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

[Final_quest]

47 minutes ago, Wretch said:

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.

 

14 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.

I mostly agree and haven’t seen anyone say our moves elevated us above play in level for the coming season.  To me that wasn’t the point of the moves.  We kept equivalent talent, but replenished draft capital and lowered long term payroll.  We also boosted the pedigree of potential in our youngest players.  
Success happens below the surface before you see it rise and become visible.  That’s why it seems like people focused on only the on court immediate results of next season are a little tone deaf to me.  Our progress isn’t about win now moves, but long term success.  
Every team wants promising young players and draft picks.  No one has wanted Capela, Collins, or Hunter to any significant degree.  We’re positioned better for on court improvement via development, but also have significantly better assets to offer to up the talent level on the team.  Also since we’re not in payroll hell we can afford to trade for high salary players.  

[Final_quest]

17 hours ago, AHF said:

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.

Murray was harder to trade for equivalent on court talent for next season than you might believe.  You have to want/need a on ball PG who isn’t super efficient and have a Murray level player to trade straight up for him.  I don’t even remember a rumor for a package that accomplishes what you are suggesting.  
 

[Wretch]

9 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

 

I mostly agree and haven’t seen anyone say our moves elevated us above play in level for the coming season.  To me that wasn’t the point of the moves.  We kept equivalent talent, but replenished draft capital and lowered long term payroll.  We also boosted the pedigree of potential in our youngest players.  
Success happens below the surface before you see it rise and become visible.  That’s why it seems like people focused on only the on court immediate results of next season are a little tone deaf to me.  Our progress isn’t about win now moves, but long term success.  
Every team wants promising young players and draft picks.  No one has wanted Capela, Collins, or Hunter to any significant degree.  We’re positioned better for on court improvement via development, but also have significantly better assets to offer to up the talent level on the team.  Also since we’re not in payroll hell we can afford to trade for high salary players.  

So it's clear for future refence...  Don't get me wrong...if we're just looking at these moves in a vacuum, I absolutely like what I see.  However, I'm not a fan of a long term vision featuring for slow/incremental change and talent development while our star has vocally expressed his frustration and desire to win now.  It doesn't make sense.  Let me be clear too...so we don't confuse that with insinuating that Trae wants out.  He has not said that and I'm sure it's not even on his radar.  However, he has made it VERY clear that he wants to see an organization dedicated to results and sooner as opposed to later.  Like, that's right out of the horse's mouth on his own podcast.

In light of that and the two guaranteed years that we are in control of his services, I think there needs to be more of a sense of urgency if keeping him long term is the plan.  I don't mean stupid moves or overpays...but draft capital and potential are not valuable to us in and of themselves.  To another team absolutely...and I'm saying make that happen if the goal is keeping him happy in a Hawks uniform.

As I've said though, I'm not in "camp win now" or "camp long term vision" or "camp trade Trae for the picks-back" or anything like that.  I'm only saying that a cautious, sort of "in between", soft rebuild strategy (if that's what we're doing) carries significant risk. 

I'm not ready to commit to anything in terms of predicting actual on-court performance.  I just don't know what to expect and can't make an informed opinion until I see how this team plays together.  Risacher and DD are huge question marks and whether or not JJ can take the next step is something that I have to get eyes on first.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

 

I mostly agree and haven’t seen anyone say our moves elevated us above play in level for the coming season.  To me that wasn’t the point of the moves.  We kept equivalent talent, but replenished draft capital and lowered long term payroll.  We also boosted the pedigree of potential in our youngest players.  
Success happens below the surface before you see it rise and become visible.  That’s why it seems like people focused on only the on court immediate results of next season are a little tone deaf to me.  Our progress isn’t about win now moves, but long term success.  
Every team wants promising young players and draft picks.  No one has wanted Capela, Collins, or Hunter to any significant degree.  We’re positioned better for on court improvement via development, but also have significantly better assets to offer to up the talent level on the team.  Also since we’re not in payroll hell we can afford to trade for high salary players.  

