When does Landry’s hot 🥵 seat 💺 start?

[Final_quest]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

 

If you want an actual discussion, start with where the Hawks were when they traded for DJM and what they expected from that team and then we can evaluate pro's and con's of waiting to ship Huerter out until Bogi was proven healthy, etc.  If you claim they Hawks knew they were a .500 team when they traded for DJM as FQ suggests then we have a big gap in the assumptions underlying our positions because I don't believe that for a second.  They had much higher expectations than that after trading for DJM.

That’s not what I said at all.  I said we know now that this was a .500 team that Huerter couldn’t have helped to a significant degree.  I NEVER said the Hawks knew adding Murray back then that  it would become a .500 team.

You’re talking about an actual discussion, but you are the one twisting my words into something completely different.  

[JayBirdHawk]

8 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

If you take that argument outside of a Hawks forum, you will get laughed out of the room by any semi-knowledgeable NBA fan.

Ask Kings fans what his impact was that year.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

That’s not what I said at all.  I said we know now that this was a .500 team that Huerter couldn’t have helped to a significant degree.  I NEVER said the Hawks knew adding Murray back then that  it would become a .500 team.

You’re talking about an actual discussion, but you are the one twisting my words into something completely different.  

Why would you bring up what we know now when we are talking about the thought process of the front office at the time Huerter was traded?

Obviously you don't trade for DJM if you are talking about predicting outcomes based on what we know now.  If you don't trade for DJM, you also probably don't trade Huerter.  Not sure what we are talking about by adopting a 20/20 hindsight perspective.

[JayBirdHawk]

We knew this was strictly a get under the tax effort at the expense of on court talent, but the FO still kept the same expectations to start the season in terms of win/loss record. Then act surprised when they didn't. 

You would hope they've learned - but we shall see.

[Hawkmoor]

Huerter vs Kyle vs Landry vs Bogi vs DJ...

[Final_quest]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

Why would you bring up what we know now when we are talking about the thought process of the front office at the time Huerter was traded?

Obviously you don't trade for DJM if you are talking about predicting outcomes based on what we know now.  If you don't trade for DJM, you also probably don't trade Huerter.  Not sure what we are talking about by adopting a 20/20 hindsight perspective.

What we know now means a lot.  My premise isn’t dependent on the Hawks being right at the moment of the trade.  I thought immediately after getting Murray we should trade either Bogi or Huerter.  You know why have three SGs?

I’m saying even if the Hawks thought that keeping Huerter would have made us a contender, they would have been wrong. So why even make an argument that they should have thought that?  

I don’t care if they should have thought adding Murray is creating a super team and it’s time to spend even more.  What actually happened actually proves that they were right for not making more careless investments.  So the actual results weaken your case significantly.  Hedging by trading Huerter has proven to be the right call.  

[Final_quest]

33 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

We knew this was strictly a get under the tax effort at the expense of on court talent, but the FO still kept the same expectations to start the season in terms of win/loss record. Then act surprised when they didn't. 

You would hope they've learned - but we shall see.

12 out of 15 teams in the east are also making efforts to stay under the tax.  A lot of the teams would be better if they spent more.  You guys keep acting like only the Hawks make moves to “strictly get under the tax”.  
Of the 8 teams last year that paid at least two of them made moves this year to change course and get under the tax.  A few of them staying over are losing players.  
 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

What we know now means a lot.  My premise isn’t dependent on the Hawks being right at the moment of the trade.  I thought immediately after getting Murray we should trade either Bogi or Huerter.  You know why have three SGs?

I’m saying even if the Hawks thought that keeping Huerter would have made us a contender, they would have been wrong. So why even make an argument that they should have thought that?  

I don’t care if they should have thought adding Murray is creating a super team and it’s time to spend even more.  What actually happened actually proves that they were right for not making more careless investments.  So the actual results weaken your case significantly.  Hedging by trading Huerter has proven to be the right call.  

From this perspective, the Huerter call was clearly right because the DJM call was very clearly wrong.  This seems a less useful way to assess the process used by the front office at a time they were pushing the chips in but I'm still going to give you a straight opinion.  That team was doomed to fail when they committed to DJM so sure there was limited value in trying to be better and with that backwards looking perspective they were absolutely right not to lean into contending and so the call to hedge by shipping out Huerter was a fine move.  In fact, we know they should also have given up on the season entirely and traded JC and several others right then and there while they had clear trade value if they weren't going to do the logical thing by simply not trading for DJM at all and pursuing other opportunities.

