2024 Hawks Offseason Thread: What's Next? 2024-25 Season Outlook.

[BangHolman]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

Too bad we can't take a time machine to show this Cam

[AHF]

11 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

5 Teams Regretting the 2024 NBA Offseason

 

Atlanta Hawks

1 OF 5

 

Adam Hagy/NBAE via Getty Images

If the Atlanta Hawks' plan is to wallow in mediocrity while not controlling any of their draft picks for the next three years, then this organization is doing a bang-up job.

Atlanta did the smart thing by trading Dejounte Murray, yet took a draft-pick heavy return over actually improving the roster.

Last season with Trae Young on the floor without the players who either were traded or signed elsewhere (Murray, Saddiq Bey and AJ Griffin), the Hawks had a net rating of minus-4.3 in 698 possessions with a defensive rating of over 120.0 (18th percentile, via Cleaning the Glass).

Unless the Hawks do something else this summer, this looks like a team that will take a step back from the 36-46 record it mustered a year ago.

No. 1 overall pick Zaccharie Risacher's pro comparison is Harrison Barnes according to Bleacher Report draft expert Jonathan Wasserman, which isn't going to be enough to lift this team into the playoffs anytime soon. Clint Capela is entering the final year of his contract and there's been no extension yet for promising power forward Jalen Johnson.

Atlanta doesn't have the option to tank since the San Antonio Spurs own their first-round selection in 2025 and 2027, with the right to swap in 2026 due to the original trade for Murray.

There has to be another move coming for Atlanta, as this current roster isn't good enough to make the playoffs and won't even get a lottery pick to show for it.

The Hawks should be pursuing trades for veterans who complement Young and now have two extra first-round picks from the New Orleans Pelicans in order to do so.

As of now, this has been an extremely disappointing offseason for Atlanta with no real direction in sight.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10129450-5-teams-regretting-the-2024-nba-offseason

For those who think my goal in life is to crush the souls of Hawks fans with mean things about our front office, I am more positive about our offseason than this.  I also don’t think another move is coming.

[Wretch]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

For those who think my goal in life is to crush the souls of Hawks fans with mean things about our front office, I am more positive about our offseason than this.  I also don’t think another move is coming.

Until now, it was really hard to put how I feel into words.  Like you, I have more faith in this team than the article gives...but they have nonetheless captured every single concern I have and summarized my feelings: 

Quote

If the Atlanta Hawks' plan is to wallow in mediocrity while not controlling any of their draft picks for the next three years, then this organization is doing a bang-up job.

The Hawks should be pursuing trades for veterans who complement Young and now have two extra first-round picks from the New Orleans Pelicans in order to do so.

The fan in me wants to see another move, but the realist in me is saying this is it.  I don't understand the strategy of trying to rebuild without our picks and appeasing our star without making moves to compete now.  We've gotten younger and got draft picks.  That feels like we're trying to develop talent (rebuild).  If we do expect to compete, there's a lot of expectations being put on a team with a lot of young players with question marks. 

I need to reiterate this for the Positivity Patrol - I don't hate this team as is and I'm not predicting doom and gloom.  I'm going to wait until at least preseason to form a real opinion.  As it were, I have about 60-70% confidence we can make the playoffs, around 50% confidence that this team can hover in the lower middle of the pack, and no confidence that we can make a deep playoff run - which is exactly what Trae is looking for.

All this is further complicated by a FO that looks like it's playing it safe while being hamstrung by tight-fisted ownership.  While also shooting themselves in the foot if "Hawks DNA" is limiting potential moves.

I'm just sitting here patiently waiting to see how things come together and what the real strategy is...

[JayBirdHawk]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

For those who think my goal in life is to crush the souls of Hawks fans with mean things about our front office, I am more positive about our offseason than this.  I also don’t think another move is coming.

 

32 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Until now, it was really hard to put how I feel into words.  Like you, I have more faith in this team than the article gives...but they have nonetheless captured every single concern I have and summarized my feelings: 

The fan in me wants to see another move, but the realist in me is saying this is it.  I don't understand the strategy of trying to rebuild without our picks and appeasing our star without making moves to compete now.  We've gotten younger and got draft picks.  That feels like we're trying to develop talent (rebuild).  If we do expect to compete, there's a lot of expectations being put on a team with a lot of young players with question marks. 