Just as an aside, if we don't improve our record over last year materially I think that will mean we downgraded talent significantly because we will be enjoying a big lift from having improved fit significantly.  If talent was maintained and fit significantly improved, we should be a lot better this season than we have been the last two years.

 

54 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Murray was harder to trade for equivalent on court talent for next season than you might believe.  You have to want/need a on ball PG who isn’t super efficient and have a Murray level player to trade straight up for him.  I don’t even remember a rumor for a package that accomplishes what you are suggesting.  
 

This suggests to me that you think we downgraded talent in the trade.  I think that is right.  We upgraded fit, added some draft capital, and cut salary and the cost was NO getting the better end of the talent in the trade.  My whole point is that this is a bit of a dangerous message to your star player if things don't hit on all cylinders on the court this year.  If DD isn't a burgeoning star and the Hawks don't have a compelling season, it will be easy to second guess the trade after this season and after this season is the most likely break point for Trae and the Hawks because it is maybe the best window for the Hawks to trade Trae if they think they won't be able to keep him.

[REHawksFan]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

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.

This whole conversation started with @Wretch making this comment:

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

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

My first point was:  They aren't intending to rebuild.  So asking why they are employing the strategy of rebuilding without their picks makes no sense.  They literally aren't doing that.  

My second point was: What they are actually doing is building a team around Trae that compliments him.  That's their intention and what they have done.  Everything they've done screams they are trying to keep him.  

My third point was:  Considering the idea of Trae leaving shouldn't have any bearing on their moves.  It shouldn't.  Here's why.  Planning for Trae to leave (making decisions that mitigate the effect of Trae leaving) while simultaneously making moves that enhance the possibility of Trae staying is nearly impossible to pull off.  And in all likelihood, it results in half-assing both.  

So my point is, they need to either be all in on making moves that compliment Trae which is planning for him to be here OR they need to be all in in making moves that assist in a rebuild without Trae which is planning for him to be gone.  You can't - or shouldn't - be doing both, imo.  Attempting to do both most likely is going to result in doing neither very well. 

That was my whole point with not considering Trae leaving in the moves they are making.  When they traded for DJM, they drew a ginormous line in the sand that they were committed to building WITH Trae.  The only way out of that path would be to get their own picks back or somehow obtain unprotected picks from bad teams. Neither was likely to happen.     

2 hours ago, Wretch said:

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.

BS

First, I never said they aren't considering Trae.  I clearly said they are 100% considering what players need to be put around Trae to be successful.  The difference is, you seem to be assuming the Hawks are intending to be without Trae and are saying they should consider that reality.  I'm saying BS to that.  You can't serve 2 masters.  Either they make moves to be without Trae - and those plans result in Trae leaving btw- or they make moves to keep Trae and if Trae leaves anyway, they are screwed but that's life.  But you can't make moves that both mitigate the loss of Trae AND enhance the likelihood that Trae stays because those 2 things are generally opposed. 

And second, this whole freaking conversation started with your comment about rebuilding without picks which you later even clarified that by rebuilding you meant "in the lottery."  That's not what the Hawks are doing which is the only reason I even responded to that part of your post. So please spare me with the "we're all past that" when you were the one who brought it up.  

 

 

 

Edited August 7 by REHawksFan

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

So my point is, they need to either be all in on making moves that compliment Trae which is planning for him to be here OR they need to be all in in making moves that assist in a rebuild without Trae which is planning for him to be gone.  You can't - or shouldn't - be doing both, imo.  Attempting to do both most likely is going to result in doing neither very well. 

 

The simplest response I can make is that it looks to me like the front office is attempting to do both.  

[JeffS17]

Trae can want to win a chip next year or go to the ECF again or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact this team had neither the talent or assets to make that a possibility. 

