Reply With Quote
Wow, that was some serious mental gymnastics. It would just be terrible to have two top picks and two shots at Cooper Flagg. Wait, no it wouldn’t.
Wow, that was some serious mental gymnastics. It would just be terrible to have two top picks and two shots at Cooper Flagg. Wait, no it wouldn’t.
It’s not terrible to have one shot at Cooper Flagg and already have a future HOFer on your team in Trae Young. When you have the real context, it’s not mental gymnastics at all.
It's not about what you think is the likely outcome. It's about how front offices react in these situations. We have seen repeatedly that a team that leverages its future before deciding to sell off assets does not make a priority to reacquire its picks. The only example I can remember of a team doing that is Hinkie getting Philly's protected pick back from Orlando in the Saric/Payton trade. That's it. Even right now, we see Houston trading for Brooklyn's future after selling theirs to OKC and Brooklyn taking Phoenix's rather than trying to get theirs back from Houston. As I said, for better or worse, teams don't do what posters feel confident the Hawks will do.
Most front offices can't survive tanking. So if they have something that's already making them watchable, they aren't necessarily going to be able trade that away with the explicit plan to be awful for three years. They will have to spin it as a way to improve. With Young eligible for the DPE this summer, the Hawks are not in a position where they risk losing Trae for nothing. They have a lot of options open and different trades they can make to rework their roster. Just as the team might trade Murray and keep Young, they might do the opposite under the belief that they can use the greater haul to make an immediate change to their roster. Without knowing what packages are available and how the front office views either player, we don't know what plan they think is the most viable.
I think it's very much the opposite. You and other posters are trying to avoid reality by abstracting it and setting yourself up to be disappointed. A lot of the situation about the Spurs trading for Young is built off theory-crafting and second- or third-order speculation. We don't know if the Spurs have any interest in making a move. We don't know if the Hawks plan to trade either guard at this point, let alone which one they'd try to trade. We don't know what direction they want to go and thus what priority they'd be looking for in packages. We don't know what other teams are willing to offer. We don't know what other players would be on the market. They could get Young, yes. Or they might be beat out by another team. Or they might not even want him. , no one's even considered that Young trade chatter boosts Murray's trade value because it gives the impression that Atlanta might be willing to build around him instead. That would be very similar to what the Spurs did with Parker when they were trying to trade Hill.I think you're over analyzing and thinking this by trying to idealize it. It's really not that complicated.
No, I'm not saying don't speculate. That's basically what this board is for. I am saying the pieces are probably not fitting together as smoothly as some might think, and if they think that there's probably some wishful thinking taking the place of evidence.
Lot of good stuff in this thread, imo the first domino is if the spurs will draft topic. If they can that will probably end the young to spurs rumors.
we'll see
If the Spurs trade for Young and still have a shot at winning the lottery next year, I think some people's faces would slide off their skulls.
Eh, I think there's a decent chance the movement will start before the draft. Unless the Spurs win the lottery they probably won't know who they'll draft by the time there are substantial rumors about how the Hawks roster is going to get.
Obviously any scenario should be considered, but the one you mentioned is unlikely. The Spurs’ pick is likely to be out of the lottery should that trade be made, which means it’s a win-win for the Spurs.
I'm going to go out on a limb and presume they're not delusional. Having your own picks is most valuable because you control your situation, which is the best you can ever hope to do. This would be probably unprecedented, but it makes sense all the same.
Snyder was/is too in-demand to be involved in a full re-build, so I agree they won't intentionally go that route initially. But that doesn't mean it won't happen organically or that they have a realistic path to being good either.
They can intend to retain Young for now, but he could also request a trade and we know how that ends.
I'm speaking to the hypothetical scenario where the Hawks are open to it and the Spurs are interested. Of course they may not be, but in the event they are, I see this as far more straightforward (in terms of why the Spurs should pursuit it) than you and others seem to think.
Everything doesn't have to be so convoluted and drawn out.
It’s funny. The “mental gymnastics” line is ironic from these people. A player that doesn’t meet their vision of a perfect Spur by not matching all criteria and they make up all these weird scenarios just to justify their distaste.