I need to reiterate this for the Positivity Patrol - I don't hate this team as is and I'm not predicting doom and gloom.  I'm going to wait until at least preseason to form a real opinion.  As it were, I have about 60-70% confidence we can make the playoffs, around 50% confidence that this team can hover in the lower middle of the pack, and no confidence that we can make a deep playoff run - which is exactly what Trae is looking for.

All this is further complicated by a FO that looks like it's playing it safe while being hamstrung by tight-fisted ownership.  While also shooting themselves in the foot if "Hawks DNA" is limiting potential moves.

I'm just sitting here patiently waiting to see how things come together and what the real strategy is...

Agreed on all fronts to both of you.

September 6th is then next date to watch when Nance can be aggregated.

Beyond that it's December 15th when Zeller is trade eligible.  Maybe by then Hawks can find a taker or just cut him to create a roster spot for Barlow.

My biggest concern is still at backup PG.

[REHawksFan]

On 8/1/2024 at 10:33 AM, Wretch said:

Until now, it was really hard to put how I feel into words.  Like you, I have more faith in this team than the article gives...but they have nonetheless captured every single concern I have and summarized my feelings: 

The fan in me wants to see another move, but the realist in me is saying this is it.  I don't understand the strategy of trying to rebuild without our picks and appeasing our star without making moves to compete now.  We've gotten younger and got draft picks.  That feels like we're trying to develop talent (rebuild).  If we do expect to compete, there's a lot of expectations being put on a team with a lot of young players with question marks. 

I need to reiterate this for the Positivity Patrol - I don't hate this team as is and I'm not predicting doom and gloom.  I'm going to wait until at least preseason to form a real opinion.  As it were, I have about 60-70% confidence we can make the playoffs, around 50% confidence that this team can hover in the lower middle of the pack, and no confidence that we can make a deep playoff run - which is exactly what Trae is looking for.

All this is further complicated by a FO that looks like it's playing it safe while being hamstrung by tight-fisted ownership.  While also shooting themselves in the foot if "Hawks DNA" is limiting potential moves.

I'm just sitting here patiently waiting to see how things come together and what the real strategy is...

I don't agree with it, but I do understand the hesitation in jumping on board.  You and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk are probably being reasonable in your measured approach.  I get that.  

For me though, it's really two factors that shape my position.  Yes, I am a naturally positive / optimistic person when it comes to my teams.  But more than that, I put an immense value on the fit of a team.  It excites me to no end to think that this is the first time that Trae has had a full team of players surrounding him that actually complement and FIT his game.  Their strengths are where his weaknesses are and their weaknesses are where his strengths are.  

On last year's team, you had DJ and Trae playing together where their strengths were the same (duplicated and therefore diminished) while their weaknesses were also the same (duplicated and therefore amplified).  That, combined with no depth and bad injury luck, led to a record that was probably more exaggerated (negatively) than what we should expect going forward.  

So to me, it's not a huge leap to think we could see a fairly large bump in win total just as a result of the better fitting, complementary pieces.  We also have much better depth this year.  So IF we can get a little lucky and avoid major injuries, I think we could see 44-46 wins.  That's improvement.  It's not contender status, but it's improvement.  

The only thing I'll push back on with you on in your post above is this:

On 8/1/2024 at 10:33 AM, Wretch said:

I don't understand the strategy of trying to rebuild without our picks

This statement doesn't make sense to me because it assumes the Hawks are intending on being a lottery team, which they clearly aren't.  Clearly not INTENDING to be a lottery team, I mean.  Could they be?  Sure.  I could be completely wrong about this team.  I fully admit that.  But I don't think I'm wrong on what the Hawks are trying to do.  Or what their expectations are for this season.  That seems very obvious to me. 

Will it work?  That's where you and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk have your hesitations while I'm pretty sold on it.  We'll see how it plays out.  One thing we should all agree on though is it should be a very interesting and entertaining ride.  

Edited August 6 by REHawksFan

[Wretch]

3 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

I don't agree with it, but I do understand the hesitation in jumping on board.  You and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk are probably being reasonable in your measured approach.  I get that.  

For me though, it's really two factors that shape my position.  Yes, I am a naturally positive / optimistic person when it comes to my teams.  But more than that, I put an immense value on the fit of a team.  It excites me to no end to think that this is the first time that Trae has had a full team of players surrounding him that actually complement and FIT his game.  Their strengths are where his weaknesses are and their weaknesses are where his strengths are.  