Last time Trae got his way we brought in Murray and wasted two years on that experiment.  So right now, Landry and co need to be making the best moves to set us up for success not next season, but 2-3 seasons from now.  Long term thinking is what creates sustainable success and keeps your players happy and engaged long term.  You don't have to look back far to see it-- Trae wasn't happy with the '21-22 season and we went and got Murray.  He was a huge advocate for that trade.  It's been reported a bunch.  He was very happy that offseason.  Woohoo, Trae was happy and we assembled a .500 team for 2 years.  Where did that land us?  Right back on the "keep Trae happy" merry-go-round.

The reality of our situation is that Trae is a Hawk for the next two years if we wish him to be, which means the year that matters for contending is not next year, the '24-25 season, or even the '25-26 season.  We should be working towards ready to contend or very close to it for the '26-27 season.  We just acquired some nice young assets that we need to continue to develop.  So even if the goal is to retain Trae, next season is not do or die.  You would want to be in a spot for the '26-27 season and beyond to look more appealing than other teams futures for those years.  If Trae can't see the vision because he's a player and not a GM, who cares?  He's under team control for two years.

[REHawksFan]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

The simplest response I can make is that it looks to me like the front office is attempting to do both.  

How are they trying to do both?  Do the players they have brought in make up a functional NBA team without Trae?  Or are they best suited paired with a player like Trae?    

[REHawksFan]

4 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

The reality of our situation is that Trae is a Hawk for the next two years if we wish him to be, which means the year that matters for contending is not next year, the '24-25 season, or even the '25-26 season.  We should be working towards ready to contend or very close to it for the '26-27 season.  We just acquired some nice young assets that we need to continue to develop.  So even if the goal is to retain Trae, next season is not do or die.  You would want to be in a spot for the '26-27 season and beyond to look more appealing than other teams futures for those years.  If Trae can't see the vision because he's a player and not a GM, who cares?  He's under team control for two years.

100%

There seems to be a prevailing opinion with some posters that we have 1 year to prove to Trae that we can be a contender and they take that opinion and assert it as some kind of assumption that because we aren't (on paper) contender status right now, we're going to lose Trae and should be planning for that.  This concept and attitude just seems so very far out in left field to me. 

The Hawks have a plan (perhaps for the very first time since they drafted Trae) and it looks like a very good one to me.  Yes, some of the players are young and unproven.  But they all fit the archetype of what you need around Trae.  Long. Athletic. Plus defenders. 

I'm as excited for the season to get here as I've been in a very long time.  

[Gray Mule]

A one-word description we old-timers are familiar with:  DEPENDS!

How the Hawks do in the 2024-25 season depends on one thing.  The health of the roster.  Our season last year was riddled with injuries to key players.  Look at how very few games were played when we were 100% healthy.  Not a lot.

I truly believe that this season's team is much deeper.  This is a big + for us.  This Hawk team, when healthy, is capable of winning any game they play and will make the playoffs.  It all just depends!!

[Wretch]

8 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

This whole conversation started with @Wretch making this comment:

My first point was:  They aren't intending to rebuild.  So asking why they are employing the strategy of rebuilding without their picks makes no sense.  They literally aren't doing that.  

My second point was: What they are actually doing is building a team around Trae that compliments him.  That's their intention and what they have done.  Everything they've done screams they are trying to keep him.  

My third point was:  Considering the idea of Trae leaving shouldn't have any bearing on their moves.  It shouldn't.  Here's why.  Planning for Trae to leave (making decisions that mitigate the effect of Trae leaving) while simultaneously making moves that enhance the possibility of Trae staying is nearly impossible to pull off.  And in all likelihood, it results in half-assing both.  

So my point is, they need to either be all in on making moves that compliment Trae which is planning for him to be here OR they need to be all in in making moves that assist in a rebuild without Trae which is planning for him to be gone.  You can't - or shouldn't - be doing both, imo.  Attempting to do both most likely is going to result in doing neither very well. 

That was my whole point with not considering Trae leaving in the moves they are making.  When they traded for DJM, they drew a ginormous line in the sand that they were committed to building WITH Trae.  The only way out of that path would be to get their own picks back or somehow obtain unprotected picks from bad teams. Neither was likely to happen.     

