Did we get enough value in the Murray trade?

[Jdawgflow]

I feel we got short-changed some in this trade overall.  Not a terrible trade but not a win.  I am curious what others think.

[JayBirdHawk]

We wanted Herb and Tre so in that sense we lost.

[REHawksFan]

So the only options are We won or We lost?  How about an option for both teams got what they needed and it was a fair trade?  Why is that not even an option? 

[Jdawgflow]

3 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

So the only options are We won or We lost?  How about an option for both teams got what they needed and it was a fair trade?  Why is that not even an option? 

This is a fair point.  I don’t know how to change the poll but will if I can figure it out.  I guess my thought is a fair trade would technically be a win in this instance.

[ATLHawks3]

I think both teams got what they wanted out of this trade. Hard to say which team won yet.

[Peoriabird]

Absolute win!

[REHawksFan]

I voted for Win because I don't think there's any valid argument that we lost the trade.  We essentially acquired 4 assets for a player that we HAD to trade.  And not only that but one asset (Daniels) is a perfect compliment to our star player.  So, yeah, win.  If available, I would have voted for neutral as I think NOP also got better with the trade.  

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

I voted for Win because I don't think there's any valid argument that we lost the trade.  We essentially acquired 4 assets for a player that we HAD to trade.  And not only that but one asset (Daniels) is a perfect compliment to our star player.  So, yeah, win.  If available, I would have voted for neutral as I think NOP also got better with the trade.  

Plus Murray is a classic bad team all star since he can only be effective in a limited way on offense. He is truly a shooting who has to play point but can't run an offense.  Last year may have been his peak because of the injury to Young. No where else would he be able to take 40 shots in a game the rest of his career.  We all know about his terrible POA defense.

[AHF]

The trade makes us better but the return on the trade should have been better.  
 

Value of assets:

1) LA pick.  We get more for this than any other part of the trade.  Odds are that Dyson will be better because the pick won’t be that high but it could be huge.

2) Dyson.  A nice rotation piece with upside to one day be a complete player.  Brings much needed POA defense.  A clear future with the team.  If we don’t sign a backup PG, he should get some minutes there (as well as SG) along with Bufkin backing up Trae.

3) The double protected 2027 pick.  Not only the worst of two teams with nice core pieces (MVP and a bunch of 20 somethings), but even if we get incredibly lucky and both teams miss the playoffs and both picks win top 4 spots in the lottery now we give that up too.  What a **** job of negotiating on this.  Two layers of protection really suck a lot of the value out of this one.

4) Nance.  A one year and done useful bench player.  Very low value.  No future with the team.  Because we have zero depth at PF behind JJ this is slightly more than just the filler it is from NO’s perspective.  This part of the trade is the win/win people would like to label the entire trade.  NO wants to dump his salary and we can use the depth even if we can’t trade him for anything.  Works reasonably well for both sides.

5) Liddel.  Forgettable enough that I forgot to list him.  NO wanted off of his salary.  I have zero expectations for him but welcome being positively surprised if he is a useful part of the rotation in the next two seasons.

6) Zeller.  Negative value asset.  We used a roster spot on him that would be better spent on another player.

This is a suboptimal return.  It isn’t the worst thing out there but if Landry wants to make this team a contender he has to do better in the future.

To be clear.  This trade should absolutely make us better but that is not a useful criteria for measuring the trade.  Limiting DJM to only playing when Trae is not on the floor makes us better.  Making us better is a very low bar to clear.  Maximizing return on the trade is the goal and measuring stick.  That is where we fall short.

[Peoriabird]

Save this thread for the future

[warcore]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Save this thread for the future

 

[Final_quest]

I think there are ceiling issues with Murray.

4 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Plus Murray is a classic bad team all star since he can only be effective in a limited way on offense. He is truly a shooting who has to play point but can't run an offense.  Last year may have been his peak because of the injury to Young. No where else would he be able to take 40 shots in a game the rest of his career.  We all know about his terrible POA defense.