On last year's team, you had DJ and Trae playing together where their strengths were the same (duplicated and therefore diminished) while their weaknesses were also the same (duplicated and therefore amplified).  That, combined with no depth and bad injury luck, led to a record that was probably more exaggerated (negatively) than what we should expect going forward.  

So to me, it's not a huge leap to think we could see a fairly large bump in win total just as a result of the better fitting, complementary pieces.  We also have much better depth this year.  So IF we can get a little lucky and avoid major injuries, I think we could see 44-46 wins.  That's improvement.  It's not contender status, but it's improvement.  

The only thing I'll push back on with you on in your post above is this:

This statement doesn't make sense to me because it assumes the Hawks are intending on being a lottery team, which they clearly aren't.  Clearly not INTENDING to be a lottery team, I mean.  Could they be?  Sure.  I could be completely wrong about this team.  I fully admit that.  But I don't think I'm wrong on what the Hawks are trying to do.  Or what their expectations are for this season.  That seems very obvious to me. 

Will it work?  That's where you and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk have your hesitations while I'm pretty sold on it.  We'll see how it plays out.  One thing we should all agree on though is it should be a very interesting and entertaining ride.  

I think we're treading into that binary Squawk talk territory.  In this case it's camp compete or camp rebuild - with rebuild being viewed through the lens of "throwing away a season."  You can rebuild a team (or attempt to) without being a lottery team.  Pete Babcock did this for years and called it "winning without losing."  Danny Ferry successfully did it to the tune of the finest cut of crow that I had to eat.  Joe Dumars had us arguing over the "Detroit Model" for several seasons.

When I say "rebuild," I'm referring to the idea of us tinkering with this roster while flirting with Trae's free agency and your optimism is why there's a disconnect.  I get your excitement, I just don't share it at the moment.  I see a team that could just as easily miss the playoffs as make it.  It just doesn't feel like we've done enough to definitively move the needle from being a fringe playoff team while we're simultaneously "burning daylight" on the final hours before we enter the market for our own star.  If this is it, then it just doesn't make sense to me.  Not unless our FO is truly optimistic about the changes or we are entertaining the idea of dealing Trae before the 25/26 season.

I'm not down on the team and I don't know how many times I have to say that.  I'm just indifferent and waiting on more data - not just "more moves" either.  I am most intrigued by how JJ will perform moving up in the pecking order and I'm quietly optimistic about Risacher playing off the ball.  I wouldn't call it the perfect team without a true complimentary option for Trae, but defensively...sure, it's as good it's going to get right now (on paper at least).

The only thing I can say for certain is that I'll be taking the '25 game challenge' this year.  Until then, I'm in wait and see mode.

[REHawksFan]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

In this case it's camp compete or camp rebuild - with rebuild being viewed through the lens of "throwing away a season."  You can rebuild a team (or attempt to) without being a lottery team.  Pete Babcock did this for years and called it "winning without losing."  Danny Ferry successfully did it to the tune of the finest cut of crow that I had to eat.  Joe Dumars had us arguing over the "Detroit Model" for several seasons.

When I say "rebuild," I'm referring to the idea of us tinkering with this roster while flirting with Trae's free agency and your optimism is why there's a disconnect. 

Fair enough.  When you said "rebuild without owning their own picks" I inferred you were saying being in the lottery.  If not, who cares if they own their own pick.  They have A pick (potentially 2) in 2025 so what does it matter if your rebuild doesn't include lottery?  That's the part I don't get.  

As for the rest, I clearly said I could be wrong about all of this and that I understand the hesitation.  I'm not calling you out for being wrong or saying your opinion isn't valid.  Just trying to explain why I disagree with it and also put forth the portion of your post that I didn't understand.  

[Wretch]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

Fair enough.  When you said "rebuild without owning their own picks" I inferred you were saying being in the lottery.  If not, who cares if they own their own pick.  They have A pick (potentially 2) in 2025 so what does it matter if your rebuild doesn't include lottery?  That's the part I don't get.  

As for the rest, I clearly said I could be wrong about all of this and that I understand the hesitation.  I'm not calling you out for being wrong or saying your opinion isn't valid.  Just trying to explain why I disagree with it and also put forth the portion of your post that I didn't understand.  

So there's a few hiccups here where I think I'm losing you.