BS

First, I never said they aren't considering Trae.  I clearly said they are 100% considering what players need to be put around Trae to be successful.  The difference is, you seem to be assuming the Hawks are intending to be without Trae and are saying they should consider that reality.  I'm saying BS to that.  You can't serve 2 masters.  Either they make moves to be without Trae - and those plans result in Trae leaving btw- or they make moves to keep Trae and if Trae leaves anyway, they are screwed but that's life.  But you can't make moves that both mitigate the loss of Trae AND enhance the likelihood that Trae stays because those 2 things are generally opposed. 

And second, this whole freaking conversation started with your comment about rebuilding without picks which you later even clarified that by rebuilding you meant "in the lottery."  That's not what the Hawks are doing which is the only reason I even responded to that part of your post. So please spare me with the "we're all past that" when you were the one who brought it up.  

Let me say this first...  I think we can disagree without cranking up the intensity.  Can you dial it back for me? We're both Hawks fans

You're inferring a lot and taking the conversation in directions that aren't especially relative to my point of view.  We both agree, we can't technically rebuild in the classic sense - we don't control our picks.  So...this isn't the crux of my concern and isn't what I intended to convey. 

You also believe that we have built a team that compliments Trae.  I do not disagree with you.

My POV:

I don't believe that we've done enough to definitively move the needle - and DEFINITIVE improvement and commitment to it is what Trae is looking for.  He has said this.
I don't know if appeasing Trae is the priority and I absolutely think it should be IF the plan is to keep him.
It looks like we are doing a "soft reset." This is a risky strategy IMO with the comments that Trae has made and the short window we have relative to his contract.

If you look at the history of stars and their franchises, there are common patterns when things take a down turn.  Teams either get their stars help (win now), they secure some kind of commitment (loyalty) to the retooling/rebuilding, or they are proactive (or their hand is forced) and they pull the trigger on a trade (reset).  This is the source of my confusion and indifference at the moment.  I will need to see what we look like, but man...the clock is ticking.  In regards to that, I think there's a misunderstanding here:

Quote

First, I never said they aren't considering Trae.  

You are pushing back against something I never said or suggested.  I was responding to this:

Quote

 

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. 

 

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree as this is almost the entirety of the business of the NBA.

[deester11]

20 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

100%

There seems to be a prevailing opinion with some posters that we have 1 year to prove to Trae that we can be a contender and they take that opinion and assert it as some kind of assumption that because we aren't (on paper) contender status right now, we're going to lose Trae and should be planning for that.  This concept and attitude just seems so very far out in left field to me. 

The Hawks have a plan (perhaps for the very first time since they drafted Trae) and it looks like a very good one to me.  Yes, some of the players are young and unproven.  But they all fit the archetype of what you need around Trae.  Long. Athletic. Plus defenders. 

I'm as excited for the season to get here as I've been in a very long time.  

No, the prevailing opinion even for those who disagree is that they think there's been a talent upgrade. And barring no more changes this team should be better than last year.  For the record, speaking for me, I don't share your opinion on "The Plan." It looks like a half and half plan which is always conducive to being a middling team. 

That said, it's still wait and see. There are reasons to believe I guess.  But just as many to be pessimistic.

[Wretch]

39 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Trae can want to win a chip next year or go to the ECF again or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact this team had neither the talent or assets to make that a possibility. 

Last time Trae got his way we brought in Murray and wasted two years on that experiment.  So right now, Landry and co need to be making the best moves to set us up for success not next season, but 2-3 seasons from now.  Long term thinking is what creates sustainable success and keeps your players happy and engaged long term.  You don't have to look back far to see it-- Trae wasn't happy with the '21-22 season and we went and got Murray.  He was a huge advocate for that trade.  It's been reported a bunch.  He was very happy that offseason.  Woohoo, Trae was happy and we assembled a .500 team for 2 years.  Where did that land us?  Right back on the "keep Trae happy" merry-go-round.

