2023-24 Insider Information Thread

[Hawkmoor]

26 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

The Hawks FO seems to be interested in Risacher, Clingan, Reed Sheppard and Anderson Cooper.  Cooper sets great screens and has a killer smile ! {green font}

Who said this was over?  

Edited June 5 by Hawkmoor

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, Hawkish said:

Can we just make the NO trade of DJ/Hunter/CC for Ingram/Herb+ without the SA deal?  

 

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

Yes. One is not dependent on the other.

Thought I saw something about sending #8 to NOP for Herb.

(I'm just catching up so maybe I misread)

[KB21]

33 minutes ago, AtLaS said:

It's all about screen setting.  That's it.  If you aren't good at it at 18 you will never improve because you'll never gain weight or get stronger 

Like can you imagine Sarr at 250 in a couple years?  Dude will be an absolute freak.

Yeah.  Apparently screen setting is the most important skill for a big.  It doesn’t matter if he can shoot or defend in space.  If he can’t set a screen, then he sucks.  

[NekiEcko]

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

Exactly. You've heard people around the team that have direct media connections like Brad from Locked on hawks mention this several times: we aren't the usual team that gets the #1 pick. Those teams are usually stripped down and taking best player available and just trying to develop prospects. We are a team that barely missed the playoffs that has a decent roster already and a proven HC. 

We also have the elephant in the room for a superstar in Trae that's tired of losing and a cheap FO and wants to win now with a real roster around him. Moving off #1 to get better pieces for a team now versus three years from now makes sense. We can disagree with that approach as fans, sure, but it does make sense.

And...it keeps Tony Ressler from paying #1 salary on a team that's already at or going to be over the LT. 

1000%

However, even though Trae is growing weary of losing, we require a commitment from him in case they proceed with these changes and he still opts to use his player option to become a free agent.  

I can see that this team only needs a few additions to be successful, unlike teams like Detroit, the Hornets, and the Wizards, which require a complete overhaul.

[JeffS17]

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

I handled this is another thread.  Cost value proposition of 2 picks ready to play vs #1 not ready to play and total cost of those picks.

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to keep the conversation grounded.  This year has felt like the old board as far as roster building knowledge goes. People aren't quite at the insane NBA2K crazy trade stage (Let's get Lebron for G.Matthews and a 2nd) but they're proposing things in a very tight thought bubble without considering the constraints or implications.

#1 pick plus a vet minimum = 2 roster slots at $11.7-13.8M

#4 pick + #8 pick = 2 roster slots at $12.8M 

There is zero difference in how much cap space we have with either of these situations, so it really just feels like you're trying to use a cap argument to push your agenda which is you don't want Sarr because he's not a win-now pick and you're not a fan.  So I'm not sure what the constraints you are referring to are.

[JeffS17]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Did you forget Ingram is a part of the deal? Adding herb and clingan is soooo much better than adding sarr for a win now team 

We're not a win-now team, though.  We can try to become a win-now team, but that is most certainly not how I would describe us today.  Maybe that's a small distinction but if that 36-46 Hawks team with a 25 year old star player is "win now", basically every team in the league is a win now team

[AtLaS]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

#1 pick plus a vet minimum = 2 roster slots at $11.7-13.8M

#4 pick + #8 pick = 2 roster slots at $12.8M 

There is zero difference in how much cap space we have with either of these situations, so it really just feels like you're trying to use a cap argument to push your agenda which is you don't want Sarr because he's not a win-now pick and you're not a fan.  So I'm not sure what the constraints you are referring to are.

You never make draft decisions based on the salary of the pick.  You take the best player.  He just doesn't like Sarr.

[kg01]

2 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

We're not a win-now team, though.  We can try to become a win-now team, but that is most certainly not how I would describe us today.  Maybe that's a small distinction but if that 36-46 Hawks team with a 25 year old star player is "win now", basically every team in the league is a win now team

A large percentage of teams in the playoffs were worse last year than we are now, babes. 

Can I call you babes?  It's a British thing not a 'babes' thing. 

Edited June 5 by kg01

[KB21]

3 minutes ago, AtLaS said:

You never make draft decisions based on the salary of the pick.  You take the best player.  He just doesn't like Sarr.

Yeah.  This isn’t the baseball draft where you overdraft someone because they will cut a deal and save you $2 million.  

[Sothron]

1 hour ago, Spud2nique said:

That’s coming back to you and saying what you said didn’t happen? ohhhkayyy. 

no, i'm talking about whenever we post something especially about the draft/future trades people tend to overreact at us versus what we're just passing along.

[JeffS17]

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

A large percentage of teams in the playoffs were worse last year than we are now, babes. 

Can I call you babes?  It's a British thing not a 'babes' thing. 

So you agree with me that by this definition, 20+ teams are in "win now" mode?  So more than half the league should be using short term decision making to try to win a chip next year rather than building for the future?  I think we just have different definitions of "win now".  In my opinion, making moves at the opportunity cost of the future should be reserved for teams that are already contending, have aging stars-- or at a minimum, have solid cores in place.  We don't even have a team that fits right now.

[kg01]

7 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

So you agree with me that by this definition, 20+ teams are in "win now" mode?  So more than half the league should be using short term decision making to try to win a chip next year rather than building for the future?  I think we just have different definitions of "win now".  In my opinion, making moves at the opportunity cost of the future should be reserved for teams that are already contending, have aging stars-- or at a minimum, have solid cores in place.  We don't even have a team that fits right now.

