This narrative has to stop. That shot bounces out, Philly is still FIFTEEN wins away from hanging a banner.That shot bounces out maybe Philly hangs a banner when KD blows out his achilles.
This narrative has to stop. That shot bounces out, Philly is still FIFTEEN wins away from hanging a banner.That shot bounces out maybe Philly hangs a banner when KD blows out his achilles.
Fake news!This narrative has to stop. That shot bounces out, Philly is still FIFTEEN wins away from hanging a banner.
It has always seemed strange to me that a guy who literally only talked to three times during his last FA and made it seem like a personal torture chamber and already made gazillion dollars in his career would really go to somewhere like ATL just for the money or the years - as it's unlikely that they'll be in serious contention over the next couple of years.From Jared Weiss' latest article in The Athletic:
According to a person familiar with Hayward’s thinking, the 30-year-old former All-Star wants to continue to be a core part of a winning team and would not want to go to Atlanta. Hayward delaying his $34 million player option deadline to Thursday at 5 p.m. ET indicates that he wants more options. This rumor that the Hawks are in play seems like posturing to create a perception of leverage, that Hayward would be happy to join Atlanta either on his current contract or in a new multi-year deal.
They wouldn't. They might make it a S&T if the Celtics gave them a 2nd or something.Why would the hawks trade anything for Gordon? I don't understand, what do they have to gain? Gordon wouldn't want them to give up assets to get him, why not just sign there?
Because if you're the Hawks to get Hayward to sign there outright you're going to have to max him, which means that your entire offseason is signing Hayward and hoping to attract the necessary rolplayers. In a trade for him you get the opportunity to dump Dedmon's contract and open up the cap space for either a second significant signing or, alternatively, the ability to trade for a necessary piece using open cap space.Why would the hawks trade anything for Gordon? I don't understand, what do they have to gain? Gordon wouldn't want them to give up assets to get him, why not just sign there?
That's the point, losing Dedmon and getting commitments from guys that solidify them as a playoff team might be what's necessary to get Hayward to commit there. And losing $13+ million in deadwood to sign other players goes a long way towards convincing Hayward that the Hawks are serious about winning.What if ATL is looking to spend their cap space on other free agents thus they couldn't fit Hayward in at 4/100 or whatever the number is and would need to send back salary.
Looks like they could have up to 49 million if they renounce all their guys. Rumors are Rondo and maybe KCP. But what if they want Gallo too, or Joe Harris, or Bertans.
Just spitballing here
Yeah.... this isn't happening. BOS isn't taking Dedmon, and the Hawks aren't trading anything of value for Hayward to dump Dedmon when they have 55M in cap space already. If there is a S&T to the Hawks (I doubt it) it'll be Gordon and a 2nd for nothing to create a TPE. And the Hawks will still have a TON of cap space.That's the point, losing Dedmon and getting commitments from guys that solidify them as a playoff team might be what's necessary to get Hayward to commit there. And losing $13+ million in deadwood to sign other players goes a long way towards convincing Hayward that the Hawks are serious about winning.
If you've read along you'd know that they would be giving up deadwood, if anything (most likely nothing), and likely getting something like a 2nd round pick from Boston. If the end result is exactly the same, why wouldn't Atlanta maybe dump some contract and add a 2nd rounder? It would "hard cap" them, but that's likely meaningless to them.Why would the hawks trade anything for Gordon? I don't understand, what do they have to gain? Gordon wouldn't want them to give up assets to get him, why not just sign there?
Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up the court for 48 minutes.Fake news!
Philly Keep Embid and Ben togther they are the ultimate duo! It's 1977 build your team around a non shooting point guard and a dominant low post guy.
Also never believe people that say Embid doesn't hustle back on d he does!
Fair, and as I've been skeptical of the ATL rumors, I guess CLE would make similarly little sense, unless there was a third team involved.If Hayward actually wants to be part of a winning team, CLE seems more far-fetched than ATL.
There seem to be competing theories on this board.If Hayward actually wants to be part of a winning team, CLE seems more far-fetched than ATL.
It has been discussed here a shit-ton (imperial, not metric) for quite some time and in twitter rumors over the last week.Has Indiana and Myles Turner been discussed? Is that even a possibility?
I don't think there is any indication that #1 is true, all the reporting from people who might have insight is that he would like a playoff team where he'll start.There seem to be competing theories on this board.
1) He wants to be the man
2) He wants to win
ATL offers neither of those. CLE offers one. Not sure anyone can offer both
I know it's been discussed prior, I didn't know if there was anything recent. Hayward to Indiana has been a thing for the last few years and Turner has been a target for awhile.It has been discussed here a shit-ton (imperial, not metric) for quite some time and in twitter rumors over the last week.
25% of us love the idea, and 75% hate it. Statistics mine.
Hayward isn't good enough to be the man on a team that competes for the title. No slight on him, because he's a fine, fine basketball player. He's just not good enough to do that.There seem to be competing theories on this board.
1) He wants to be the man
2) He wants to win
ATL offers neither of those. CLE offers one. Not sure anyone can offer both
Is he even a 2 on a serious title contender?Hayward isn't good enough to be the man on a team that competes for the title. No slight on him, because he's a fine, fine basketball player. He's just not good enough to do that.
It has come up here in the last week for sure.I know it's been discussed prior, I didn't know if there was anything recent. Hayward to Indiana has been a thing for the last few years and Turner has been a target for awhile.
Seems like a perfect fit for both teams. Don't know why people would hate it for the C's.
He would be if LeBron was the #1. That's how good LeBron really is. Still.Is he even a 2 on a serious title contender?