The reality of our situation is that Trae is a Hawk for the next two years if we wish him to be, which means the year that matters for contending is not next year, the '24-25 season, or even the '25-26 season.  We should be working towards ready to contend or very close to it for the '26-27 season.  We just acquired some nice young assets that we need to continue to develop.  So even if the goal is to retain Trae, next season is not do or die.  You would want to be in a spot for the '26-27 season and beyond to look more appealing than other teams futures for those years.  If Trae can't see the vision because he's a player and not a GM, who cares?  He's under team control for two years.

I mostly agree...however, I wouldn't make plans with Trae beyond his contract.  That being the case, if you're not going all in to appease him...then it's in our better interest to trade him sooner than later.  AGAIN though...not advocating for a Trae trade.  Please don't put me in a camp...lol  I'm saying the smart move is getting out in front of it if we're not confident in him being here long term.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

So right now, Landry and co need to be making the best moves to set us up for success not next season, but 2-3 seasons from now.  Long term thinking is what creates sustainable success and keeps your players happy and engaged long term. 

Right.  Just because Landry supported a stupid move by selling out to get DM doesn't mean he should repeat that mistake but 2 seasons from now the biggest question is whether or not Trae resigns.  If he leaves, we are going to suck and we won't even have our own lottery pick.  You better put enough focus on winning over the remaining window to convince him that things are moving in the right direction that you make a compelling case to him.

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

How are they trying to do both?  Do the players they have brought in make up a functional NBA team without Trae?  Or are they best suited paired with a player like Trae?    

Just look at the returns of the trade.  Beyond not being optimal and actually getting worse from the point where they were announced to where they were finalized, half the returns are meaningless to winning over the next couple seasons.  Remember how much that first round pick for Huerter has helped us over the last few seasons?  Remember how much of an impact JJ had as a rookie?  Kobe?  We have chosen to prioritize youth and future draft capital over players who can contribute now.  And guys who can contribute now don't need to be overpriced ala Ingram.  They can be young and emerging players who are ready to contribute now like Dyson is.  Getting two Dysons instead of future picks might prove to have been the wiser course.  Time will tell.

[REHawksFan]

35 minutes ago, Wretch said:

Let me say this first...  I think we can disagree without cranking up the intensity.  Can you dial it back for me? We're both Hawks fans

You're inferring a lot and taking the conversation in directions that aren't especially relative to my point of view.  We both agree, we can't technically rebuild in the classic sense - we don't control our picks.  So...this isn't the crux of my concern and isn't what I intended to convey. 

You also believe that we have built a team that compliments Trae.  I do not disagree with you.

My POV:

I don't believe that we've done enough to definitively move the needle - and DEFINITIVE improvement and commitment to it is what Trae is looking for.  He has said this.
I don't know if appeasing Trae is the priority and I absolutely think it should be IF the plan is to keep him.
It looks like we are doing a "soft reset." This is a risky strategy IMO with the comments that Trae has made and the short window we have relative to his contract.

If you look at the history of stars and their franchises, there are common patterns when things take a down turn.  Teams either get their stars help (win now), they secure some kind of commitment (loyalty) to the retooling/rebuilding, or they are proactive (or their hand is forced) and they pull the trigger on a trade (reset).  This is the source of my confusion and indifference at the moment.  I will need to see what we look like, but man...the clock is ticking.  In regards to that, I think there's a misunderstanding here:

You are pushing back against something I never said or suggested.  I was responding to this:

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree as this is almost the entirety of the business of the NBA.

OK, first, I wasn't intending to be so snarky.  I suppose I got riled up by the "Dude, we're past that" comment which I read as a bit insulting since you brought up that specific point to begin with.  Apologies.  

Now in terms of what you are pushing back on, I just don't agree with it.  Like, at all.  If the Hawks are planning to lose Trae then they have no business trying to keep him.  And if they are trying to keep him, it makes zero sense planning to lose him. 

That's why I said losing Trae just isn't on the radar and I don't get why anyone would factor that into the moves they make.  I still firmly believe they can't do both.  Maybe that's the bottom line point.  You are saying it is "the entirety of the business of the NBA" to do both whereas I am saying doing both results in a middling team. 

