2024 Summer League Roster and Games.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, terrell said:

He didnt look amazing last night.. Not to me anyway.. PLayers are gonna miss shots, but His passing leaves ALOT to be desired if he's planning on being a PG...

He has work to do on his passing before the Mark Price comparisons pan out.  He is more of a short shooting guard today than a PG.  He would work really well today playing next to someone like prime LeBron, Harden, Luka, etc. who would be the primarily playmaker and create a lot of open perimeter looks but who would guard a position other than the opposing PG.  Some similarities to Kyrie Irving in terms of role.

[JeffS17]

10 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think this is accurate.  We had reports of trade offers on draft day from the insiders.  I'm sure there are some things they can't share beyond what they posted publicly as well.  The #1 pick draws a lot of attention even in a bad draft.

I think it is accurate.  No offense to our insiders, but the reports we get from them often feel like wants from our FO rather than deals on the table.  I trust that we do have conversations for things like #1 for Spurs #4 and #8, but that deal being actually on the table isn't a known thing, likely for even the FO on draft day, until the draft unfolds.  So when I hear these deals, they sound more like what our front office would like or would execute on, rather than actual deals on the table (i.e JC for Lauri and 2 firsts).  They're simply discussions.  No different than any businesses or orgs discussing deals or partnerships.  The insider reports let us know of discussion activity, and I believe that, but not done deals or even intent from both sides.

So when assessing insider reports, logic has prevailed over the gossip at a much, much, higher rate.  And logically, it makes no sense that a team would give up a lot of value in assets to move up to #1 in this draft.  So if that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you, but if you're convinced that was a slam dunk trade, ask yourself why it was on the table in the first place.  

[deester11]

Some of yall switch up more than Snoop Dogg.  Lmao. Wasn't a person alive who didn't know Sarr was a project. We knew what he was made of when he didn't stand up to his "team" and say I'm going to whomever chooses me .  First, it's the SL, and I don't care what anyone says, a star ain't born during these pick up games. ZR has been OK, just like Sarr, just like Edey, etc.  It's much easier to hindsight these players, but the real work hasn't even begun. Time will tell who's "right."

[JeffS17]

2 minutes ago, deester11 said:

Some of yall switch up more than Snoop Dogg.  Lmao. Wasn't a person alive who didn't know Sarr was a project. We knew what he was made of when he didn't stand up to his "team" and say I'm going to whomever chooses me .  First, it's the SL, and I don't care what anyone says, a star ain't born during these pick up games. ZR has been OK, just like Sarr, just like Edey, etc.  It's much easier to hindsight these players, but the real work hasn't even begun. Time will tell who's "right."

Offseason deester, let us bicker and create drama for ourselves!

[kg01]

3 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Offseason deester, let us bicker and create drama for ourselves!

Would've also accepted the 'let them fight' gif from godzilla. 

[AHF]

23 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

I think it is accurate.  No offense to our insiders, but the reports we get from them often feel like wants from our FO rather than deals on the table.  I trust that we do have conversations for things like #1 for Spurs #4 and #8, but that deal being actually on the table isn't a known thing, likely for even the FO on draft day, until the draft unfolds.  So when I hear these deals, they sound more like what our front office would like or would execute on, rather than actual deals on the table (i.e JC for Lauri and 2 firsts).  They're simply discussions.  No different than any businesses or orgs discussing deals or partnerships.  The insider reports let us know of discussion activity, and I believe that, but not done deals or even intent from both sides.

So when assessing insider reports, logic has prevailed over the gossip at a much, much, higher rate.  And logically, it makes no sense that a team would give up a lot of value in assets to move up to #1 in this draft.  So if that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you, but if you're convinced that was a slam dunk trade, ask yourself why it was on the table in the first place.  

A slam dunk is the easiest shot in basketball.  To fail to execute on it is a huge mistake.  The slam dunk trade in this sense was trading down to #2 and taking Risacher.  This would have added an asset but would not have been as hugely impactful as trading up from 2 to 1 normally would be.  I classify that as an easy trade to execute but one that only gets you a comparatively small piece.  The reason we didn't execute on it is because we publicly made it known we would not take Sarr which is the equivalent of being open under the basket and then walking out to the midrange to receive the ball. You can no longer dunk once you've moved away from the basket. 

