Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $440 of $700 target

The Mega Super Rumor Thread (Part 2)


NBASupes

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

My experience with CEOs is that they often have a huge ego, duh.  This can be good because average people don't dare to believe they can take over the world, they do.  Ressler wanted to fast track a rebuild, which we got Clint, Gallo, and Bogi for that purpose.  After experiencing the level of success he envisioned with an ECF run, he has no appetite to slow play this.  

Ressler is fuming mad because he thought he was at least set up for deep playoff runs, and if TS made the run it back call, his leash is short.  Sh*t rolls down hill and TS gave the players an ear full last year. 

Positively we are at least going to be aggressive and take a shot.  Negatively we could be making moves like the Nets with Garnett, Pierce, and Joe Johnson.  We've always asked for an owner who will at least spend the money and have a bigger vision.  To me this is better than ASG, who just wanted to stay under the luxury tax and make the playoffs.  

This is all true. Ressler holds people accountable. Which IMO is good. I do however worry he's TOO hands on which is also a bad thing. But we will see. We haven't had an ownership for the Hawks that positively wanted to make the team better and was willing to pay for it since Ted Turner.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

My experience with CEOs is that they often have a huge ego, duh.  This can be good because average people don't dare to believe they can take over the world, they do.  Ressler wanted to fast track a rebuild, which we got Clint, Gallo, and Bogi for that purpose.  After experiencing the level of success he envisioned with an ECF run, he has no appetite to slow play this.  

Ressler is fuming mad because he thought he was at least set up for deep playoff runs, and if TS made the run it back call, his leash is short.  Sh*t rolls down hill and TS gave the players an ear full last year. 

Positively we are at least going to be aggressive and take a shot.  Negatively we could be making moves like the Nets with Garnett, Pierce, and Joe Johnson.  We've always asked for an owner who will at least spend the money and have a bigger vision.  To me this is better than ASG, who just wanted to stay under the luxury tax and make the playoffs.  

Agreed.  I want an active owner who expects excellence and challenges the front office and the players to be better.  The perfect owner has the same passion and fire that Ressler has, but also knows when he's meddling.  The key word here is TRUST.  If Travis and Landry say that Murry is the better long play and is lest costly, trust them and let them do their job.  You live with with mistakes/oversights made by knowledgeable basketball personnel and you suffer the mistakes forced by passionate owner meddling.

As it pertains to KD...let me be clear and take a side.  If you have a real chance to get KD, you do the due diligence for sure.  There's no way to defend KD and Trae spacing the floor...it's a nightmare.  However, there has to be a limit.  Same with any player.  JC + OO and pick(s)/filler is too much for Murry and there's a line with KD as well.  We would have to navigate that trade carefully and follow it up IMMEDIATELY and just as carefully with supporting moves.

All things considered, I'd pursue Murray.  Also, I like Capela and I like Ayton, but if we can get DA for less than a max...we'd be fools not to pounce on it.  Trae/Murray/Hunter/<OO/JJ/Vet>/Ayton.  That is an amazing young core...and it's not like we can't still make moves with them if they don't translate into a contender.  That's the path I'd take.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I started keeping up with Twitter after we got Trae and started following him.  LOL...man listen, he is selective in what he posts, replies to, retweets, and what he likes.  Go look at his likes out there lol...  This is a statement...and a HUGE one considering the Hawk who's name is attached to the DJM trade.

I glossed over it the other day, but I think this is just as much a statement as is related...

I think it's going down.  Obligatory emoji...👀

Agreed. I think it gets done too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 minute ago, theheroatl said:

The Fischer, Stein, emojis, likes, etc are this past weekends news. We need some clarity going into free agency. They gonna get this deal done or are they still trying to find the 3rd team to take JC for a FRP.

It's weird.  Sac isn't jumping at the chance to get JC for just a pick?   

I know JC has a much bigger deal we want to get rid of but if we're bringing in Murray it would seem like we'd be a better team to send out Huerter and not JC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, macdaddy said:

It's weird.  Sac isn't jumping at the chance to get JC for just a pick?   

I know JC has a much bigger deal we want to get rid of but if we're bringing in Murray it would seem like we'd be a better team to send out Huerter and not JC.  

Sacramento makes terrible decisions. Keegan Murray gonna bust and Ivey gonna be a star. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
8 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

are they still trying to find the 3rd team to take JC for a FRP.

I've never thought trading JC for a pick made sense - but at least I could get my head around a trade made when a particular player was on the board but for a future pick that could fall wherever in the draft?  ***** no.   Only way that makes sense is in a three way deal where we get a player, our trade partner gets the future pick, and the third team gets JC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, macdaddy said:

It's weird.  Sac isn't jumping at the chance to get JC for just a pick?   

I know JC has a much bigger deal we want to get rid of but if we're bringing in Murray it would seem like we'd be a better team to send out Huerter and not JC.  

Macdaddy I personally believe the Front office knows that the presence of Capela limits John Collins role in the offense, less touches and they feel like they can't justify paying Collins the 25 million that he's getting. Simple economics IMO. I don't think Travis knew that Capela would have this kind of negative effect on John.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

No sir.

For one look at the NBA players from Iowa: https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/Iowa/98/nba-players

For two, he showed high usage for one good year at Iowa.

Finally look at the history of #4 picks. It’s hit or miss.

 

The obvious pick was Ivey like Doncic when they picked Bagley.

Edited by theheroatl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

For one look at the NBA players from Iowa: https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/Iowa/98/nba-players

For two, he showed high usage for one good year at Iowa.

Finally look at the history of #4 picks. It’s hit or miss.

 

The obvious pick was Ivey like Doncic when they picked Bagley.

He didnt want to play there though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
28 minutes ago, TRW said:

Macdaddy I personally believe the Front office knows that the presence of Capela limits John Collins role in the offense, less touches and they feel like they can't justify paying Collins the 25 million that he's getting. Simple economics IMO. I don't think Travis knew that Capela would have this kind of negative effect on John.

I suppose but i think we're just going to be looking to find a guy just like JC when he's gone.  The 2 played really well together i thought.  Maybe under Nate it changed i don't know.  

I love JC and don't want to get rid of him.  I think it'll be a mistake.  But i also don't think he's a 25 ppg guy either.   

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...