Maybe the Bucks too. But point stands. He's more of a 3 now unless you happen to have one of the best players in the league.He would be if LeBron was the #1. That's how good LeBron really is. Still.
There is a case that he was our second best player before he broke his hand and if our squad was healthy we could have won the title last year so....maybe.Is he even a 2 on a serious title contender?
I think the main reasons are, in some order, that Turner doesn't do much to solve Bam, Embiid, or Giannis feasting, doesn't set hard picks which is a core tenant of CBS' offensive system, is average from 3, and his salary means taking back another player who fits worse than himself. I think it may come down to how much an individual values shot blocking as a component in a player's defensive value. Hayward is a much better fit, even at the money.Seems like a perfect fit for both teams. Don't know why people would hate it for the C's.
It may also come down to whether you think that Turner is fully baked at 24 and uncoachable.I think the main reasons are, in some order, that Turner doesn't do much to solve Bam, Embiid, or Giannis feasting, doesn't set hard picks which is a core tenant of CBS' offensive system, is average/below average from 3, and his salary means taking back another player who fits worse than himself. I think it may come down to how much an individual values shot blocking as a component in a player's defensive value. Hayward is a much better fit, even at the money.
That's just it - there's a lot of aspects to weigh here. You make a good point that at 24 he's not a completely finished product, and could benefit from the Celtics coaching staff. But there are probably other candidates with other trade scenarios that may yield a more favorable result.It may also come down to whether you think that Turner is fully baked at 24 and uncoachable.
Where would Turner fall on mock draft boards now, even with the 18MM price tag.
If it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or have Hayward leave for nothing?I think the main reasons are, in some order, that Turner doesn't do much to solve Bam, Embiid, or Giannis feasting, doesn't set hard picks which is a core tenant of CBS' offensive system, is average from 3, and his salary means taking back another player who fits worse than himself. I think it may come down to how much an individual values shot blocking as a component in a player's defensive value. Hayward is a much better fit, even at the money.
Turner, but I really doubt those are the options. that would mean Hayward was only willing to go to IND in a trade. And that if he didn't get Indy he'd go to ATL. AND that ATL/Hayward wouldn't agree to a S&T.If it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or have Hayward leave for nothing?
I think we both know the answer to this is clear - we want something. My response was to your assertion that the trade is a perfect fit - which I think is at least arguable.If it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or have Hayward leave for nothing?
Yea this pretty much nails it.I think the main reasons are, in some order, that Turner doesn't do much to solve Bam, Embiid, or Giannis feasting, doesn't set hard picks which is a core tenant of CBS' offensive system, is average from 3, and his salary means taking back another player who fits worse than himself. I think it may come down to how much an individual values shot blocking as a component in a player's defensive value. Hayward is a much better fit, even at the money.
if it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or Victor Oladipo?If it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or have Hayward leave for nothing?
Ha! I really like Zach Lowe but I’m starting to see this guy as more like the Nate Silver of the NBA. His predictions are infotainment only.
If he's fully healthy, Oladipo wouldn't be available anyway I don't think. But him.if it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or Victor Oladipo?
If he‘d been fully healthy, Hayward wouldn’t be available anyway I don’t think.If he's fully healthy, Oladipo wouldn't be available anyway I don't think. But him.
I guess, but I doubt the Pacers would do that even as it stands. I doubt we get that good a player back in return for Hayward.If he‘d been fully healthy, Hayward wouldn’t be available anyway I don’t think.
Jordan likes him and he signed an offer sheet way back when but Utah matched it and he stayed in Utah.And why would Gordon want to play with Charlotte? He miss Terry?
Yeah he's maybe the best active basketball writer and is one of the few who can do a great breakdown of both video and analytics, but when it comes to predicting moves, he's middle of the pack. Not what I look to him for.Ha! I really like Zach Lowe but I’m starting to see this guy as more like the Nate Silver of the NBA. His predictions are infotainment only.
Then the Hawks are certainly welcome to taking on Wiggins contract for a future Golden State first or two and rolling on in hopes that there's no more eastern migration and one day they might make the playoffs.Yeah.... this isn't happening. BOS isn't taking Dedmon, and the Hawks aren't trading anything of value for Hayward to dump Dedmon when they have 55M in cap space already. If there is a S&T to the Hawks (I doubt it) it'll be Gordon and a 2nd for nothing to create a TPE. And the Hawks will still have a TON of cap space.
Honestly I think the Hawks would rather have Dedmon than not. His contract doesn't hurt them this year, and is possible salary matching next year as an expiring
Because Turner is owed a shitload of money and isn't terribly good. He's an MLE player getting $18 million per year. And basically a situational center at that as you need a more nimble player to soak up a lot of the C time if you're stuck with Turner.I know it's been discussed prior, I didn't know if there was anything recent. Hayward to Indiana has been a thing for the last few years and Turner has been a target for awhile.
Seems like a perfect fit for both teams. Don't know why people would hate it for the C's.
Pritchard insists on being seen as winning trades by a large margin. So I'm pretty sure his offer is "You take our cap crap and we'll take Gordon". In a vacuum I'd rather that Hayward leave than Boston be forced to make hard tax choices because they're stuck with Turner's and Lamb's contracts and no draft picks (aside from their own) to dump the contracts into other teams' cap space.I guess, but I doubt the Pacers would do that even as it stands. I doubt we get that good a player back in return for Hayward.
It's not Turner or nothing, it's Turner plus his contract or nothing.If it came down to it, would you rather have Myles Turner or have Hayward leave for nothing?
Sounds like to me that nothing is really happening and someone is trying to drum up something.