With regard to keeping Huerter my premise has always been based on what the Hawks believed at the time in light of the fact that they were sinking a ton of assets into acquiring DJM, had a two year window before DJM was an UFA, and were pushing to be contenders right then coming off of an ECF and a first round exit with a heavily injured roster.  I think looking at it from their perspective is the only fair way to judge whether their strategy makes wholistic sense.  If you start justifying or criticizing moves on the basis that they screwed up their draft pick or failed on trade, etc. then I don't think you get to the heart of the issue in whether they have had a coherent strategy and executed on that strategy.  

If you are pushing your chips in like we were then, I think the logical thing is to put your strongest foot forward and see what happens before stripping talent off the roster that you could unload later on to manage around the cap if you chose to do so.  But if you have already pushed your chips in on a big raise on an already lost hand, then knowing what you know after the fact I can't argue that folding makes much more sense than calling someone's bet.  I just don't think it generally makes a lot of sense to raise big early in 5 card draw and then fold when someone else makes a small raise in response.  Just don't make the big raise if you aren't willing to see things through.

[HawkingAwesome]

When he proves he can't put a defense around trae

[JeffS17]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Ask Kings fans what his impact was that year.

I asked them and they said if you're talking about a difference maker for contending, Heurter isn't it.  They told me he was great until he got ran off the floor in the playoffs.  Triple single contribution (9/1/4) on 35%/20% shooting.

[JayBirdHawk]

Gallo, Lou, Delon and Huerter replaced by DJ, JHol, AHol and Frank.

Top 6 seed...

 

[Final_quest]

15 hours ago, AHF said:

From this perspective, the Huerter call was clearly right because the DJM call was very clearly wrong.  This seems a less useful way to assess the process used by the front office at a time they were pushing the chips in but I'm still going to give you a straight opinion.  That team was doomed to fail when they committed to DJM so sure there was limited value in trying to be better and with that backwards looking perspective they were absolutely right not to lean into contending and so the call to hedge by shipping out Huerter was a fine move.  In fact, we know they should also have given up on the season entirely and traded JC and several others right then and there while they had clear trade value if they weren't going to do the logical thing by simply not trading for DJM at all and pursuing other opportunities.

With regard to keeping Huerter my premise has always been based on what the Hawks believed at the time in light of the fact that they were sinking a ton of assets into acquiring DJM, had a two year window before DJM was an UFA, and were pushing to be contenders right then coming off of an ECF and a first round exit with a heavily injured roster.  I think looking at it from their perspective is the only fair way to judge whether their strategy makes wholistic sense.  If you start justifying or criticizing moves on the basis that they screwed up their draft pick or failed on trade, etc. then I don't think you get to the heart of the issue in whether they have had a coherent strategy and executed on that strategy.  

If you are pushing your chips in like we were then, I think the logical thing is to put your strongest foot forward and see what happens before stripping talent off the roster that you could unload later on to manage around the cap if you chose to do so.  But if you have already pushed your chips in on a big raise on an already lost hand, then knowing what you know after the fact I can't argue that folding makes much more sense than calling someone's bet.  I just don't think it generally makes a lot of sense to raise big early in 5 card draw and then fold when someone else makes a small raise in response.  Just don't make the big raise if you aren't willing to see things through.

Pretty fair take. 

Think of the teams who do pay the tax though.  You have teams like GS, Phoenix, Boston, LAC, LAL, and Milwaukee that all have a top 75 all time NBA players and MVPs mixed with long term established allstars.  That is the typical tax paying team.  The Hawks spending like they have any sort of equivalent pairing would be out of step with what any other NBA team is actually doing.  You can make a really strong case that they needed to see Trae and Murray become a tandem that is equivalent with other star pairings before investing more into them. 

Pushing to become the most expensive team in the league with the fewest accolades and worst players is not the way.  Even if Tony does agree to go up to the first apron, it's only $8M more in spending anyways.  It's not like we can add another max player to our roster if Tony decides to pay the tax.  You have to draw the line somewhere.  As you can see 80% of the eastern conference not in the tax means we are actually in step with what other teams are doing.  What many are asking for is Tony to spend extra on role players to make up for a weaker top 2-3.  I don't think that works.  