I guess I would ask for some examples of teams that successfully managed building a contender around a superstar while also retaining all their flexibility in the draft?  Has that ever worked and been successful?    

NOTE:  To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone in the Hawks FO is putting their head in the sand.  They obviously know there's a possibility that he could ask to be traded.  My point is, they aren't letting that possibility be the driving force in personnel moves.  Instead, it's the pursuit to keep him that is the driving force in moves.  It can't be both.  

[REHawksFan]

29 minutes ago, AHF said:

Getting two Dysons instead of future picks might prove to have been the wiser course.  Time will tell.

But getting picks back isn't planning for Trae to leave.  Those picks are assets that could just as easily be used to add to the team.  Or they could end up being valuable players to add to Trae.  

Were the picks the focus of the trade or was DD?  I view the trade as essentially DD for DJM. The LAL pick was included because DJM is the more established player.  The other players were thrown in to make salary work. 

My point is, that trade didn't scream "we're assuming Trae is leaving so let's get picks back."  Trae wouldn't be leaving until, at earliest, the 25-26 season so it would be the 26 and 27 drafts that they would need a lottery pick in. 

I understand that you don't think the return is established enough to make an impact on Trae. Or at least it may not be.  I'm just talking in terms of how the Hawks FO is operating.  I don't think they can or are operating under the assumption that Trae is gone.  I don't think that is on their radar in terms of driving the decisions they make. I think they are making deals to compliment Trae which will improve the team.  I think the plan is and also has been to keep Trae. 

There really isn't another option.  If Trae forces himself out, the Hawks are essentially screwed, no matter how you view the DJM trade.    

Edited August 7 by REHawksFan

[AHF]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

But getting picks back isn't planning for Trae to leave.  Those picks are assets that could just as easily be used to add to the team.  Or they could end up being valuable players to add to Trae.  

Were the picks the focus of the trade or was DD?  I view the trade as essentially DD for DJM. The LAL pick was included because DJM is the more established player.  The other players were thrown in to make salary work. 

My point is, that trade didn't scream "we're assuming Trae is leaving so let's get picks back."  Trae wouldn't be leaving until, at earliest, the 25-26 season so it would be the 26 and 27 drafts that they would need a lottery pick in. 

I understand that you don't think the return is established enough to make an impact on Trae. Or at least it may not be.  I'm just talking in terms of how the Hawks FO is operating.  I don't think they can or are operating under the assumption that Trae is gone.  I don't think that is on their radar in terms of driving the decisions they make. I think they are making deals to compliment Trae which will improve the team.  I think the plan is and also has been to keep Trae. 

There really isn't another option.  If Trae forces himself out, the Hawks are essentially screwed, no matter how you view the DJM trade.    

1) I am not focused on whether they are planning for Trae to leave.  I am focused on whether they are doing enough to convince him to stay.  Getting picks back isn't doing much to convince Trae to stay, imo.  And you need to make that case to him because I don't think treading water where we are is going to cut it.  I expected us to get back more to retool the roster today in the trade.  You are right that the picks could be used to acquire assets at any time but frankly I don't expect that will happen.  I expect us to keep the LA pick until closer to the draft at the least but maybe we pull a big deal that surprises me.  

2) For me there is a real question in the deal whether the LA pick or DD is the bigger get.  I give the edge to DD but the LA pick may prove to be even more valuable (or may end up being the #16 pick or something and not particularly valuable).  Those two dwarf Nance and the double protected pick.  Everything else in the deal was neutral to negative value, imo.

