall Supes or some other insider mentioning maybe a couple years ago. Hawks had a deal in place to trade him (to Houston maybe?) but Trae said no I don’t want him traded so they killed the deal. 
The ultimatum (however firm or soft it may have been) was something mentioned by Soth I believe. I feel confident in my recollection of those being mentioned, but I’m not motivated to dig them up. I do think care that much about it. 
I know you want hard proof on everything (lawyers, go figure), but most of my conjecture is based on insider reports that haven’t or won’t ever be verified. May be true, may not be. But I guess if I put weight into anything they say, then I’ll put weight into most everything they say knowing there’s room for error. 

If Trae is making a true ultimatum, then that is something that absolutely ties the front office's hands and he has inserted himself into the actual decision making process in a real way.  If it is the case, the Hawks can only trade the pick like he wants or trade him.  Frankly, I'll be surprised if either of those things happen but we'll see.  If neither of those things happens, I think that is pretty compelling evidence that an ultimatum wasn't made and it was something much softer.

Soft things like Trae saying he likes to play with someone or would like to play with someone strike more like a teenager in the back seat of the car saying how they would drive.  If the teen in the backseat says to gun it and the driver jams on the gas and runs a red light, I still blame the driver wayyyyyyy more than the teen in the backseat.  The driver should know better and is ultimately responsible for what happens with the car.  In this analogy, the ultimatum is more like the teen pulling out a gun and ordering the driver to run the red light in which case sure the teen deserves the blame.

[bird_dirt]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

If Trae is making a true ultimatum, then that is something that absolutely ties the front office's hands and he has inserted himself into the actual decision making process in a real way.  If it is the case, the Hawks can only trade the pick like he wants or trade him.  Frankly, I'll be surprised if either of those things happen but we'll see.  If neither of those things happens, I think that is pretty compelling evidence that an ultimatum wasn't made and it was something much softer.

Soft things like Trae saying he likes to play with someone or would like to play with someone strike more like a teenager in the back seat of the car saying how they would drive.  If the teen in the backseat says to gun it and the driver jams on the gas and runs a red light, I still blame the driver wayyyyyyy more than the teen in the backseat.  The driver should know better and is ultimately responsible for what happens with the car.  In this analogy, the ultimatum is more like the teen pulling out a gun and ordering the driver to run the red light in which case sure the teen deserves the blame.

[JayBirdHawk]

48 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

The CC trade was something I recall Supes or some other insider mentioning maybe a couple years ago. Hawks had a deal in place to trade him (to Houston maybe?) but Trae said no I don’t want him traded so they killed the deal. 

IIRC - I thought the whole CC to Houston trade was contingent on James Harden going back to Houston.  Once Udoka became coach, he apparently told the front office not to bring Harden back.  Or it could be something as simple as the Hawks saying to Trae 'this is the deal for Capela' and Trae gave a  at the return in lieu of Trae walking into Schlenk's office and demanding they keep Capela.  We don't know how things unfold, and trade talks are never static.  

Either way Final decision-making rests on the FO. 

[Final_quest]

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

To label him as a teenager who drinks mountain dew and is like an annoying kid to ignore in the back of the car doesn't respect his actual position.  He is the box office draw.  He is also the engine of the team.  If someone is acquired or cut, it impacts what Trae has to do on the court to make it work.  There are a lot of reasons to include him in conversations if you want to have success.  

However, if all you have to say is Trae should have zero influence and has had zero influence, there really isn't a conversation.  Point taken and that's your perspective.  Many others see it differently.  

[Hawkmoor]

35 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

Edited May 16 by Hawkmoor

[JayBirdHawk]

41 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots. 

Oh - but there are a few or two that think so.

[JayBirdHawk]

42 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

To label him as a teenager who drinks mountain dew and is like an annoying kid to ignore in the back of the car doesn't respect his actual position.  He is the box office draw.  He is also the engine of the team.  If someone is acquired or cut, it impacts what Trae has to do on the court to make it work.  There are a lot of reasons to include him in conversations if you want to have success.  

However, if all you have to say is Trae should have zero influence and has had zero influence, there really isn't a conversation.  Point taken and that's your perspective.  Many others see it differently.  

My thinking is there is influence is terms of 'get me some help',  but in terms of specificity of hand picked players to target - less so.  

Example: The first get me some help moment was after a game walking in the tunnel in Season 2 after a tough loss and Trae was pissed.  Someone from the team as they were walking back to the locker room put their hand around is shoulders and said 'help is coming'.  The following offseason we signed Bogi and Gallo as our big FA acquisitions.  Did Trae specifically ask for those players or was it these are the guys we are targeting to get you some help?