 

[theheroatl]

I think Landrys seat will be dependent on Risacher. This is entirely on him. It will come down to whether he develops this and next season. If by end of 2025-2026 he is not living up to hype, Landry gets canned. If he is starting and averaging 20+ ppg for 2025 then Landry gets renewed for 2-3 more years.

[Final_quest]

15 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Gallo, Lou, Delon and Huerter replaced by DJ, JHol, AHol and Frank.

Top 6 seed...

 

Never heard anyone making that case, but Gallo and Lou's careers were over by the time we traded for Murray.  We were never gonna be able to keep a stocked roster of $20M/yr salaries on the bench like Gallo while also paying Hunter, Trae, Kevin, and Collins.  They got raises of about $50M+ total.  The difference between the tax line and first apron is $8M. 

The fan expectation is misaligned.  You can't pay out all the core guys you drafted and have all these expensive guys on the bench whether we paid a little over the tax line or not.  A lot of these cuts that you guys blame on the tax would have happened any way this goes down.  

[Gray Mule]

Squawk posters mostly agreed that the Hawks needed to shed either Young or Murray because they didn't fit together.

Squawk posters mostly agreed that, if we kept Trae Young, we should surround him with bigger, taller defensive players.

Squawk posters mostly agree that we have accomplished both of these things.

If Landry is all wrong, then so are we.

I know.  Some Squawk posters disagree.  Som, however, agree.

[macdaddy]

23 hours ago, Final_quest said:

No.  Dallas won 52 games in 2021-22.  They only paid the tax when they brought in Kyrie to add a HOF multiple time allstar to a perennial MVP candidate. 

You honestly think that compares to the Hawks combining a 3 time allstar who has never got a single MVP vote with a one time replacement allstar?  The tragic thing about this false idea that paying the tax is the only viable path to winning, is that even if we did pay the tax to add another bench player to an extremely bad pairing of Trae and Dejounte we KNOW it wasn't gonna work. 

I think the only time it makes sense to pay the tax after a mediocre season is when you add a talent that could elevate your team to contender status.  We wanted that to be Murray, but why fool ourselves that it ever was?

What are all these conditions?  Dallas won 38 games in 2022, missed the playoffs, and then the next year went into the tax. 

We won 41 games in 2021 in a shortened season.    Why didn't we push our chips in and go into the tax in the next two seasons?  

I brought up Dallas because they didn't even change their team that much after missing the playoffs but decided it was worth it to throw their chips in with Kyrie and go into the tax in order to not waste more of Luka's career.   So they certainly weren't already a contender when they made that decision.  

 

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Pretty fair take. 

Think of the teams who do pay the tax though.  You have teams like GS, Phoenix, Boston, LAC, LAL, and Milwaukee that all have a top 75 all time NBA players and MVPs mixed with long term established allstars.  That is the typical tax paying team.  The Hawks spending like they have any sort of equivalent pairing would be out of step with what any other NBA team is actually doing.  You can make a really strong case that they needed to see Trae and Murray become a tandem that is equivalent with other star pairings before investing more into them. 

Pushing to become the most expensive team in the league with the fewest accolades and worst players is not the way.  Even if Tony does agree to go up to the first apron, it's only $8M more in spending anyways.  It's not like we can add another max player to our roster if Tony decides to pay the tax.  You have to draw the line somewhere.  As you can see 80% of the eastern conference not in the tax means we are actually in step with what other teams are doing.  What many are asking for is Tony to spend extra on role players to make up for a weaker top 2-3.  I don't think that works.  

 

My view has not been that the team needed to pay the tax.  It was more that we should start the year with a healthy player (Huerter) who could be an impactful member of the rotation on a team looking to contend and then I think there are 4 most likely scenarios (among I'm sure many others) that could be pursued:

(1)  The team chemistry 'hits' and we are contenders.  This is that mythical team that is worth the tax and if we make trades they will be more about basketball than accounting.  This team tries to contend and win a title.  I'm pretty sure the front office thought this was a legit possibility when they gave up as much as they did for DJM when he was two years away from UFA.