3) On Trae, my own lens on that is that I am assuming he wants to stay but needs to be convinced the team is on a trajectory to get more competitive than we have been since the ECF run.  To the extent that people want to blame Trae for the DM trade (and I'm not in that camp because that is the job of the GM and not the 24 year old who is 4-5 years away from UFA), it is because they saw him as viewing the 43 win, first round exit 2021-22 roster as being not up to par.  The last two years have been worse than that.  So I think it is really important for us to win this season so that when the offseason arrives and the front office has to make the call of whether to cut bait and trade Trae or lock into building around him they have him on board.  Because I think his commitment to the team is going to depend on how we perform.  So having the picks instead of a second Dyson (i.e., productive player who could be a building block but at least is a rotation player on a good contract) represents a real risk to me that they haven't done enough to get Trae's buy in.  Thus, it is having one foot in the 'build for the future' camp (the picks are future assets) and one foot in the 'build around Trae right now' camp (Dyson is a player for now and the future and Nance is a useful role player for depth this year). 

Trae's upcoming UFA and the impact on that has to be a prominent factor in every decision made by the front office, imo.  What happens with Trae in UFA will have a huge impact on where we are 3, 5, 7, etc. years from now and nothing will matter more to that UFA than how good we are between now and then.  Trae needs to believe in this front office and that they are building a roster that is competitive and has the potential to contend.

[JeffS17]

All this talk about doing enough for Trae to stay is crazy when other teams don't even have much interest in him.  Trae's value on this forum is higher than in every other front office in the league, including our own.  The framing is so off.  Trae should be proving he's worth a potential 35% max next year because contracts are getting tight in the new CBA and he's a 1 way player.  He needs to prove he can do something next year with a team that fits well and was carefully constructed to make up for his glaring weaknesses.

Some of the comments here are just weird and presume an immense amount of entitlement on Trae's part.

[Wretch]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

OK, first, I wasn't intending to be so snarky.  I suppose I got riled up by the "Dude, we're past that" comment which I read as a bit insulting since you brought up that specific point to begin with.  Apologies.  

Now in terms of what you are pushing back on, I just don't agree with it.  Like, at all.  If the Hawks are planning to lose Trae then they have no business trying to keep him.  And if they are trying to keep him, it makes zero sense planning to lose him. 

That's why I said losing Trae just isn't on the radar and I don't get why anyone would factor that into the moves they make.  I still firmly believe they can't do both.  Maybe that's the bottom line point.  You are saying it is "the entirety of the business of the NBA" to do both whereas I am saying doing both results in a middling team. 

I guess I would ask for some examples of teams that successfully managed building a contender around a superstar while also retaining all their flexibility in the draft?  Has that ever worked and been successful?    

NOTE:  To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone in the Hawks FO is putting their head in the sand.  They obviously know there's a possibility that he could ask to be traded.  My point is, they aren't letting that possibility be the driving force in personnel moves.  Instead, it's the pursuit to keep him that is the driving force in moves.  It can't be both.  

We're saying the same thing, we just have different perspectives on what the current strategy is.  You're reading my comments as "we have to walk the fence and all NBA teams do this."  This is absolutely not what I'm saying.  We have to go one way or the other and to me, it does not appear that we are "all in" on Trae....and that simply goes back to you having more faith in the moves we've made. 

I get it.  From an optimistic perspective, I can see how some view this as a real effort to get our star some help.  I don't share that optimism and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  It looks like we've done some things to set ourselves up for the long term, not so much the short term, and I honestly have no issues with that.  None whatsoever.  The problem I have is I don't know if these moves align with short term (win now) results and a sense of urgency - which is very typical for teams with stars they intend to keep - and this is precisely what Trae has said he wants to see.  I think it's a mistake to do anything that doesn't center around that IF we are serious about keeping him.

[NBASupes]

8 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

All this talk about doing enough for Trae to stay is crazy when other teams don't even have much interest in him.  Trae's value on this forum is higher than in every other front office in the league, including our own.  The framing is so off.  Trae should be proving he's worth a potential 35% max next year because contracts are getting tight in the new CBA and he's a 1 way player.  He needs to prove he can do something next year with a team that fits well and was carefully constructed to make up for his glaring weaknesses.

Some of the comments here are just weird and presume an immense amount of entitlement on Trae's part.

I was thinking the same but since this could be Trae redemption season, I am just keeping quiet.