Did we get enough value in the Murray trade?

[JayBirdHawk]

32 minutes ago, Jdawgflow said:

I guess it just took a bit to come out publicly.

I'm not sure when it was posted. I just kept seeing the original $18 mil which was last year's salary. But since the trade was delayed until the new league year, I figured the TPE should be his 2024 salary but didn't see it reported anywhere.

[JayBirdHawk]

DJ' new salary on NOP's Capsheet with the 15% trade kicker. The Hawks had to pay the kicker (~$12 mil, $4 mil per) which was divided over his 3 guaranteed years.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

I thought the Hawks got good value considering our history with getting value in trades.  The two 1st is phenomenal.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, PSSSHHHRRR87 said:

I thought the Hawks got good value considering our history with getting value in trades.  The two 1st is phenomenal.

The LA pick is great.  The double protected pick is better than an early second rounder but not nearly as valuable as a normal first round pick.  The only less valuable picks are ones that are expected to convert to second rounders.

The LA pick, the $$ savings, and Daniels are ~88% of the value that we got in the trade with ~7% going to the double protected pick and the remaining ~5% going to Nance.  The rest of the trade was neutral or negative value.

[macdaddy]

It was a good trade.  DJ wasn't helping us and we got 2 good players and picks for him.   Maybe the best trade for the Hawks in a long time.  Problem is that it's our only deal we could pull off. 

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

It was a good trade.  DJ wasn't helping us and we got 2 good players and picks for him.   Maybe the best trade for the Hawks in a long time.  Problem is that it's our only deal we could pull off. 

By that measure any deal would be a good deal.  We got one player who will be with us in a year and one who will likely be gone.  One pick that is of high potential value and with a pretty wide range of variability from say 1-22 and one of very low value for a first.  For DM under team control and on a team friendly contract, that isn't great value.  But since DM and Trae were a disaster together then it should improve us.  There is zero excuse for us not being dramatically better next year after trading DM and lucking into the #1 overall pick.  If we aren't, you can be assured we've either had massive injury issues or we've not done a good job with our offseason.  Improving meaningfully over last year should be as difficult as hitting the broad side of a barn given those resources.

[Final_quest]

30 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

It was a good trade.  DJ wasn't helping us and we got 2 good players and picks for him.   Maybe the best trade for the Hawks in a long time.  Problem is that it's our only deal we could pull off. 

Pretty much.  Both of the outcomes of the Murray trades with the Spurs and Pelicans are still so volatile.  Really depends on how we perform as a team in the next three years.  On the other side the picks from NO have potential to be very late first round picks or much better. 

Then you have Murray vs Dyson.  Murray could prove to be a high stat guy who doesn't impact winning or the spark plug NO needed at point.  Dyson could go a couple different ways as well.  

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

 On the other side the picks from NO have potential to be very late first round picks or much better. 

The LA pick has a good chance to be much better.  The double protected pick is counting on both NO and MIL falling off badly (both won 49 games last year) but not falling off so much that the second protection applies.  It is a pretty narrow window to be a "much better" pick that makes it unreasonable to expect anything but a mid to late first, imo.  I would probably mark that one down as likely hitting at around pick 22.  The LA pick could be almost anywhere.  It is really interesting.  Looking forward to rooting for the Lakers to fail badly this season.

[macdaddy]

18 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Pretty much.  Both of the outcomes of the Murray trades with the Spurs and Pelicans are still so volatile.  Really depends on how we perform as a team in the next three years.  On the other side the picks from NO have potential to be very late first round picks or much better. 

Then you have Murray vs Dyson.  Murray could prove to be a high stat guy who doesn't impact winning or the spark plug NO needed at point.  Dyson could go a couple different ways as well.  

To me he needs to prove that he's not that at this point.  

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

To me he needs to prove that he's not that at this point.  

Exactly.  This could become a pronouncement on Murray that is set in stone.  If he can't elevate NO, than he could be blacklisted.  What team would want a ball dominant guy like Murray who is an inefficient bucket getter that plays average D.  

[Gray Mule]

Hawks swapped one starter for a different starter.  This makes it an even swap.  Anything else that Atlanta received in the deal is a bonus to us.  We get younger and less $$$ payroll.  Other players and draft picks.  Great deal!

