Donovan Clingan or Alexander Sarr: Battle of 1st overall pick

[Hawkmoor]

1 hour ago, bird_dirt said:

 I like Edey and Clingan for what they can do, but I prefer what Sarr can do more, particularly his defense guarding in space, at POA, and weakside in the paint. Give his body some time to develop and he could get even better in the paint. Edey or Clingan won’t ever develop an ability to guard POA. 

Very good break down on why Sarr is the pick but I picked out the part you wrote that I liked the best and highlighted it.  Look, I was one of the original people who wanted Quin to replace McMillan.  So far the only thing I've seen Quin do is start Jalen Johnson and heck, we figured that out.  Nothing brilliant there if we can figure it out.  McMillan knew too but he is stubborn.  Quin has done was folks accused McMillan of doing: old and antiquated offenses and defenses.  Clingan/Edey interest confirms that. 

 As you pointed out today's defenses better be entire floor centric starting with the point of attack.  I pointed out in previous posts (as you also pointed out) how Boston is doing it with Porzingas and playing Tatum at the 5.  Its that way because the NBA changed the rules to allow offense's to flourish in space.  The defense better keep up which is why they started using the drop defense to help the slower centers.  A player like Sarr allows you to skip the drop defense (which can be beat by a team with good to great shooters in the backcourt and wing).  Its malpractice for the Hawks to sit back and see the current blueprint for success in the NBA and want to outsmart it by either being that ignorant or cheap.

[KB21]

11 minutes ago, Hawkmoor said:

Very good break down on why Sarr is the pick but I picked out the part you wrote that I liked the best and highlighted it.  Look, I was one of the original people who wanted Quin to replace McMillan.  So far the only thing I've seen Quin do is start Jalen Johnson and heck, we figured that out.  Nothing brilliant there if we can figure it out.  McMillan knew too but he is stubborn.  Quin has done was folks accused McMillan of doing: old and antiquated offenses and defenses.  Clingan/Edey interest confirms that. 

 As you pointed out today's defenses better be entire floor centric starting with the point of attack.  I pointed out in previous posts (as you also pointed out) how Boston is doing it with Porzingas and playing Tatum at the 5.  Its that way because the NBA changed the rules to allow offense's to flourish in space.  The defense better keep up which is why they started using the drop defense to help the slower centers.  A player like Sarr allows you to skip the drop defense (which can be beat by a team with good to great shooters in the backcourt and wing).  Its malpractice for the Hawks to sit back and see the current blueprint for success in the NBA and want to outsmart it by either being that ignorant or cheap.

Not even remotely accurate.  Quin has been a savant.  Nothing he does is out of date or old school.

[deester11]

8 minutes ago, sturt said:

Summing up, the best you can hope for if you don't have an impressive selection of draft picks or don't have attractive contracts to deal (... short of having Jerry West as your GM and an owner whose priority is, for real, no pretense, a title, as opposed to a title for the purposes of adding to his pile of gold...) is to see an outcome like what @AHF envisions (see above)... the reality is that both sides are parting with approximately the same talent inventory as the other is, and you're just hoping that the new mix of players after the trade is, in itself, proven to be an improvement.

 

I think we’re mostly singing from the same hymnbook. The Hawks are not in a position where they have a treasure trove of picks left. So in light of that the only way of improving this team is add another year under Quinn and put pieces together that match.

Arguably the biggest trade chip that the Hawks have is Murray, (that is next to Trae of course). It is front office and GM‘s responsibility to reasonably use the assets that you currently have to improve the team. I simply do not think this draft does that in the immediate future I don’t care who the pick is. I’m thinking 2 to 3 years down the road . I don’t think the Hawks are. The pennies on the dollar approach to trades is not going to work for this team. 

My conspiracy radar tells me that the Hawks never wanted number 1 anyway and the money difference from 1 to say 4 gives them a few extra coins to save.  In turn, they'll trade Murray for a Hot Pocket and chips. They'll flip Capela and Hunter for an Almond Joy AND we'll watch Trae leave anyway.  (This is sarcasm...but I still don't have faith in the FO).

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

It's going to be fun watching those who are bagging on Alex Sarr today try to squirm out of it in 3 years when he's the player everyone talks about as the prize of the 2024 draft.

If he's the best player out of this class in 3 years, I'll happily tell you I'm wrong.

[deester11]

2 minutes ago, thecampster said:

If he's the best player out of this class in 3 years, I'll happily tell you I'm wrong.

