Did we get enough value in the Murray trade?

[bird_dirt]

2 minutes ago, deester11 said:

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. 

DJM is a known quality. NOP knows what they are getting with very little risk. Why are we trading away the prize and absorbing all the “ifs?”  
And If all we are taking back are “ifs,” then it would have been nice to acquire more ifs knowing that some may hit, and some won’t. You need more opportunities to increase your chances of getting something of equal or greater value than the known quantity that you are trading away. 

[deester11]

9 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

DJM is a known quality. NOP knows what they are getting with very little risk. Why are we trading away the prize and absorbing all the “ifs?”  
And If all we are taking back are “ifs,” then it would have been nice to acquire more ifs knowing that some may hit, and some won’t. You need more opportunities to increase your chances of getting something of equal or greater value than the known quantity that you are trading away. 

Damn. This is on point. I keep ranting while this is a damn solid post. 

[Hawkmoor]

If you call giving up a Mclaren P1 GTR for a couple of Yugos as value, then yes, the Hawks got good value.

 

Edited July 7 by Hawkmoor

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, bird_dirt said:

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

He proved to be pretty bad for this team in almost every line up combo. That's if you believe in advanced metrics of course.

[REHawksFan]

2 hours 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. 

I think most of yall are SERIOUSLY overstating DJMs value. 

He wasn't an all star caliber player either year in Atlanta. He made the team worse. Literally every rotational player player worse with DJ than without DJ. 

He's probably the epitome of a bad team all star. I think it will be interesting to see how he does in NO because CJ wants the ball, Zion wants the ball, and DJ needs the ball. He's an ok distributer and an ok shooter. A good individual player, but not nearly an all star player. 

We got 4 actual assets for him. There's literally no lense through which the trade should be considered a L for the Hawks. None. 

Edited July 7 by REHawksFan

[Hawkmoor]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

He proved to be pretty bad for this team in almost every line up combo. That's if you believe in advanced metrics of course.

Watch what New Orleans becomes with Murray at the point and  McCollum at shooting guard where he belongs.

 

 

2 hours ago, deester11 said:

Damn. This is on point. I keep ranting while this is a damn solid post. 

Where did you get them rings?  They look cool.

[deester11]

13 minutes ago, Hawkmoor said:

Watch what New Orleans becomes with Murray at the point and  McCollum at shooting guard where he belongs.

 

 

Where did you get them rings?  They look cool.

Your jewelry box. 

[Hawkmoor]

14 minutes ago, deester11 said:

Your jewelry box. 

Those were my ex girlfriends.  Glad to see you made use of them.  I'll her about it.

[deester11]

9 minutes ago, Hawkmoor said:

Those were my ex girlfriends.  Glad to see you made use of them.  I'll her about it.

. She was big boneded? I'm crying laughing @Hawkmoor

[AHF]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

I think most of yall are SERIOUSLY overstating DJMs value. 

He wasn't an all star caliber player either year in Atlanta. He made the team worse. Literally every rotational player player worse with DJ than without DJ. 

He's probably the epitome of a bad team all star. I think it will be interesting to see how he does in NO because CJ wants the ball, Zion wants the ball, and DJ needs the ball. He's an ok distributer and an ok shooter. A good individual player, but not nearly an all star player. 

We got 4 actual assets for him. There's literally no lense through which the trade should be considered a L for the Hawks. None. 

Are we pretending that a guy playing out of position should be judged in trade value as if he is going to continue to play out of position? DJM was obviously MUCH more effective in his minutes playing point guard than he was as a SG next to Trae.  Other teams trading for him are trading for him as a PG.

That isn’t an All-Star player but it is a guy under team control for 4 years on a great contract.  Guys who average his numbers with any kind of efficiency are valued.  He is too.  I never expected him to return an All-Sta or something but asking for more than a single role player (Nance is filler who is gone after this year), one interesting pick, and one super protected pick should make have been expected.  

