TheNorthCydeRises

If we make a bad deal, this is exactly right.

No it didn't cripple us. Babcock rebuilt the team quite nicely after the Nique trade and Manning leaving. That 56 win team in 1997 could very well be a 60+ win team in today's NBA. But they not only had to battle Chicago, they had to deal with Miami and the NY Knicks as well. The Hawks proved that they could replace JJ and Smith with a decent committee of players. The same can be done with Horford. I love Horford as a player. But he's not untouchable. And a good front office that knows how to construct a team, can fill a void left by him. It's been done plenty of times in this league.

Case in point, the failed Nique/Manning trade. That fiasco could've crippled the Hawks for years. But it didn't. Despite the Pete Babcock led front office not being good at finding mid 1st round talent in the draft, they were actually good with trading and finding/signing free agents. 1994: traded Kevin Willis + 1st round pick, for Steve Smith + Grant Long. This was the Hawks completely dismantling their longtime Nique/Willis frontline, and going with a backcourt led team of Mookie/Smitty 1996: traded for Christian Laettner ( gave them Spud Webb and Andrew Lang ), which was essentially taking advantage of the Twolves friction between Laettner, Garnett ( who was a rookie ) and Flip Saunders (RIP). Laettner was a high lottery pick that was good, but not a superstar franchise changing talent. 1996: signed free agent Dikembe Mutombo. This was the Hawks taking advantage of the rising NBA salary cap, combined with Denver not being able to ( or wanting to ) clear room to sign Dikembe. The Hawks did though, by trading Grant Long and Stacey Augmon. So in three years, the Hawks went from a core of Nique - Willis - Blaylock - Augmon in 1994 ... to a core of Smith - Dikembe - Blaylock - Laettner in 1997. The 1994 team won 57 games and got the #1 seed in the East ( post-Jordan retirement ) The 1997 team won 56 games but were only the #4 seed in the East. They were one of the best Hawks teams of all time, but lost to the 2nd best team in NBA history ( Chicago ) in the 2nd round. The Smitty - Mookie - Dikembe trio had 3 high quality seasons together, but couldn't get past the better teams in the East. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what you do. Without the super elite talent, you're simply better off just trying to do what you can to win and keep hope alive, rather than chasing lottery ghosts year after year.

The pros/cons of all 3 need to be weighed. 1) Paying Horford Hawks need to decide on a number they want to pay Horford, and stick with it. That number doesn't have to be the max, but probably more than Millsap, due to the cap going up significantly the next 2 years. Some have suggested a shorter 3 yr deal for more money, which might be the way to go. 2) Letting Horford Walk One of the things not being talked about enough, is simply letting Horford walk, if the asking price is too high. If that's the case, the Hawks will have enough cap space to add 2 or more quality veteran players. This may very well be a better option than maxing him out or making a bad or forced trade. 3) Making a Trade This is option talked about the most. If a trade can be made that helps the Hawks, that's great. If it's a trade just to say that you got something back, that's probably not good. The most important thing is that the Hawks shouldn't feel pressured to do anything they don't want to do. This is not a life and death, or franchise changing decision that will be made here, unless it's a total dismantling of the team. Horford is a player that should be coveted and treated like he's an integral part of the team. And in my opinion, it's always better to keep talent, than to give it aways for pennies on the dollar. But if you decide to part ways with him, the Hawks better make sure that they can be savvy enough to add the type of pieces that makes the team even better.

To me, this is Dominique/Manning in 1994 all over again. Hawks didn't think they could afford Nique's impending contract, so they traded him for a younger and supposedly better player in Danny Manning. But instead of testing to see what the market would actually pay for Nique, they trusted that they could throw big money at Manning and keep him. Nique ended up getting about 55% of what was projected. ( 3yr/11 mill ... instead of 3yr/21 mill ) Compare that to the JJ situation. With Joe Johnson, they didn't even let JJ hit the market, and just maxed him out. Hawks options were very limited in that situation, because we didn't have the cap room to replace him. So they felt they HAD to overpay to keep him. This isn't necessarily the situation with Horford. Matter of fact, let me start a new thread.

You don't make trades, just to make them. There has to be a purpose behind them.

