So far..... Disappointed.

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, MaceCase said:

*ahem*

That was even before his press tour proclaiming his new summer hobby.

I would have rather had that... than what we got.  Cap relief and real "Flexibility" made more sense than to get virtually no cap relief, take on a bad contract, and give up a good 2nd rounder.

[MaceCase]

24 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I would have rather had that... than what we got.  Cap relief and real "Flexibility" made more sense than to get virtually no cap relief, take on a bad contract, and give up a good 2nd rounder.

Oh, gee! Who wouldn't want the best case scenario in anything in life?

The point being that the difference between the best case scenario and what the Hawks got (they did get a 2nd and they did shave half off his deal) isn't far off making your estimation of Dwight's value unfounded.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, MaceCase said:

Oh, gee! Who wouldn't want the best case scenario in anything in life?

The point being that the difference between the best case scenario and what the Hawks got (they did get a 2nd and they did shave half off his deal) isn't far off making your estimation of Dwight's value unfounded.

How did they shave off half his deal?

Saying we got a second round pick when we gave up a better pick is creative, I'll give you that.

[MaceCase]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

How did they shave off half his deal?

Saying we got a second round pick when we gave up a better pick is creative, I'll give you that.

1)12.5 < 23.5, this is simple math.

2) Did or did not the Hawks get a 2nd?  You're the one being "creative" by introducing "better" into the conversation.

 

 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, MaceCase said:

1)12.5 < 23.5, this is simple math.

2) Did or did not the Hawks get a 2nd?  You're the one being "creative" by introducing "better" into the conversation.

 

 

1 - Belli's contract still counts so I think your math is too simple.  The deal we acquired is longer as well.

2 - We already had a second and we exchanged it for a worse one.  I think of "getting a 2nd" as being additive to what we already had.  I don't consider a deal as getting a first round pick if we trade our #19 for the #29 pick.  That is not adding anything.  It is just moving back.

[Watchman]

8 hours ago, MaceCase said:

*ahem*

That was even before his press tour proclaiming his new summer hobby.

That would have been far superior to the deal that we received.

[MaceCase]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

1 - Belli's contract still counts so I think your math is too simple.  The deal we acquired is longer as well.

2 - We already had a second and we exchanged it for a worse one.  I think of "getting a 2nd" as being additive to what we already had.  I don't consider a deal as getting a first round pick if we trade our #19 for the #29 pick.  That is not adding anything.  It is just moving back.

Oh? Allow me to give you further assistance then.

1) 19.1 < 23.5.  It's simple math.  I'll help further.  44 total < 47 total.  However you slice it, it's simple but oh, continue to be the pessimist and argue simple logic and say "but, but, but it's not as big", but you'd still be wrong and pedantic in a useless manner.  I know I shouldn't have to explain this sort of thing to a poster of your caliber, you're beyond intelligent enough to read and understand an article on the cap dynamics created but we all know you tend to get a tad churlish and your lawyerly demeanor tends to slip out the window whenever a deal comes around that you're not particularly fond of.

2) So you walk into a store and exchange a dollar for a candy bar, are you saying that your belief is you didn't actually gain a candy bar but only lost a dollar?  Glad you brought up Belinelli and are being so creative with your perception of the 2nd, allow me to actually be creative too.  Plumlee and the 41st were exchanged for Dwight and the 31st was exchanged for Belinelli, now tell me I'm wrong.  The former satisfies the best case scenario posited by GM's and the latter is in line with the going rate for expiring veteran shooters given that both Kyle Korver and Bojan Bogdanovic netted 1st rounders.  Have fun.

[MaceCase]

4 hours ago, Watchman said:

That would have been far superior to the deal that we received.

No it wouldn't.

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, MaceCase said:

Oh, gee! Who wouldn't want the best case scenario in anything in life?

The point being that the difference between the best case scenario and what the Hawks got (they did get a 2nd and they did shave half off his deal) isn't far off making your estimation of Dwight's value unfounded.

Shave half off his deal??   Anyway.

Don't undersale me the deal we took.  The deal was a bad deal through and through... You are undersaling trying to say that getting a 2nd round pick for a 13/13 guy would have been the "best case scenerio".  Are you Freaking kidding me.  getting a 2nd round pick for a 13/13 guy would have been bad too, but it's much better than what we did.   Nice try Mace... but we're not going for the Banana in the tailpipe.

[MaceCase]

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Shave half off his deal??   Anyway.

Don't undersale me the deal we took.  The deal was a bad deal through and through... You are undersaling trying to say that getting a 2nd round pick for a 13/13 guy would have been the "best case scenerio".  Are you Freaking kidding me.  getting a 2nd round pick for a 13/13 guy would have been bad too, but it's much better than what we did.   Nice try Mace... but we're not going for the Banana in the tailpipe.

 

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

 

We should have talked to those GMs then...

[MaceCase]

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We should have talked to those GMs then...

Schlenk did...

http://www.nba.com/hawks/travis-schlenk-addresses-dwight-howard-trade-interview/#

[Diesel]

16 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Schlenk did...

http://www.nba.com/hawks/travis-schlenk-addresses-dwight-howard-trade-interview/#

Yeah... and he took the best package that they thought would give them "flexibility".   Sorry... but he should have had more patience.   IF a bad deal is the only one on the table that gives you "Flexibility" you wait.   He got pwned.

[MaceCase]

39 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Yeah... and he took the best package that they thought would give them "flexibility".   Sorry... but he should have had more patience.   IF a bad deal is the only one on the table that gives you "Flexibility" you wait.   He got pwned.

 

[Watchman]

3 hours ago, MaceCase said:

No it wouldn't.