But on the idea of getting 4 and 8 or 7 and 14 or other deals discussed, I acknowledge neither of us has first hand knowledge of what was available to the Hawks.  I will just say that from what I've heard, I think there were options that were available and we passed on.  Will let the insiders comment further or not.  

I have no problem putting this in the bucket of unverified either way and able to be ignored.  I just would not be too confident that there wasn't anything actionable that passed on.

[JeffS17]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

A slam dunk is the easiest shot in basketball.  To fail to execute on it is a huge mistake.  The slam dunk trade in this sense was trading down to #2 and taking Risacher.  This would have added an asset but would not have been as hugely impactful as trading up from 2 to 1 normally would be.  I classify that as an easy trade to execute but one that only gets you a comparatively small piece.  The reason we didn't execute on it is because we publicly made it known we would not take Sarr which is the equivalent of being open under the basket and then walking out to the midrange to receive the ball. You can no longer dunk once you've moved away from the basket. 

But on the idea of getting 4 and 8 or 7 and 14 or other deals discussed, I acknowledge neither of us has first hand knowledge of what was available to the Hawks.  I will just say that from what I've heard, I think there were options that were available and we passed on.  Will let the insiders comment further or not.  

I have no problem putting this in the bucket of unverified either way and able to be ignored.  I just would not be too confident that there wasn't anything actionable that passed on.

I still don't understand why WAS would give up anything to go up one slot, but that is probably because of the way I've pieced together the evidence versus how you've pieced it together.  I don't think we were ever seriously interested in Sarr.  I think his agent knew that and took control of the situation and directed Sarr to not work out with the Hawks.  This created a "I broke up with you before you could break up with me" narrative that allows his client to have #1 pick hype without actually being the number one pick.

Anyways, there's no leverage in moving down 1 slot unless you have a true bidding war, and this draft likely did not create a bidding war for #1.  WAS would just call our bluff and now the only thing we accomplished is having egg on our face because we take Risacher and they get their guy anyways.  Now you have a soured relationship, lack of trust/respect from a rival GM, and a worse reputation.  Calling it a slam dunk is wild to me because it's actually such a risky thing to do.  If Landry and the FO didn't have to continue working with the other GMs, I could see giving this a try, but NBA dealings are repeated experiments, not one time actions. 

I see these front office interactions as classic prisoner's dilemma, where defecting is the obvious choice in a one-time trial, but in repeated trials, all parties are better off cooperating.  Trying to feign/threaten a Sarr pick is not cooperating, it's defecting and eroding trust and credibility.  Of course, all of this rambling of mine presupposes my speculation is correct that we did not actually want Sarr.

[deester11]

31 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Offseason deester, let us bicker and create drama for ourselves!

Touché Jeff. Funny 

[Spud2nique]

5 minutes ago, deester11 said:

Jeff

Jefe please

[Gray Mule]

Hawks had pick #1.  They drafted exactly who they wanted.  End of story.  Everything else is mere speculation about what happened in the past.  The past is exactly what it sounds like.  History.  

[macdaddy]

15 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

Hawks had pick #1.  They drafted exactly who they wanted.  End of story.  Everything else is mere speculation about what happened in the past.  The past is exactly what it sounds like.  History.  

And thank goodness we figured out who was the best player and fit for us and just drafted him rather than getting complicated with it.  

[SalvorMallow]

3 hours ago, theheroatl said:

Hindsight is always 20/20 and stats don't show true future production but how the players play in the summer league (smart plays, high IQ) can determine their ceiling.

 

I think Reed & Risacher have the best chance of all-star careers.

 

I think these players are rotation players but never all-stars:
Sarr
Holland
Castle
Dillingham
Matas B.
Bronny
Knecht
 

Wow Bronny? Are you accounting for nepotism minutes in this assessment? 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

I still don't understand why WAS would give up anything to go up one slot, but that is probably because of the way I've pieced together the evidence versus how you've pieced it together.  I don't think we were ever seriously interested in Sarr.  I think his agent knew that and took control of the situation and directed Sarr to not work out with the Hawks.  This created a "I broke up with you before you could break up with me" narrative that allows his client to have #1 pick hype without actually being the number one pick.