I'm not correlating rebuilding with lottery beyond the idea that I don't think it's ¹possible to do it properly ideal to pursue it without resetting the board and focusing on talent acquisition/development.  But that's a whole other conversation that we've all spent years going around on and it isn't entirely relevant here.  Rebuilding is WAAAAAAAYYYYY in the back of my thought process.

It might help if I define a "rebuild" from my perspective.  I don't know how front offices see it, but to me there's rebuilding a team and then there's retooling a team.  The former involves resetting, drafting high lottery, and developing talent.  The latter is more reconfiguring vs. resetting.

I've seen many teams reconfigure with success - including us.  So, I do think it's entirely possible to reconfigure and stay competitive...even improve.  However, I don't know if we've done enough to say definitively that we've improved. Again, I just don't share the optimism.  That doesn't mean I don't have faith in the team.  It means I won't get on the hope train without assessing us in real games. 

Right now, if I had a gun to my head and had to offer a cursory evaluation, it looks like we're doing a "soft rebuild" (and this has been mentioned by our insiders).  I question if it will be enough to keep our star from walking.  This is where I'm most concerned and less optimistic because I don't think we have time for that.  Hats off to our FO if that's the plan and it actually works - it would be the kind of thing that separates a couch GM like me from the professionals that run the business. LOL

As an aside for another day as, again, it's not especially relevant to me right now: I will always question the merit of trying to realistically rebuild a team without "throwing in the towel."  

*edit - for some clarity and not walking backwards on my own words¹. lol

[AHF]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

Fair enough.  When you said "rebuild without owning their own picks" I inferred you were saying being in the lottery.  If not, who cares if they own their own pick.  They have A pick (potentially 2) in 2025 so what does it matter if your rebuild doesn't include lottery?  That's the part I don't get.  

As for the rest, I clearly said I could be wrong about all of this and that I understand the hesitation.  I'm not calling you out for being wrong or saying your opinion isn't valid.  Just trying to explain why I disagree with it and also put forth the portion of your post that I didn't understand.  

You care because if we lose Trae we could nosedive, imo.  So if you are investing in the present and the future at the same you better not lose Trae in the process.  If you do, you are starting all over without your own picks unless you think DD or ZR are franchise players or you are counting on the Lakers going from 48 wins to brutally bad (which is the best path to a top pick for us for years).

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

Right now, if I had a gun to my head and had to offer a cursory evaluation, it looks like we're doing a "soft rebuild" (and this has been mentioned by our insiders).  I question if it will be enough to keep our star from walking.  This is where I'm most concerned and less optimistic because I don't think we have time for that.  Hats off to our FO if that's the plan and it actually works - it would be the kind of thing that separates a couch GM like me from the professionals that run the business. LOL

My arm chair assessment on keeping Trae is they didn't want to make the Murray mistake again.  They resisted getting a borderline "star" that either isn't a great fit or one that would require a big salary overpay.  It seems like they said no to Brandon Ingram for that reason, and might have tried for Derozan but lost to Sacramento.  

Maybe they see going into payroll hell again with a team built around Trae, Ingram, and Jalen or a similar trio as more of a risk than keeping the options open.  What they have going forward with more draft capital and less payroll is an easier path to trade for a complimentary star to pair with Trae.  Most teams are trading for stars now vs clearing cap to sign them.  Hard to predict if that opportunity will come along, but at least they are in position to offer 2-3 first round picks for someone.  

Spending more this year would have given us a better team, but if you read the article Sothron posted a couple weeks ago you would know that going into the tax is something you can only do for 2-3 years before the repeater restrictions handcuff your ability to acquire more players.  Who could we have signed with our MLE to make it worthwhile to do that?

********TLDR options below

1. They didn't want to commit to an expensive but limited player like Ingram.  Who else was even available via trade to us? Lavine?  Ayton?  Markannen?
2. They didn't want to start the clock on paying the tax by using their MLE on guys like who?  Tyus Jones and Kyle Anderson?  Malik Beasley or Melton?
3. They decided to make some good moves on the margins, acquire draft capital, and still be in position to make a big move if one comes along that makes sense.

At least they are getting players that fit really well with Trae, but it does kind of suck that we've gone two years in a row without making a splashy move.  Trae would be at risk for leaving with the other options, too.  You trade for Ingram and are still a .500 team with all your cap tied up in 4-5 players, and Trae asks out because there's no path forward for us to improve.  It was gonna be a cat and mouse game with Trae regardless of what we did.  