Yeah, it would.

[MaceCase]

4 hours ago, Watchman said:

Yeah, it would.

Nah uh.

[AHF]

8 hours ago, MaceCase said:

Oh? Allow me to give you further assistance then.

1) 19.1 < 23.5.  It's simple math.  I'll help further.  44 total < 47 total.  However you slice it, it's simple but oh, continue to be the pessimist and argue simple logic and say "but, but, but it's not as big", but you'd still be wrong and pedantic in a useless manner.  I know I shouldn't have to explain this sort of thing to a poster of your caliber, you're beyond intelligent enough to read and understand an article on the cap dynamics created but we all know you tend to get a tad churlish and your lawyerly demeanor tends to slip out the window whenever a deal comes around that you're not particularly fond of.

2) So you walk into a store and exchange a dollar for a candy bar, are you saying that your belief is you didn't actually gain a candy bar but only lost a dollar?  Glad you brought up Belinelli and are being so creative with your perception of the 2nd, allow me to actually be creative too.  Plumlee and the 41st were exchanged for Dwight and the 31st was exchanged for Belinelli, now tell me I'm wrong.  The former satisfies the best case scenario posited by GM's and the latter is in line with the going rate for expiring veteran shooters given that both Kyle Korver and Bojan Bogdanovic netted 1st rounders.  Have fun.

We agree on the facts but I see this as spreading the same dollars over different time frames.  44 and 47 are not very different.  What we do with that flexibility will determine my final view of the trade.   This trade is the Lou Williams trade part 2.  A loss on talent that gives you some additional flexibility.  I'm hoping we make better on the second stage execution than Ferry did.

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

We agree on the facts but I see this as spreading the same dollars over different time frames.  44 and 47 are not very different.  What we do with that flexibility will determine my final view of the trade.   This trade is the Lou Williams trade part 2.  A loss on talent that gives you some additional flexibility.  I'm hoping we make better on the second stage execution than Ferry did.

Understood, but timing is important and really shouldn't be understated.  You can pay back your mortgage today or you can spread it out over the next 10-20-30 years.  Most won't focus on the savings on interest as the greater benefit to paying it all off now as opposed to over time, they'd look at the lump sum they'd have to pony up.

I see this trade as not being much different, in fact it's already paying some dividends this year shaving some money off with the cap projections being lower than originally expected.  I rather Schlenk with avenues and options to implement his plan, whatever it may be, than not.  I also don't believe the franchise had the luxury to wait out Dwight's deal due to the volatility of the roster, market, and of course, Dwight. 

When Dwight first signed his market was tepid if not altogether frigid and Atlanta was widely looked at as his last chance to resurrect any semblance of his reputation after burning 3 straight franchises.  It didn't go so well.  Years of media perception, coupled with his lack of free agency interest, coupled with the recent report of his regard amongst NBA front-offices, coupled with the actual trade has his value as well established if not chiseled into stone... Yet there's still pushback from part of the fanbase believing that that is all somehow just a very elaborate hoax of which it's still a mystery over whom exactly benefits from implementing it.  I get the sense that the tweet is somehow being interpreted as some team would have not only ate Dwight's entire deal but paid a 2nd for the opportunity...that is a best case scenario interpretation of a best case scenario.  You and I are well-versed and intelligent enough to parse out the nuance though .    

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, MaceCase said:

Understood, but timing is important and really shouldn't be understated.  You can pay back your mortgage today or you can spread it out over the next 10-20-30 years.  Most won't focus on the savings on interest as the greater benefit to paying it all off now as opposed to over time, they'd look at the lump sum they'd have to pony up.

I see this trade as not being much different, in fact it's already paying some dividends this year shaving some money off with the cap projections being lower than originally expected.  I rather Schlenk with avenues and options to implement his plan, whatever it may be, than not.  I also don't believe the franchise had the luxury to wait out Dwight's deal due to the volatility of the roster, market, and of course, Dwight. 

When Dwight first signed his market was tepid if not altogether frigid and Atlanta was widely looked at as his last chance to resurrect any semblance of his reputation after burning 3 straight franchises.  It didn't go so well.  Years of media perception, coupled with his lack of free agency interest, coupled with the recent report of his regard amongst NBA front-offices, coupled with the actual trade has his value as well established if not chiseled into stone... Yet there's still pushback from part of the fanbase believing that that is all somehow just a very elaborate hoax of which it's still a mystery over whom exactly benefits from implementing it.  I get the sense that the tweet is somehow being interpreted as some team would have not only ate Dwight's entire deal but paid a 2nd for the opportunity...that is a best case scenario interpretation of a best case scenario.  You and I are well-versed and intelligent enough to parse out the nuance though .    

Everybody tries to make this about a personality problem.  Dwight did nothing that resembled his time in LA or Orlando.  As a matter of fact, the way that Dwight was being used as a garbage player... the fact that he never complained says a lot about his character NOW.  Yet... our GM makes a bad trade and all the sudden... "He's a problem in the lockerroom?  His personality clashes with everybody".   Nobody said either of those things.  This GM said that he traded Dwight because Charlotte was HOT for Dwight and he saw a chance to get some flexibility.   He traded away talent for what 3 Million dollars?   The trade was so bad from our side that guys like yourself are trying to undersale how bad it was...  as I said before .... IF this was the best that was offered to our GM, he should have left the deal on the table.  I promise you his value would have been much better as the season went on.

[AHF]

D whether making this deal makes good sense to me depends on what we do in free agency and what we are trying to achieve this season.  I don't like the deal at all in isolation but am waiting to give my final view after the other moves are made and our direction is clearer.