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

The LA pick has a good chance to be much better.  The double protected pick is counting on both NO and MIL falling off badly (both won 49 games last year) but not falling off so much that the second protection applies.  It is a pretty narrow window to be a "much better" pick that makes it unreasonable to expect anything but a mid to late first, imo.  I would probably mark that one down as likely hitting at around pick 22.  The LA pick could be almost anywhere.  It is really interesting.  Looking forward to rooting for the Lakers to fail badly this season.

2027 is a long ways from now.  We’re talking teams built on Giannis and Zion.  I could see it becoming closer to the middle than the end of the first round.

[AHF]

20 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Exactly.  This could become a pronouncement on Murray that is set in stone.  If he can't elevate NO, than he could be blacklisted.  What team would want a ball dominant guy like Murray who is an inefficient bucket getter that plays average D.  

At worst, I don't see how he is really different than Fred Van Vleet who was obviously a target in FA.  Saying he would be blacklisted is a big stretch, imo.  He is still a 20/5/5 type of player and guys like that are going to be in demand even if they aren't as efficient as you would like.  But from an efficiency perspective I do think it is notable that he has also improved over time.  He has gone from a terrible .505% TS% in SA to .533% then .540% then .555% which has come in significant part from his improved volume and accuracy on his 3.  His .555% last season is comparable to guys like Paskal Siakam (prior to last year), CJ McCollum, FVV, and Mikhal Bridges (last season) and better than guys like Paolo Banchero, RJ Barrett, Terry Rozier, etc.  

I think the keys for him joining a more balanced NO team will be whether (a) he steps up his D playing with Jones and Murphy and others; (b) he improves his efficiency taking fewer shots next year; and (c) whether he can effectively run the offense and get others involved.  The last part is the biggest question mark for me since DM's playmaking has always been very pedestrian in my book.  I do think he is well positioned to have much improved defensive performance guarding 1's in NO and that his scoring should look even better on smaller volume with Zion and others drawing more attention than his teammates in Atlanta did (presumably leaving him more open shot opportunities and overall easier shots).

19 hours ago, Final_quest said:

2027 is a long ways from now.  We’re talking teams built on Giannis and Zion.  I could see it becoming closer to the middle than the end of the first round.

Fair enough.  I definitely see middle of the round as being possible.  I think NO is well positioned to maintain or improve their play given the age of their team.  Milwaukee in my mind has the bigger downside potential although the downsides for both teams are highly mitigated by the fact that we get the worst of those picks which means both teams have to suck for it to matter to us.  If one of them is decent, the pick isn't going to be very good.  (This doesn't mean it couldn't convert into a good player - just a matter of the average return on a pick in that range of the draft.  We don't base pick values on outliers even though we hope our lower value pick turns into Jimmy Butler or Nikola Jokic). 

The fact that the pick is 2027 also lowers its value.  We've seen how valuable the Sacramento pick has been.  This is analogous to a time value of money thing.  Having to wait that long to get help is not great when we are in a critical window the next few seasons where that pick literally cannot help the team outside of being fodder for a trade.  As the pick actually arrives, hopefully we are in a position to really take advantage of that added talent in 2028-29 but who knows where the team will be by then.

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[Final_quest]

The Pelicans in 2027 is a huge gamble in my mind.  You are largely depending on Zion to be healthy.  Without him it's Murray, Herb Jones, and Tre Murphy, plus whatever they do with McCollum and Ingram.  McCollum and Ingram have big time questions regarding age, injury, and contract.  A lot can go wrong with this roster.

[Sothron]

What hurts the Pelicans is their ownership from the start refuses to pay the luxury tax, ever. Every team in the NBA knows this. The Hawks at least pretend they might. 

[JayBirdHawk]

Wasn't this the guy the Hawks did not want in the Murray trade prior to June 30th as part of the original deal?

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

 

[Watchman]

On 8/17/2024 at 5:39 PM, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

Somewhat off subject Jaybird, but I usually look at Hawk squawk on my Kindle tablet, therefore the icons are very small. The picture of Zach has always looked like someone wearing a pink bunny outfit, with really big floppy pink bunny ears (kind of like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." ). I only realized a week or two ago that it was his forearms and hands holding his cap in place.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

14 hours ago, Watchman said:

Somewhat off subject Jaybird, but I usually look at Hawk squawk on my Kindle tablet, therefore the icons are very small. The picture of Zach has always looked like someone wearing a pink bunny outfit, with really big floppy pink bunny ears (kind of like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." ). I only realized a week or two ago that it was his forearms and hands holding his cap in place.

 

Might be time for an avatar change then....incoming.