Pull up DJM’s numbers when Trae was out and discount the scoring and assists by 20%.  I bet that is still something like 24 points, 6 assists and 5 rebounds a game with a winning record.  That gave Landry a strong hand to play and served as ideal marketing for a DJM trade.

We left money on the table.

[bird_dirt]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

I think most of yall are SERIOUSLY overstating DJMs value. 

He wasn't an all star caliber player either year in Atlanta. He made the team worse. Literally every rotational player player worse with DJ than without DJ. 

He's probably the epitome of a bad team all star. I think it will be interesting to see how he does in NO because CJ wants the ball, Zion wants the ball, and DJ needs the ball. He's an ok distributer and an ok shooter. A good individual player, but not nearly an all star player. 

We got 4 actual assets for him. There's literally no lense through which the trade should be considered a L for the Hawks. None. 

Agree to disagree I guess. You may think I overestimate DJM value, but I think some here are overestimating Dyson’s potential. I believe my take is perfectly legitimate view for considering the potential for this being an L. 

Dyson is the “prize” asset we are receiving, the most known quality, but Potential Impact Estimate per  NBA, DJM is 93 (second highest among Hawks behind Trae at 66) and DD is 315. 

 

The two picks are nice but total unknown assets. Lakers pick could potentially be nice, but the other is likely a low end pick. Compound that with the number of years it will take for those picks to turn into valuable contributors and it won’t be until Trae’s next contract until we see what we got. I wonder if he will still be around when that happens? If not, then we will be back to where we were in terms of talent on this team with a couple new good players (if we’re lucky) minus Trae and DJM talent. 

Kick the can mentality. Maintaining status quo rather than trying to get ahead. 
 

I hope I’m wrong, and I am willing to admit things could potentially break that way. But I don’t think the odds are in our favor.

[REHawksFan]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

Are we pretending that a guy playing out of position should be judged in trade value as if he is going to continue to play out of position? DJM was obviously MUCH more effective in his minutes playing point guard than he was as a SG next to Trae.  Other teams trading for him are trading for him as a PG.

That isn’t an All-Star player but it is a guy under team control for 4 years on a great contract.  Guys who average his numbers with any kind of efficiency are valued.  He is too.  I never expected him to return an All-Sta or something but asking for more than a single role player (Nance is filler who is gone after this year), one interesting pick, and one super protected pick should make have been expected.  

Pull up DJM’s numbers when Trae was out and discount the scoring and assists by 20%.  I bet that is still something like 24 points, 6 assists and 5 rebounds a game with a winning record.  That gave Landry a strong hand to play and served as ideal marketing for a DJM trade.

We left money on the table.

We got 4 assets for DJM.  2 premium assets and 2 lesser assets but still pieces that have value.  That's not "leaving money on the table" for him.  I don't think he's worth much, if any, more than that.  He's probably a Top 10-15 PG in the NBA and Top 50-75 player in the NBA.  Mikal Bridges was traded for 5 1sts.  Murray was traded for 3 1sts plus a rotational vet big. 

It seems like you are being overly pessimistic about what we are receiving as a manner of continuing the line of dissatisfaction with the FO.  You undervalue the return and overvalue DJM in an effort to prove that the FO isn't doing their job. 

I disagree that the Lakers pick is not a real, valuable asset.  I disagree that Daniels is just a small rotational piece.  I disagree that DJM should be valued as a prime asset.  I disagree that Nance should be looked at as filler.  I disagree that the pick swap isn't a real pick.  I realize you personally may not have asserted each and every one of these statements, but you have some and I've read all of them on this board. 

Reading the board the last few days just seems a lot like folks going from upset about non trades and lack of FAs and as a result, the actual work they have done to improve the team gets minimized and written off as even that is a failure.    

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, bird_dirt said:

Agree to disagree I guess. You may think I overestimate DJM value, but I think some here are overestimating Dyson’s potential. I believe my take is perfectly legitimate view for considering the potential for this being an L. 