If any trade we do doesn't improve that lineup now, or next year, that's fine with me.

It really is. Look at all of the bad drafts we've had in recen years. While it definitely helps to have a top 3 pick, that guaranttes nothing, unless he is special from Day 1. And even then, you need enough guys who can actually ball, to be around him and compliment his skill set. I've wavered over the years about how NBA teams should approach the draft ... for need ... or for talent. I now think they should ALWAYS draft for talent, and address needs via free agency and trades. Because unless you have a legit superstar on your team, you should be drafting the guy who has the most potential out of the rest of the field, to become a superstar ... even if that means drafting a position you're already solid at. But some drafts are just weak as hell, so it doesn't matter where you pick, even #1. That's why the "blow it up" theory, is flawed. You almost have to time a "blow up", when you potentially have one or morw potential Hall of Fame players in the draft.

Only could stand watching a few minutes of it. A way to spice it up a little, would be to experiment with different rule changes within the game. - designate last 3 minutes of 1st and 3rd quarters as a "power play" situation. Have a team go 5 on 4 for 90 seconds, then 4 on 4 for 90 seconds. Switch it up in the 3rd quarter. - 4 point line ( shots from 30+ ft ). This would definitely add a different excitement level to that game. And only a select few players make the shot. - allow goaltending once a shot hits the rim during certain periods of the game. ( maybe during the power play part of the game ) - Player challenges in which fans are rewarded with prizes.

Here's the main problem with this discussion. HOW do you get a superstar to the Hawks? Cap Space? Well, we've had plenty of instances in which we've had the cap space to sign a superstar player, and they just blew us off. Some of those guys have even opted to go to worst teams ( looking at you Dwight Howard ). Dwight Howard left his original team, in which he'd made the NBA Finals and EC Finals. He hasn't been out of the 1st round since, despite being surrounded around very talented players. Other talented superstars have either deemed Atlanta to not have good enough complimentary pieces for them to win championship, or just didn't want to play here more than they wanted to play somewhere else. Draft one? That's much easier said than done. If it were simply about blowing it up and drafting a superstar, these teams wouldn't be in futility. - Sacramento: No playoff appearances or winning records since 2006, despite having multiple top 10 lottery picks. Demarcus Cousins may very well be a Hall of Fame talent ... or he may be the center version of Mitch Richmond ( a great player who couldn't win by himself ). - Minnesota: No playoff appearances since their WC Finals run in 2004, the longest drought in the league. They have multiple top 10 lottery picks on the roster. They even had a "superstar" in Kevin Love. The result? NOTHING. Detroit: No playoff appearances since 2010. The Detroit championship core players either aged or were traded off for other players. They have multiple draft picks and nice players, and have finally gotten back to .500 level basketball. Philadelphia: Currently doing the ultimate experiment in tanking for a top 3 pick. After posting 3 of the worst NBA teams in recent memory, the organization may now go in a different direction, just to get back to putting a mediocre product on the floor. Cleveland: This is a team that should be in their 6th year of futility. But because their former Hall of Fame player wanted to come back "home", he instantly elevated them from worst to first. Multiple high draft picks weren't helping their situation, until Lebron's arrival. Trade for one? Chris Paul trade should've been to the Lakers, which "theoretically" would've kept them in title contention. Instead, he goes to the Clippers, and hasn't even gone to the WC Finals, despite being teamed with 2 other All-Stars. Matter of fact, when you look at the trades that have put teams over the top, they all involve teaming All-Star caliber players with Hall of Fame caliber guys. The Clippers model SHOULD work, but hasn't. Why? Because they're going up against stronger defensive teams that have just as much, if not more "star power". Ironically, they look like a better team WITHOUT their electric dunking superstar, than they did with him. But will that translate into playoff success? We'll see. Reality Check The last 10 NBA Champions since the 2005 - 2006 season have been: Miami (3) ... San Antonio (2) ... LA Lakers (2) ... Boston (1) ... Dallas (1) ... Golden State (1) Now, let's look at NBA Finals appearances during that time period San Antonio (4) ... Miami (4) ... LA Lakers (3) ... Dallas (2) ... Boston (2) ... Cleveland (2) ... Orlando (1) ... Oklahoma City (1) ... Golden State (1) And the final thing to look at is number of NBA Finals appearances by guys considered to be superstars and leaders of their teams. Lebron (6) ... Wade (5) ... Duncan (4) ... Kobe (3) ... Pierce/Garnett (2) ... Dirk (2) If you combine Lebron/Wade 4 appearances together, plus add Lebron's 2 solo Finals appearances, 17 of the 20 possible team slots for the NBA Finals in the last 10 years, have involved those 7 players. Dwight Howard, Steph Curry, and Durant/Westbrook make up the other 3 spots. So how do you guys propose the Hawks get a superstar AND win? Draft one? Pay for one? Trade for one? If it were easy to win, more teams would do it. You have to acquire the right players, at the right time, and hope the chemistry is also right. You may also have to possibly take advantage of a talent deficiency in a great team, due to injury or lack of developed personnel, or just age. I loved Dominique as a player. But despite his superstardom and popularity in ATL, we didn't win jack sh*t with Nique. Why? Because teams like Boston, Detroit, and Chicago had more talent. So should the Hawks have said, forget it ... we're going trade Nique and tank, and rebuild the whole thing?