Ohhh

[JayBirdHawk]

21 minutes ago, deester11 said:

I think we’re mostly singing from the same hymnbook. The Hawks are not in a position where they have a treasure trove of picks left. So in light of that the only way of improving this team is add another year under Quinn and put pieces together that match.

Arguably the biggest trade chip that the Hawks have is Murray, (that is next to Trae of course). It is front office and GM‘s responsibility to reasonably use the assets that you currently have to improve the team. I simply do not think this draft does that in the immediate future I don’t care who the pick is. I’m thinking 2 to 3 years down the road . I don’t think the Hawks are. The pennies on the dollar approach to trades is not going to work for this team. 

My conspiracy radar tells me that the Hawks never wanted number 1 anyway and the money difference from 1 to say 4 gives them a few extra coins to save.  In turn, they'll trade Murray for a Hot Pocket and chips. They'll flip Capela and Hunter for an Almond Joy AND we'll watch Trae leave anyway.  (This is sarcasm...but I still don't have faith in the FO).

4 year Rookie scale salaries for top 4:

1st: $57.2M, $14.3 per

2nd: $51.2M, $12.8 per

3rd: $46.0M, $11.5 per

4th: $41.5M, $10.2 per

 

[Hawkmoor]

30 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Not even remotely accurate.  Quin has been a savant.  Nothing he does is out of date or old school.

And he hasn't even remotely shown it.  If he can be a savant he is holding back because the Hawks are still running that pick and roll and iso offense with Trae.  The Hawks interest in Clingan PROVES Quin is on some old school stuff.

Edited June 20 by Hawkmoor

[bleachkit]

15 minutes ago, thecampster said:

If he's the best player out of this class in 3 years, I'll happily tell you I'm wrong.

Not to brag, but some of the players I liked turned out best or among the best in their class. Some notable examples: Luka Donic, Tyrese Haliburton. Also I was right about some guys being busts. I never believed in Cam Reddish. The boards fascination with him was just bizarre to me. Of course I have been wrong at times too. I wasn't high on Ant man. He's been better than I expected. But I usually don't make a prediction unless I feel strongly about a player, so my sample size isn't considerable. 

[KB21]

6 minutes ago, Hawkmoor said:

And he hasn't even remotely shown it.  If he can be a savant he is holding back because the Hawks are still running that pick and roll and iso offense with Trae.  The Hawks interest in Clingan PROVES Quin is on some old school stuff.

They literally are not an iso heavy offense.  They run the PNR as part of Quin's motion offense.  Quin f***ing invented 5 slot this year.  

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

It's going to be fun watching those who are bagging on Alex Sarr today try to squirm out of it in 3 years when he's the player everyone talks about as the prize of the 2024 draft.

If the bet was Sarr vs the field, I would bet on the field without question.  

[Final_quest]

9 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Also I was right about some guys being busts. I never believed in Cam Reddish. The boards fascination with him was just bizarre to me. Of course I have been wrong at times too. 

The Cam love was so bizarre.  People were just as adamant about Cam's potential as they are with Sarr.

[warcore]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

I'm pretty sure they had enough cannabis to float the titanic. 

 

[deester11]

3 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

The Cam love was so bizarre.  People were just as adamant about Cam's potential as they are with Sarr.

Big woop. People fall in love with potential. Some times it pays, sometimes it doesn't.  Who cares? I still bet on potential everytime. Keep the field.  They're all a bunch of mixed bags anyway.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Sounds good in theory... nah, make that great... but of course you and I both know the devil in those details is that there is some team out there with

(1a) exactly the right alternative player(s) that they're going to be willing to deal... and

(1b) whose contracts APR is going to be happy to take on... in exchange for

(2) exactly the players (and/or draft picks, of course) you want to deal to them. And that assumes

(3) that your GM and his support staff are lucid and astute to discern the existence of such an opportunity, and that the freedom to make the basketball decisions by basketball intelligentsia isn't complicated by those minds and voices who only presume themselves to be part of the intelligentsia (... whose input is tainted b/c their highest priority is to win on the spreadsheet, and viewing winning on the court as a means to that end, not the end unto itself).

Not to mention, on top of that, that even if that much is achieved, that indeed

(4) what you'd perceived to be the "exact right alternative player(s)" turns out to actually be that by virtue of individual production... and

(5) furthermore still, on top of that, that the evidence that the new roster recipe's effectiveness asserts itself early enough (ie, the "chemistry" element appears sooner, not later) that people don't throw up their hands too early and decide that the transaction failed prematurely--recognizing how many times in NBA history we've seen something that didn't appear to be working for a team, seemingly out of the blue suddenly start working after all.