Dyson is the “prize” asset we are receiving, the most known quality, but Potential Impact Estimate per  NBA, DJM is 93 (second highest among Hawks behind Trae at 66) and DD is 315. 

 

The two picks are nice but total unknown assets. Lakers pick could potentially be nice, but the other is likely a low end pick. Compound that with the number of years it will take for those picks to turn into valuable contributors and it won’t be until Trae’s next contract until we see what we got. I wonder if he will still be around when that happens? If not, then we will be back to where we were in terms of talent on this team with a couple new good players (if we’re lucky) minus Trae and DJM talent. 

Kick the can mentality. Maintaining status quo rather than trying to get ahead. 
 

I hope I’m wrong, and I am willing to admit things could potentially break that way. But I don’t think the odds are in our favor.

Come on, man.  You really citing a stat that compares players when one player was a backup and the other was a starter and feature player?  You think that's apples to apples?  Really?? 

[ABH]

17 hours ago, ATLHawks3 said:

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

Yeah the owners did..did the fans..hell no !! I'm sure NO fans did tho

[Wretch]

This one will have to be fully evaluated after the LA pick is settled and we get a full read on DD.  It's a gamble on potential that could really go either way, but is looking pretty meh right now.  The Lakers finished with 47 wins last season. Anything could happen, but in all honesty that pick and DD are sweeteners to a DJM deal, not the base.  

If that's all we could get, then they should have explored upping the ante and packaged DJ with our own sweetener(s). None of us are in the room so, it's whatevs I guess.  The deal is an L until further notice.

[dalamchops]

Lakers are one AD/LBJ injury away from giving us a top 10 pick. I also like DD a lot, i think he has a lot more offensive potential than someone like thybulle, and hopefully snyder can unlock that.

[bird_dirt]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

Come on, man.  You really citing a stat that compares players when one player was a backup and the other was a starter and feature player?  You think that's apples to apples?  Really?? 

Well, think about that some more, please. 
We traded a starter and featured player for a backup. Does that really sound that great to you? 

But I’ll give you this, we are making progress here. We both agree that that’s not apples to apples.

I just wish we would have actually traded our apples for apples, but instead I feel like we traded our apples for some magic beans. I hope I’m wrong and we get lucky though. That is still a possibility. 

[JeffS17]

Terrible trade, we should gotten Herb, Murphy III and six unprotected first rounders. Join me outside Statefarm tomorrow morning for a fire Landry protest

[JeffS17]

50 minutes ago, Wretch said:

This one will have to be fully evaluated after the LA pick is settled and we get a full read on DD.  It's a gamble on potential that could really go either way, but is looking pretty meh right now.  The Lakers finished with 47 wins last season. Anything could happen, but in all honesty that pick and DD are sweeteners to a DJM deal, not the base.  

If that's all we could get, then they should have explored upping the ante and packaged DJ with our own sweetener(s). None of us are in the room so, it's whatevs I guess.  The deal is an L until further notice.

In all seriousness, I think whether we can develop Daniels into a serviceable player on offense is my measuring stick with this trade.  Picks are great but its tough to hindsight them too much.  The decision to execute this trade primarily depends on how much upside the FO thinks Daniels has and their confidence tapping into it.

Of course, we needed to offload Murray regardless, so if this was the best deal available, it is what it is.  Not moving him would have been a disaster of an offseason.

[Gray Mule]

22 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

Well, think about that some more, please. 
We traded a starter and featured player for a backup. Does that really sound that great to you? 

 

We traded a very good player on a very good contract for a much younger player that we believe will fit.  Murray and Young didn't fit together.  Most of us thought that one or the other should go.  It has happened.

Dyson Daniels is not all that Atlanta got in the deal, just the best part.  He may be an utter failure as a Hawk.  We are told that, as soon as his name was added to the roster that he became our best defensive player.  For a team known as not having much defense, this appears to be a plus.  

Three more players + two future 1st round picks round out the final deal.  Sounds good to me.  I may be wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time and not the last.