Mr Elite with the 3 at the buzzer to end the 3rd. Show em how it's done Al.

For Memphis, it's finding a wing who can fill it up, plus knock down 3s. If you replaced Randolph with Blake Griffin, Memphis still stays where they are. Like us, they could desperately use a Carmelo Anthony like scorer.

Ivan is still my favorite Hawks scrub of all time. I'll never forget the game in which he took it right to Chris Bosh on TNT. Even had Barkley and Reggie Miller gushing over him. 2012 Ivan would be good in Bud's system. 2016 Ivan seems destined for a Vietnamese rec league.

Congrats to Mr Elite. Let those 3s fly at the ASG. 14 pts ( 4 - 5 3fg ) - 3 rebs

Great point. And when we had the chance to get either Rodney Hood or the point forward Kyle Anderson, the front office opted for Adreian Payne ( despite having the "great" Pero Antić on the squad.

And if we do, the Hawks may go through another 7 year period of not making the playoffs. And after that 7 year drought, a team like this one will be celebrated as an "up and coming" squad, instead of a team that still has little shot at winning anything.

That's why they got "blowed out". Nique should've punched Benny the Bull in both eyes.

Wrong. The teams that want him ( notably rebuildung or lower level playoff teams ) may not have the cap space to sign him in the summer. So they'll make a deal for him now, to gain his Bird Rights. And let me be crystal clear. We're not getting a STAR player by trading Horford straight up for someone. It'll have to be Horford + Teague = STAR. - Blake Griffin - Carmelo Anthony - Demarcus Cousins That's what I want Horford dealt for. Not for a few good complimentary pieces. We're already a team full of complimentary pieces. We need an ENGINE, not spare parts.

There's no incentive for a team to trade for JJ, seeing that this is his final year of the deal, and there's a possibility that he may be bought out.

People REALLY underalue Horford. We're better of letting him walk in the summer, than to make some of these non-impact type deals. Any trade involving Horford MUST bring back a legitimate star talent back to ATL.

That's a poor deduction. Lance went to Charlotte thinking he was going to be a star. There would be no misunderstanding what his role here would be. He'd be a good fit here, because he's an unselfish player. Plus he's willing to crash the glass and "steal" rebounds.

And if we trade with the Knicks, you get the STAR, not a bunch of scrubs. Any trade with them MUST include Melo.

Trade for a guard/forward that can rebound and be a playmaker. 2 years ago, that guy was Lance Stevenson. The experiment in Charlotte failed miserably, because his shot was off. With the Clippers, his role has been reduced, but he's playing better. This year .... 48% FG ... 38% 3FG Call up Doc, and ask him if he needs a big. Splitter for Lance ... straight up.

Contender for what? A championship? Of course not ( unless major people get hurt ) But a contender to get to the EC Finals? Absolutely. Remember, this is the East.

Move it to Nashville. Ya'll can have the Predators ( NHL ), while we get the NBA team in Tennessee.