Exhibit A for this cautionary tale? What you just cited. Almost universally on this site, we endorsed the idea that what Trae needed was a DJM. That was our collective wisdom.

So, yeah... great in theory.

Reality is, it's really difficult... if it wasn't difficult everyone would do it, right?

It might help a lot if you could even get one of those empirically-controllable factors to tilt your way... say, like if "1b" was, instead of a disadvantage, an advantage--a different attitude having prevailed. Or, closely allied with that, but different... what if there were an end to the GM having to march into the owner's office to for a "challenge" session... making "3" a non-consideration after all.

Seems you need some combination of Jerry West genius and Lady Luck in order for it all to come together.

You think you have that? Then again, what choice do you have but to hope, I suppose. This is the journey you signed up for, the horse you've chosen to ride. You've been a good soldier, and if the basketball gods are righteous, you deserve for it to work out so it will work out.

No sarcasm in any of that, btw... you've been a good soldier, as have so many of us.

But there's a big "if"... are the basketball gods righteous?... hmmmm... *sigh*...

I don’t think we have to get the “exact” right players and that there could be multiple possible trades that would work.  The DJM trade had a fatal flaw that is now known.  Does that guarantee we will be better after a trade?  It doesn’t but that can be said if any trade, draft pick or other transaction.  Whether we actualize that potential or not, it remains the most powerful tool to improve this team, imo.  
 

Frankly, I think trading DJM for a real SG who is only 50% of the player that DJM is would leave us a materially better team so I don’t think the bar is that high for what we would need to improve year over year.  (Simply not playing DJM and Trae together immediately improves us and a useful role player wing with better fit also improves us.). I’d like better than a role player for sure and think that is very plausible but I’m not going to handicap that.  We have a positive net rating with Trae on the floor and DJM off; a modestly negative net rating with DJM on the floor and Trae off; and a highly negative net rating with both on the floor.  Just not playing them together would be an improvement.  You can’t have two guys who cannot effectively defend 2s, 3s, 4s and 5s together in the backcourt.  (The biggest miss with DJM was thinking his All-NBA defense would apply when guarding 2’s).

I stand by my statement that trades and especially the trade of DJM is our best means on improving the team.

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

The Cam love was so bizarre.  People were just as adamant about Cam's potential as they are with Sarr.

Same with JJ.  Sometimes it pays off.  Sometimes it doesn’t.

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Same with JJ.  Sometimes it pays off.  Sometimes it doesn’t.

Yeah i have a Duke friend who told me when these guys were drafted that they sucked and would never be any good.   He was right on one of them. 

[JayBirdHawk]

15 minutes ago, deester11 said:

Big woop. People fall in love with potential. Some times it pays, sometimes it doesn't.  Who cares? I still bet on potential everytime. Keep the field.  They're all a bunch of mixed bags anyway.  

 

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

Same with JJ.  Sometimes it pays off.  Sometimes it doesn’t.

 

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Yeah i have a Duke friend who told me when these guys were drafted that they sucked and would never be any good.   He was right on one of them. 

There are no guarantees with any of this.  The mindset, what's between the ears, team they go to, all play a role (as well as their inherent skills, size, athleticism etc). in how most of these draftees will develop or not.

[marco102]

4 hours ago, Final_quest said:

I can’t seem to get a good answer to these questions either.  

Not sure people realize that the G league exhibition games are about the only time Sarr put up stat lines like that.  Also, he’s mostly dunking in the highlight reels of that game, or hitting a wide open three. There’s no tape of a game where he shows a skilled offensive bag.

Everyone is looking at an exhibition highlight reel and ignoring what he does or doesn’t do in actual games.

 

I mean there's plenty of tape of hitting mid range shots and a really good click, but go on.

[bleachkit]

16 minutes ago, deester11 said:

Big woop. People fall in love with potential. Some times it pays, sometimes it doesn't.  Who cares? I still bet on potential everytime. Keep the field.  They're all a bunch of mixed bags anyway.  

"Potential" is entirely too focused on length and athleticism, and too dismissive of skill and understanding of the game. 

[marco102]

15 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

"Potential" is entirely too focused on length and athleticism, and too dismissive of skill and understanding of the game. 

No many were saying Luka would be great before his draft because of his skill and understanding of the game.  It was the only reason anyone wanted him.  He's never been the best Athlete. 

Some thought his athleticism would limit him, I will hand you that, but having all four sure goes along way in making you become a great player.

Edited June 20 by marco102