 

[AHF]

I think making a move for Ingram would have been really dumb for all the reasons we've talked about for a while.  He is a bigger name but shares most of the same downsides that DM had and while he has better size and non-PG defense he should be sizably overpaid after this year. 

That said, in framing the DM trade I think they could have focused more of the return on better players than they ended up getting.

My guess is that Dyson and Nance are the only meaningful pieces that will impact this year's roster that we got from the trade and that Liddell and his subsequent upgrade to Roddy are window dressing while Zeller is actively a toxic contract that makes the team worse.  Next year, I expect Dyson will be the only player we got in the deal who is still on the team.  For a guy two years from FA, that isn't an impressive return for Trae.  (In case anyone thinks I am ignoring him too much, Nance is a nice depth piece for this season but not more than that.  I am glad we got him instead of another Zeller or something.)

The LA pick (unless traded) is not factor for this year but is a highly variable asset that is very interesting.  The double protected pick should be viewed as a late first rounder which is not a needle mover at all and is of limited trade value because of that double protection.

Making that your big offseason move is a pretty high risk strategy for retaining Trae past this contract, imo.  Thank goodness we got blind luck and landed the #1 pick and should have a player who is value add this year and into the future or this would be a very bleak offseason.  The combination of DD and ZR give me hope that we should be better than last year (although last year was kind of a disaster so that is a low bar). 

[Wretch]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

My arm chair assessment on keeping Trae is they didn't want to make the Murray mistake again.  They resisted getting a borderline "star" that either isn't a great fit or one that would require a big salary overpay.  It seems like they said no to Brandon Ingram for that reason, and might have tried for Derozan but lost to Sacramento.  

Maybe they see going into payroll hell again with a team built around Trae, Ingram, and Jalen or a similar trio as more of a risk than keeping the options open.  What they have going forward with more draft capital and less payroll is an easier path to trade for a complimentary star to pair with Trae.  Most teams are trading for stars now vs clearing cap to sign them.  Hard to predict if that opportunity will come along, but at least they are in position to offer 2-3 first round picks for someone.  

Spending more this year would have given us a better team, but if you read the article Sothron posted a couple weeks ago you would know that going into the tax is something you can only do for 2-3 years before the repeater restrictions handcuff your ability to acquire more players.  Who could we have signed with our MLE to make it worthwhile to do that?

********TLDR options below

1. They didn't want to commit to an expensive but limited player like Ingram.  Who else was even available via trade to us? Lavine?  Ayton?  Markannen?
2. They didn't want to start the clock on paying the tax by using their MLE on guys like who?  Tyus Jones and Kyle Anderson?  Malik Beasley or Melton?
3. They decided to make some good moves on the margins, acquire draft capital, and still be in position to make a big move if one comes along that makes sense.

At least they are getting players that fit really well with Trae, but it does kind of suck that we've gone two years in a row without making a splashy move.  Trae would be at risk for leaving with the other options, too.  You trade for Ingram and are still a .500 team with all your cap tied up in 4-5 players, and Trae asks out because there's no path forward for us to improve.  It was gonna be a cat and mouse game with Trae regardless of what we did.  

 

So I've actually been wondering how much of what we do now is affected by the Murray trade?

Personally, I have no issues with the original intent.  It was a good idea with horrible execution.  We all knew that, but I don't want to derail the conversation.  As it relates, I think trades like that are fine if we're not stupidly overpaying and our FO shouldn't be automatically intimidated or turned off by good but maybe not great "win now" moves.  If we could add some veteran, "buy low", talent around Trae I'd be a lot more comfortable gambling on the next 2 seasons.  MORE comfortable but not completely comfortable in general. 

I want to make clear that I'm not stepping into any camps here...  Without seeing how this current team comes together, I don't know if selling out to win now, if it's even realistic, is the best move.  There's just too many question marks right now for me to get a good read on this offseason if the primary goal is actually competing.  All I can really offer again...is if we're rebuilding (or soft rebuilding) without regard for Trae's FAcy or our lack of control of our draft destiny, I don't have a lot of confidence that it will bear fruit.

You'll get no argument from me regarding spending.  I'm not on that ship.  I don't think spending is the way to success, but rather success inherently leads to spending.

[REHawksFan]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

You care because if we lose Trae we could nosedive, imo.  So if you are investing in the present and the future at the same you better not lose Trae in the process.  If you do, you are starting all over without your own picks unless you think DD or ZR are franchise players or you are counting on the Lakers going from 48 wins to brutally bad (which is the best path to a top pick for us for years).