(2) Bogi gets healthy a few months into the season and the team doesn't appear special.  Playoff teams don't have a clear need for a sniper player.  Now we have two similar wings (Huerter and Bogi) and the team isn't good enough to justify keeping them both and paying the tax.  The obvious option is to explore a salary dumping trade like we actually did in the summer with Huerter.  This is where the risk lies for having passed on the chump filler + protected first pick we actually got from Sacramento in the summer because options are more limited and we don't have a bidding war on Huerter's skills among playoff teams.  We probably take a loss here to unload Huerter's salary and otherwise end up in the same position we actually did.

(3) Bogi doesn't get healthy and ends up missing the season for all practical purposes.  Huerter is probably needed now so unless you throw in the towel on the season you look elsewhere to salary dump.  

(4) The team isn't good enough to warrant paying the tax and Bogi returns healthy.  Playoff teams have need of a floor spacing wing.  Here we are probably looking to move one of them and beyond the downside risk in scenario #2 here there is the potential to get a better return or similar return to what we actually got from Sacramento.

Most of these scenarios don't involve actually paying the tax but several of them present scenarios where we might be glad to have held onto Huerter.  All of them give the team a chance to perform at full strength before talent cutting takes place which to me makes sense since you just committed a ton of resources to bring in a player who is an UFA in two years.

[JeffS17]

Just to be clear and summarize where where your position has fully migrated to: you're unhappy because we didn't keep Heurter around to 1. see if Heurter was a magical spark to lead us to contention or 2. see if we actually needed to shed Bogi instead? 

And the hindsight that neither of those situations were true is not a testament to the front office's judgement to move Heurter for a pick in the offseason, but is still a reason to indict them for not being experimental enough with their planning?  And you keep making the unsupported assumption that the front office thought we were contenders after trading for Murray... when in reality, it's very obvious their plan was to add Murray and shed Heurter, upgrading our overall talent at SG significantly.

[AHF]

21 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Just to be clear and summarize where where your position has fully migrated to: you're unhappy because we didn't keep Heurter around to 1. see if Heurter was a magical spark to lead us to contention or 2. see if we actually needed to shed Bogi instead? 

Fully migrated?  I've articulating these points literally for years on this site.

I'm unhappy we downgraded the talent on the team at a time we pushed all-in on DJM as the addition that would make us a contender and felt like Bogi's health was a big question mark.  Trading what we did for DJM (most notably losing control of our picks from 2025-27) and with DJM an UFA in two years, we were on the clock to contend in the near term.  Downgrading talent at the same time you do this is a very mixed message as far as startegy from my perspective.

24 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

And the hindsight that neither of those situations were true is not a testament to the front office's judgement to move Heurter for a pick in the offseason, but is still a reason to indict them for not being experimental enough with their planning?  And you keep making the unsupported assumption that the front office thought we were contenders after trading for Murray... when in reality, it's very obvious their plan was to add Murray and shed Heurter, upgrading our overall talent at SG significantly.

The hindsight that DJM was an abject failure is not a testament to the front office having insightful judgment in trading Huerter. It means at the same time they believed so much that we would contend with DJM that they gave up what we did they also felt that entering the season in a tax paying cap position was too much risk so that they were unwilling to get under the tax mid-season.  I don't see a plan here that makes a lot of sense when I combine these two facts.

Adding Murray to contend in the near term and shedding Huerter for only assets that will have only a negative impact on the roster for the next 3+ years doesn't make much sense to me.  Correct. 

If their goal was to contend, they failed.  If their plan was to upgrade the talent at SG, they failed.  If their plan was to dodge the tax and get worse, they succeeded.  This is primarily because Landry and others supporting the DJM trade missed on their assessment of that trade.  But if you are buying into the logic of that trade, I don't think trading Huerter for a return that won't impact the team in a positive way until 2026 is a great outcome either.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'm unhappy we downgraded the talent on the team at a time we pushed all-in on DJM as the addition that would make us a contender and felt like Bogi's health was a big question mark.  Trading what we did for DJM (most notably losing control of our picks from 2025-27) and with DJM an UFA in two years, we were on the clock to contend in the near term.  Downgrading talent at the same time you do this is a very mixed message as far as startegy from my perspective.

I repeat what I said then:

I understood getting under the tax with the Huerter moved because it opened up the full MLE, it opened up more trade possibilities where we could take back more salary in trade and we got a first round pick. I said it only made sense if we used all those things to UPGRADE the team immediately, after going all in for DJM. But we did nothing but sign Frank Kaminsky.