Again, we aren't talking about what you think makes sense. We're talking about what incentives front offices respond to, and those pretty clearly show teams do not get their picks back trades. This might be the first time that happens, but if it does, it'll go against the trend. It's fine to believe that might happen, but it's shaky to assume it's going to happen when it hasn't happened in like situations.
The thing is, this trade is an accute event, so talking about the Hawks later eroding into a rebuilding team does nothing to reverse the incentives their front office has. It's sort of like how the Spurs, Grizzlies and Sixers didn't tear down when they were aging teams stuck in the mire, even though their continued decline was foreseeable.Snyder was/is too in-demand to be involved in a full re-build, so I agree they won't intentionally go that route initially. But that doesn't mean it won't happen organically or that they have a realistic path to being good either.
Where does that end? It's not merely a trade. George, Leonard, Davis, Durant and Lillard all asked out. Davis and Durant are the only teams that got traded to the place that had the most leverage, and that only happened because those teams bent over and gave everything for them. The Lakers and Heat thought they had the leverage and lost out to teams that were willing to come correct and offer substantial deals. I'm not suggesting the Spurs wouldn't come correct in their offer. I am saying that teams tend to go with the move that gives them leverage over reducing the leverage they have against them. I would not be surprised to see a team beat the Spurs out for Young even if they want him. Of course, as I mentioned, with the DPE available this summer and a year-long restriction after signing it, I don't think we'll see a Young trade demand.They can intend to retain Young for now, but he could also request a trade and we know how that ends.
That's ... fine? You quoted me talking about how the Hawks might not value their picks back given that teams tend to not value them. I'm glad in the scenario where the teams want to make a trade you think they can make one. I wouldn't disagree there. But I don't see why the discussion should be locked into that scenario. When you purposefully reduce the complexity of the band of scenarios, of course it's not convoluted at all. But when folks are getting into the weeds about where their personal lines for what they want the Spurs to offer and how much they think it'll take, that complexity comes back. It's not because we know those teams have complex beliefs about those picks, but because we don't know what beliefs they have. Assuming we do is how you get people saying certain scenarios are likely that don't jive with history.I'm speaking to the hypothetical scenario where the Hawks are open to it and the Spurs are interested. Of course they may not be, but in the event they are, I see this as far more straightforward (in terms of why the Spurs should pursuit it) than you and others seem to think.
Everything doesn't have to be so convoluted and drawn out.
F☆☆☆ Wemby sitting next to Tre, joking around.
Trae to SA confirmed
Wemby sitting next to Trae right now.
Y’all are like HS girls discussing who’s eating lunch at what table.
HS girls are right about things sometimes.Y’all are like HS girls discussing who’s eating lunch at what table.
you have the 2nd most posts in this thread despite being adamantly against Trae YoungY’all are like HS girls discussing who’s eating lunch at what table.
[edit]
[edit]
Trae Young and Wemby + plus a lottery draft pick is a team on the rise. Trae might see his future on the rise next to Wemby.
I imagine it would take a Godfather offer to get it done. ATL gets all their picks back+Charlotte+Chicago+Toronto+Keldon and filler. If we were to keep all our own picks, I'd still probably do it. Wemby plus Trea is must see TV. But if there was a way to keep Toronto and Keldon, swap'em out for Zollins and a juicier pick down the road (Spurs 29). I'd prefer that. I'd love to walk away from this off season with Trea and 2 Talented rookies to start developing now, and still have Keldon coming off the bench. Pick up a Vet in Free Agency then get to work.
It’s funny that you have no rewarding comprehension.. If I were adamantly against Trae you, would I have proposed any trades? I’m adamantly against giving up all of their picks, plus Toronto, plus our pick this year.you have the 2nd most posts in this thread despite being adamantly against Trae Young
One idea that needs to be jettisoned, IMO, is the premise that ATL is going to undertake some moves to enter a hard re-build while San Antonio controls their draft for the next 3 years. If Atlanta trades Trae to someone else, it will be for a return they feel will make them better, not turn them into bottom dwellers so that the Spurs can reap the benefits. That is just wishful thinking. The Hawks may end up bad and the Spurs may be a high high, but it won't be because the Hawks are hard tanking.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