Losing Trae is just not even on the radar. I don't get why anyone would factor that in the equation. Until he actually asks out or is traded, it just doesn't register to me to judge moves against the backdrop of "what if Trae leaves?" 

Newsflash, regardless of what the Hawks do or don't do, if your superstar player ups and leaves it's gonna suck. There's no preemptive moves that are going to seriously mitigate that, imo. 

The Hawks are building a team around Trae. They are all in WITH Trae. They shouldn't be making moves to try and mitigate the impact of him leaving. 

So again I'll say if they aren't intending to rebuild, not having their own pick next year just doesn't mean much to me. 

[deester11]

30 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Losing Trae is just not even on the radar. I don't get why anyone would factor that in the equation. Until he actually asks out or is traded, it just doesn't register to me to judge moves against the backdrop of "what if Trae leaves?" 

Newsflash, regardless of what the Hawks do or don't do, if your superstar player ups and leaves it's gonna suck. There's no preemptive moves that are going to seriously mitigate that, imo. 

The Hawks are building a team around Trae. They are all in WITH Trae. They shouldn't be making moves to try and mitigate the impact of him leaving. 

So again I'll say if they aren't intending to rebuild, not having their own pick next year just doesn't mean much to me. 

And again...Trae ain't sticking around for "the atmosphere." I applaud those who think the hawks are better.  I do too somewhat. Where I don't agree is that it is a significant enough transformation to elevate this team beyond play in. Sorry..my goal is never good enough to "play in."

There are just too many variables involved FOR ME.  This team is the definition of...wait and see.

[AHF]

12 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Losing Trae is just not even on the radar. I don't get why anyone would factor that in the equation. Until he actually asks out or is traded, it just doesn't register to me to judge moves against the backdrop of "what if Trae leaves?" 

Newsflash, regardless of what the Hawks do or don't do, if your superstar player ups and leaves it's gonna suck. There's no preemptive moves that are going to seriously mitigate that, imo. 

The Hawks are building a team around Trae. They are all in WITH Trae. They shouldn't be making moves to try and mitigate the impact of him leaving. 

So again I'll say if they aren't intending to rebuild, not having their own pick next year just doesn't mean much to me. 

I firmly disagree.  I think they need to be factoring in how competitive they need to be in order to feel confident about retaining Trae.  I agree that it looks like they are counting on him as a foundation to what they are building but lack your confidence that it will lead to enough success to keep him.  It could if everything works out but I see a range of possibilities where us losing too much and Trae losing confidence in Ressler and Fields leads to him departing very much in the mix.  If the Hawks played it too cute and didn’t get enough short-term return when they dealt DJM then it could be an ugly 5 years or so for this team.  It is the difference between you seeing this team as a safe bet for 45 wins with upside from there and me seeing a range of wins from mid-30s to mid-40s depending on how things shake out.  We have Trae under contract for two years but that is a pretty short runway as far as when you could lose him and the prospect of dealing him for assets is a scenario that I have very little confidence in our front office to maximize that return.  Even for the best front office, trading a guy like Trae coming off a subpar year for the team with him only having one year until he is an UFA is a challenging trade scenario and I don’t think our FO deserves to be mentioned among the league’s best.

[Wretch]

13 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Losing Trae is just not even on the radar. I don't get why anyone would factor that in the equation. Until he actually asks out or is traded, it just doesn't register to me to judge moves against the backdrop of "what if Trae leaves?" 

Newsflash, regardless of what the Hawks do or don't do, if your superstar player ups and leaves it's gonna suck. There's no preemptive moves that are going to seriously mitigate that, imo. 

The Hawks are building a team around Trae. They are all in WITH Trae. They shouldn't be making moves to try and mitigate the impact of him leaving. 

So again I'll say if they aren't intending to rebuild, not having their own pick next year just doesn't mean much to me. 

I 100% disagree on every single point.  It is a star-driven league - on and off the court.  You literally can't plan anything (salary, ticket sales, playoffs) without consideration for your centerpiece.  This is not a thing.  It matters what we intend to do with our star and there is a 0.00% chance that our ownership and FO isn't trying to mitigate the potential impact of his departure.

As far as this "the picks/screw the picks" conversation.  Dude, we're all past that.  Our picks don't belong to us.  Though whether we care about them or not, it's still a significant factor as we reshape the team in the short term.  It's not going to stop us, but there are things we're just not able to do or even consider.