Anyways, there's no leverage in moving down 1 slot unless you have a true bidding war, and this draft likely did not create a bidding war for #1.  WAS would just call our bluff and now the only thing we accomplished is having egg on our face because we take Risacher and they get their guy anyways.  Now you have a soured relationship, lack of trust/respect from a rival GM, and a worse reputation.  Calling it a slam dunk is wild to me because it's actually such a risky thing to do.  If Landry and the FO didn't have to continue working with the other GMs, I could see giving this a try, but NBA dealings are repeated experiments, not one time actions. 

I see these front office interactions as classic prisoner's dilemma, where defecting is the obvious choice in a one-time trial, but in repeated trials, all parties are better off cooperating.  Trying to feign/threaten a Sarr pick is not cooperating, it's defecting and eroding trust and credibility.  Of course, all of this rambling of mine presupposes my speculation is correct that we did not actually want Sarr.

There are a ton of examples of these types of trades in the NBA.  This is how we got the #10 pick added instead of just taking Trae at #3 when we reportedly wanted him more than Luka.  This is how Boston ended up with another high lottery pick when they wanted Jayson Tatum by trading down with Philadelphia.  This is how Milwaukee picked up an asset by drafting Stephon Marbury only to trade him to Minnesota when the Bucks wanted to end up with Ray Allen the whole time. 

Minnesota didn't hate Milwaukee or something because of that.  Nobody blacklisted the Bucks franchise.  Minnesota just gave up a first round pick and got their guy in Starbury.  Milwaukee got the guy they wanted the whole time and picked up a pick for their gamesmanship.

These trades don't erode trust or something.  They are just a normal part of doing business in the NBA.  If a team doesn't believe you are willing to take their guy, the trade doesn't happen.

It happened to us this year even.  We trade into the draft at the #44.  The #43 pick is on the board.  Do we trade up to #43 if we don't believe Miami may take our guy in Nikola (or trade the pick to someone else to do it)?  Nope.  Because we believe they may take our guy, we go ahead and give up consideration to trade up one spot to #43 where we take Nikola and Miami takes the guy they would have taken anyway at #44.  This is the same situation we should have been in at #1 with Washington afraid we would take Sarr or trade the pick to someone who did.

Creating that fear in the mind of an opposing GM is a key tool in the job.  When you tip your hand and no one believes you will take their guy, they have no incentive to trade with you.  So once we poisoned the well by letting it be known we didn't want Sarr, then sure it would have been a bad bluff to try to do that.  But Boston did this successfully with the #1 pick and got their guy.  Milwaukee did it.  Miami did it.  It is neither unusual nor something that stains the reputation of a team or GM.

[JeffS17]

21 minutes ago, AHF said:

There are a ton of examples of these types of trades in the NBA.  This is how we got the #10 pick added instead of just taking Trae at #3 when we reportedly wanted him more than Luka.  This is how Boston ended up with another high lottery pick when they wanted Jayson Tatum by trading down with Philadelphia.  This is how Milwaukee picked up an asset by drafting Stephon Marbury only to trade him to Minnesota when the Bucks wanted to end up with Ray Allen the whole time. 

Minnesota didn't hate Milwaukee or something because of that.  Nobody blacklisted the Bucks franchise.  Minnesota just gave up a first round pick and got their guy in Starbury.  Milwaukee got the guy they wanted the whole time and picked up a pick for their gamesmanship.

These trades don't erode trust or something.  They are just a normal part of doing business in the NBA.  If a team doesn't believe you are willing to take their guy, the trade doesn't happen.

It happened to us this year even.  We trade into the draft at the #44.  The #43 pick is on the board.  Do we trade up to #43 if we don't believe Miami may take our guy in Nikola (or trade the pick to someone else to do it)?  Nope.  Because we believe they may take our guy, we go ahead and give up consideration to trade up one spot to #43 where we take Nikola and Miami takes the guy they would have taken anyway at #44.  This is the same situation we should have been in at #1 with Washington afraid we would take Sarr or trade the pick to someone who did.