All teams make win-now moves in the offseason.  Then they see what happens throughout the year. 

[JeffS17]

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

All teams make win-now moves in the offseason.  Then they see what happens throughout the year. 

Okay, maybe I'll be more direct. 

Trading away the 1st pick in an NBA draft as a win-now move for a team that was deservedly in the lottery, at 36-46, with one star player that is young (25 years old) and a poorly constructed roster, is completely asinine.

[NekiEcko]

9 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

So you agree with me that by this definition, 20+ teams are in "win now" mode?  So more than half the league should be using short term decision making to try to win a chip next year rather than building for the future?  I think we just have different definitions of "win now".  In my opinion, making moves at the opportunity cost of the future should be reserved for teams that are already contending, have aging stars-- or at a minimum, have solid cores in place.  We don't even have a team that fits right now.

Indeed, it's a compelling question to pose: "What defines a win-now team?" In terms of building for the future, consider how long the Pistons have been in the rebuilding phase. Then there are the Hornets, and even the Spurs, who, despite their picks and Wembanyama, haven't made the playoffs in nearly five years—a streak likely to continue given the fierce competition in their conference. The critical decision at hand is whether to draft for the future or for immediate impact.

[JTB]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Did you forget Ingram is a part of the deal? Adding herb and clingan is soooo much better than adding sarr for a win now team 

Thanks! 

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don’t understand this sentiment. This number 1 pick isn’t good. This player would not go top 5 in many of the recent drafts… 

could perhaps not even sniff top 10 next draft. Getting the guy you want all long and adding one of the best perimeter defenders is a good deal. Many of you just have fallen in love with the idea of sarr 

People said the same thing about kyrie. Great teams are built behind the concept of buying low. 

@Mikey PREACH!

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

This is a 50 win team and at minimum second round exit. Truly believe that team contends with the Celtics as long as BI is healthy 

Agreed 1000%…say it louder for the people in the back!

2 hours ago, Sothron said:

You forgot to put Herb in this lineup. One of the proposed trades, the 2nd I posted, was DJM, Capela and Hunter for Ingram, Herb and Nance. 

So that lineup you posted changes to:

Trae/Kobe

Ingram/Bogi/Knecht

Herb/Vit/Knecht

JJ/Nance

Clingan/OO

 

That's IMO a very good team in the EC for 2024/25 season-onwards. 

Absolutely LOOOVVVVEEE this lineup! Are you kidding me?!! …how the hell do we have hawk fans mad about this!….please basketball gods let this happen!

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Classic meltdown.  We got a shot at a really complete team with these moves. Clingan, Herb, and Ingram would be a huge boost. The east is wide open.  

I think the Sarr reality vs fantasy is a huge gap for some people.  The Spurs don’t even want Sarr.  He can’t screen, rebound, or catch passes.  I still would be stoked to have him, but I definitely see his flaws.  

A lot can change in 3 weeks.  Enjoy the ride.

Great post!…our insiders drop a “A+” bomb on us and our fanbase is mad! Make it make sense!

this is just too good to be true! 

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

Yes. One is not dependent on the other.

Good! ….i cannot believe people are mad about getting Herb Jones, Ingram, and Clingan…un f***ing believable!

 

and I know this is just what you’re hearing insiders but this all great content!..that’s a championship contending team if healthy! Offense and defense maximized. Versatility throughout the lineups! Long athletic players and defenders around Trae….the hell our people complaining about ?!

 

Starters…Trae, Ingram, Herb, Jalen, Clingan!

Bogi, Nance, OO , + #8 pick (potentially if not traded for Herb)..off the bench!

 

oh there’s going to be some damn problems in the EAST if the FO pulls this off.

[thecampster]

33 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

#1 pick plus a vet minimum = 2 roster slots at $11.7-13.8M

#4 pick + #8 pick = 2 roster slots at $12.8M 

There is zero difference in how much cap space we have with either of these situations, so it really just feels like you're trying to use a cap argument to push your agenda which is you don't want Sarr because he's not a win-now pick and you're not a fan.  So I'm not sure what the constraints you are referring to are.

I'm really not going to explain this again.  Won't be ready to contribute till year 3. No draft picks for 3 years. Locked in roster salary for 2 years. Pick Sarr is minimum 2 more years of the hamster wheel.

[Mikey]

3 hours ago, BangHolman said:

5 of those guys are injury prone too: BI, JJ, OO, Bogi, and Mo.

Bogi played a ton last year. Jj isn’t injury prone he just returned quickly to help the team. Onyeka and BI the concern. Idc about MO nor has he even proven he’s gonna be a rotation guy 

[KB21]

If you take Clingan, he might be the team’s 5th or 6th best player as a rookie.  When he’s in his third year, he’s still going to be no better than the 5th or 6th best player on the team.  
 

Alex Sarr is probably the 3rd best player on the team by year three.  

[Mikey]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

$50 million for a guy who doesn't fit what Quin wants because he is slow to make a decision on what he wants to do and isn't a big three point shooter isn't buying low.  

How do you know how he’s gonna play under Quin when he hasn’t played a minute under Quin? 

[JeffS17]

11 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Pick Sarr is minimum 2 more years of the hamster wheel.

It's amazing how different our perspectives are because I actually value your opinions around our roster decisions. 

I believe the exact opposite -- trying to take more win-now players is going to ensure we stay on the hamster wheel and trading the #1 pick is forgoing our opportunity to exit the hamster wheel and start climbing back up the mountain to competing for a chip.  We don't need more mediocre-good talent; we need top end talent.