[Wretch]

13 hours ago, deester11 said:

And again...Trae ain't sticking around for "the atmosphere." I applaud those who think the hawks are better.  I do too somewhat. Where I don't agree is that it is a significant enough transformation to elevate this team beyond play in. Sorry..my goal is never good enough to "play in."

There are just too many variables involved FOR ME.  This team is the definition of...wait and see.

Exactly.  We need to be getting our house in order and Trae is the foundation.  There's a lot that we have to do in a very little amount of time.

[KB21]

On 7/31/2024 at 8:30 PM, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

This was really good!!  This is why I'm high on Landry's ability.  He can see the whole picture.  

[KB21]

On 8/6/2024 at 6:11 AM, REHawksFan said:

I don't agree with it, but I do understand the hesitation in jumping on board.  You and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk are probably being reasonable in your measured approach.  I get that.  

For me though, it's really two factors that shape my position.  Yes, I am a naturally positive / optimistic person when it comes to my teams.  But more than that, I put an immense value on the fit of a team.  It excites me to no end to think that this is the first time that Trae has had a full team of players surrounding him that actually complement and FIT his game.  Their strengths are where his weaknesses are and their weaknesses are where his strengths are.  

On last year's team, you had DJ and Trae playing together where their strengths were the same (duplicated and therefore diminished) while their weaknesses were also the same (duplicated and therefore amplified).  That, combined with no depth and bad injury luck, led to a record that was probably more exaggerated (negatively) than what we should expect going forward.  

So to me, it's not a huge leap to think we could see a fairly large bump in win total just as a result of the better fitting, complementary pieces.  We also have much better depth this year.  So IF we can get a little lucky and avoid major injuries, I think we could see 44-46 wins.  That's improvement.  It's not contender status, but it's improvement.  

The only thing I'll push back on with you on in your post above is this:

This statement doesn't make sense to me because it assumes the Hawks are intending on being a lottery team, which they clearly aren't.  Clearly not INTENDING to be a lottery team, I mean.  Could they be?  Sure.  I could be completely wrong about this team.  I fully admit that.  But I don't think I'm wrong on what the Hawks are trying to do.  Or what their expectations are for this season.  That seems very obvious to me. 

Will it work?  That's where you and @AHF and @JayBirdHawk have your hesitations while I'm pretty sold on it.  We'll see how it plays out.  One thing we should all agree on though is it should be a very interesting and entertaining ride.  

You and I are on the same page here.  Watching Dyson Daniels play in the Olympics just reinforces my thought that with Daniels beside Trae, we will be a MUCH BETTER FITTING TEAM than we were with Murray.  I like the vision that Landry and Quin have for this team.  Daniels fits that vision better than Murray.  Risacher fits that vision better than what we had at that position last year.  Team fit is important, and the vision for the fit is something that Travis Schlenk lacked.  

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

You and I are on the same page here.  Watching Dyson Daniels play in the Olympics just reinforces my thought that with Daniels beside Trae, we will be a MUCH BETTER FITTING TEAM than we were with Murray.  I like the vision that Landry and Quin have for this team.  Daniels fits that vision better than Murray.  Risacher fits that vision better than what we had at that position last year.  Team fit is important, and the vision for the fit is something that Travis Schlenk lacked.  

I'm on the same page with this aspect of the DM trade.  DM and Trae were an absolute disaster of a pairing.  Bogi and Trae was a far better combo than DM and Trae (and materially better than DM and Bogi).  DD and Trae will also be better than DM and Trae.  In my mind, it is a low bar to clear because of just how badly DM and Trae fit but this roster doesn't have that huge flaw in our backcourt that last year's team did.  The numbers say that just benching DM would have helped our team whenever Trae was on the court.  We should be able to do much better than that in any DM trade and we did in this one.

The last statement about Schlenk lacking vision is a little strange to me, though, considering Landry supported the DM trade and Schlenk didn't which is why Landry took over and Schlenk was pushed out around the same time as the trade.   (Moving Schlenk out of the GM chair was the first step in his eventual removal from the team.)  In my mind, we just have to recognize that unfortunately the fit that Schlenk thought was worth exploring in trade discussions and the fit that was envisioned to a degree that Landry supported giving up control of three consecutive first round picks never materialized.  But I don't think this reflects a failing of Schlenk and Landry having some keen insight about fit given the way the SA/ATL trade went down.