Creating that fear in the mind of an opposing GM is a key tool in the job.  When you tip your hand and no one believes you will take their guy, they have no incentive to trade with you.  So once we poisoned the well by letting it be known we didn't want Sarr, then sure it would have been a bad bluff to try to do that.  But Boston did this successfully with the #1 pick and got their guy.  Milwaukee did it.  Miami did it.  It is neither unusual nor something that stains the reputation of a team or GM.

Of course there are examples of trading down, but Boston traded down two slots which allowed philly to leap frog the Lakers, who were also taking a PG and likely would have taken Fultz.  That's not the same situation as trying to create fake leverage via bluff, and then if that bluff is called, you have egg on your face.  If Boston couldn't trade down, they simply would have taken their guy anyways and no harm no foul.  They didn't have to pretend like they wanted Fultz because the Lakers picking Fultz was a real threat.  Same situation with Dallas trading up for Luka.  They could not risk Memphis taking their guy.  Again, the only way we have real leverage to trade down a single pick is if we were actually going to take Sarr 1st.  Otherwise we just look like goons trying to trade down if they reject trade down offers and we don't pick Sarr anyways.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

Of course there are examples of trading down, but Boston traded down two slots which allowed philly to leap frog the Lakers, who were also taking a PG and likely would have taken Fultz.  That's not the same situation as trying to create fake leverage via bluff, and then if that bluff is called, you have egg on your face.  If Boston couldn't trade down, they simply would have taken their guy anyways and no harm no foul.  They didn't have to pretend like they wanted Fultz because the Lakers picking Fultz was a real threat.  Same situation with Dallas trading up for Luka.  They could not risk Memphis taking their guy.  Again, the only way we have real leverage to trade down a single pick is if we were actually going to take Sarr 1st.  Otherwise we just look like goons trying to trade down if they reject trade down offers and we don't pick Sarr anyways.

Thanks Jefito!  

[deester11]

18 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Thanks Jefito!  

The nicknames..lmao 

[JeffS17]

8 minutes ago, deester11 said:

The nicknames..lmao 

[JeffS17]

On 7/14/2024 at 8:38 PM, terrell said:

On 7/14/2024 at 8:41 PM, terrell said:

On 7/15/2024 at 1:54 PM, terrell said:

 

17 hours ago, terrell said:

4 hours ago, terrell said:

43 minutes ago, terrell said:

Terrell staying happy this offseason 

[Gray Mule]

Tis said, and it's true, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"

I noticed that some outsiders who don't post here have mentioned they have been impressed by some Summer League Hawks that have not been mentioned here.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

Of course there are examples of trading down, but Boston traded down two slots which allowed philly to leap frog the Lakers, who were also taking a PG and likely would have taken Fultz.  That's not the same situation as trying to create fake leverage via bluff, and then if that bluff is called, you have egg on your face.  If Boston couldn't trade down, they simply would have taken their guy anyways and no harm no foul.  They didn't have to pretend like they wanted Fultz because the Lakers picking Fultz was a real threat.  Same situation with Dallas trading up for Luka.  They could not risk Memphis taking their guy.  Again, the only way we have real leverage to trade down a single pick is if we were actually going to take Sarr 1st.  Otherwise we just look like goons trying to trade down if they reject trade down offers and we don't pick Sarr anyways.

And yet Milwaukee got that first from Minnesota despite the fact that they would have taken Allen and we gave up value to Miami when they probably would not have taken Nikola.  Your view that teams never bluff like this does not align with reality.  At all.

You don't have to actually intend to do something to have leverage.  You need the other person to believe that it is likely enough to happen that they are willing to give something up to avoid the risk that their target gets picked.  This happens all the time not just in basketball negotiations but in real world negotiations as well.  Customers get price downs from suppliers because the salesman is afraid the customer will resource to a competitor even if the customer has no intention of doing so.  A realtor gets more for a house by convincing the buyer that someone else is about to buy the house for more.  This happens even when there is no such competitor or person prepared to buy the house. This is basic negotiating.  You only look like a goon if you aren't a good negotiator which should not be a big problem with a good GM.