Pretty well said.  Have my doubts on what he’ll do for Zion, and more excited about the fit of Dyson for us.  The Lakers pick in this draft could be really nice.  

We saw how much Murray needs the ball to play his game and his game is kind of inefficient.  He’s like Collins in that he can look good and put up stats, but plays an iso type of game that limits team offense.  I think NOP will get frustrated with Murray like we did.  

[Gray Mule]

IF!  Big if!  If Dyson Daniels is as good in the future as he appears to be, the trade of Murray for DD is an even swap.  Anything else that Atlanta gets out of the deal is gravy!  

Nance should be good for at least one more season.  One of those "throw-in" players has just recovered from a major injury.  Another If.  If he is as good as he was before his injury, this is a big plus.  If not, oh well.

Got some sugar thrown in - - Draft picks in the future - - sweetens this deal a lot.

To make everything work, got another big man added to the deal.

Please remember:  Hawks had a piece of their picture puzzle that did not fit.  What if he was allowed to walk for nothing.  It has happened to Atlanta before.  Didn't happen.  Signed Murray to a very reasonable contract.  Did this trade.  We had his services for two years and we are sure either he or Trae had to go.  It happened.

Dyson Daniels replaces Murray at the 2 guard.  He appears like he will fit.  We will see.  If he does, we win this trade.  If he bombs out, we lose.  DD is younger than Murray.  He should have more years to play in the NBA.  I believe the Hawks win!

[h4wkfan]

I thought this was fair value before the top 4 protection and addition of zeller. So I’d vote it’s about 45/55 in favor of the pels at the end of it. 

[Packfill]

I think the return for the Hawks has potential but it will be a couple of years before we know what we got. The team is likely worse off in the short term due to reduced shot making and 3pt shooting. The defense may improve but my expectations are it will take Risacher and Daniel’s a year or more to become dependable assets. 

[swanlee]

We got what we could. Getting about 80% of the trade value back for 2 years of service is as good as you can expect.

It takes 2 teams to trade and the value of return is pretty mych set by the trade partner team. Since we've been shopping him for awhile this was obviously the best we could get.

Defensive help un Dyson and some of our draft picks back is good enough for me

 

 

 

 

[bird_dirt]

The team has to reeeeeaaaaaallllly believe in Dyson’s value to make this trade seem like a good deal. 

Color me skeptical, but we gave them a prime starter who has a proven record of high level performances locked in on a great contract and we got their fourth option on the wing who has shown below average shooting and inability to crack their playoff rotation but has “potential.”  
The picks are a good add on, but again, there are no guarantees they will add significant value (and they will be years away if they do). 
I’m taking a couple hits on the hopium hooka crossing my fingers Dyson is better than expected and we somehow score on those picks, but barring the stars aligning and every possible positive outcome occurring, it’s hard not to view this trade as an L. 

[deester11]

Cool if you want to squint and say this was a good deal. It was ok. There are if’s associated with this deal. (Before Resslers minions tell me there are ifs in any deal..I know) but  there are ifs in everything this FO does. That added protection moved the needle for me. In the wrong direction. Time will tell. 

[swanlee]

13 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

So the only options are We won or We lost?  How about an option for both teams got what they needed and it was a fair trade?  Why is that not even an option? 

Yes this is the actual real answer

[JayBirdHawk]

36 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

The team has to reeeeeaaaaaallllly believe in Dyson’s value to make this trade seem like a good deal. 

Color me skeptical, but we gave them a prime starter who has a proven record of high level performances locked in on a great contract and we got their fourth option on the wing who has shown below average shooting and inability to crack their playoff rotation but has “potential.”  
The picks are a good add on, but again, there are no guarantees they will add significant value (and they will be years away if they do). 
I’m taking a couple hits on the hopium hooka crossing my fingers Dyson is better than expected and we somehow score on those picks, but barring the stars aligning and every possible positive outcome occurring, it’s hard not to view this trade as an L. 

In the words of Landry, it was about 'REGAINING ASSETS' from the original trade. Not necessarily equal assets, but some.

As long as you can reconcile that and understand what it means - it's an acceptable return, for now.