TheNorthCydeRises

Oh of course he's overpaid. The Hawks did what they thought they had to do, to keep us relevant in the Eastern Conference. I think the Hawks could've gotten away with a 5 yr - 95 or 100 million deal ( which is still high ). But they chose not to take any chances and max him out for 6 years. Had we not kept him, he'd be a Knick or a Bull right now. Just keep in mind that had we not retained JJ, we still wouldn't have had the cap space to replace him with a significant player. As for the team that would call for JJ's services as the years progressed, I always thought it would be the LA Lakers. They're the type of franchise that normally doesn't get scared of taking on extra money and even going over the Luxury Tax, if they think that player will help them win a title. Or it may have been another big money team that could care less about the Luxury Tax. And that team just happened to be the Nets.

My position has always been that JJ would be easier to move in Year's 5 and 6 of his deal, in which we may get some tangible players for him. And JJ's deal has NEVER prevented us from getting people ( at least role players ). The ownership here has never gone all out and brought people in here . . specifically using the MLE to bring in people. The mistake they made, was giving people like Marvin, Zaza, and Bibby those extended contracts. At the time, they all looked like fair and reasonable deals. But in the grand scheme of things, we were simply securing our place in the East, and not elevating it. The fact that none of those guys improved ( and even regressed ) was the killer for us. At least guys like JJ, Josh, and Al played at a high level on more nights than not. Those players receiving mid level contracts, were the real killer. The fact that you'd rather have DeMarre over Joe, really isn't relevant, seeing that DeMarre has NEVER in his career been asked to be the #1 or #2 option in an offense. He's never faced a double or triple team to take the ball out of his hands. He's never been asked to be the main facilitator for an offense. That's why he gets paid small level contracts, and JJ got the big bucks. DeMarre's role is more similar to the role Marvin had here. My beef with the JJ trade, is that our GM just took the first deal he could get his hands on. A deal that was virtually a salary dump, with a draft pick. Oh . . . and Bebe is the other "asset" from the JJ trade. I forgot about that.

So far, it was a bad trade. The legacy of this trade will be made if Brooklyn somehow falls into the lottery next year ( this year looks to be out of the question ) . . . we get to swap picks . . . and we land in the top 3 of the 2015 lottery. Otherwise, we've traded JJ for the trade exception which landed us Kyle Korver . . and a bunch of cap space that we haven't used to bring in a significant player.

That's fine. Here's what our missed games list of players looked like in 2011 - 12. This could be due to injuries or a DNP. 2011 - 12 was the strike shortened season of 66 games. Horford - 55 . . ( pectoral tear ) Collins - 33 . . ( mostly DNPs ) Hinrich - 18 . . ( torn labrum in shoulder ) Radmanovic - 17 . . ( mostly DNPs ) Pargo - 16 . . ( appendix ) McGrady - 14 . . ( back - old man stuff - couldn't play in back to back games ) Green - 13 . . ( back and hamstring ) Ivan - 10 . . ( mostly DNPs ) Marvin - 9 . . ( ankle and back ) Zaza - 8 . . ( foot . . . also missed playoffs ) J. Johnson - 6 . . ( knee ) Teague - 0 Smith - 0 And that team still won about 61% of their games, and went into the playoffs depleted at center. Plus Josh got hurt during that series as well. The only way I'd be into "Little League" type cheering for the Hawks this year, is if ALL of our young guys were playing. That way, you could make a legit excuse as to why we lose, and blame it on youth. But when we're getting beat with older players and vets on the floor, that's kind of hard to take. We're healthy, but had to fight to the death to beat Utah . . . . UTAH. Any win is an enjoyable win though. And last night was an enjoyable win. But let's not get it twisted. This year's version of the Hawks would lose in a series every time to those past Hawks teams, no matter how schizophrenic and ISO heavy offensively they were.

You'd lose your money too. Because the one thing those old Hawks teams could do on occasion, was play stellar defense ( especially against mediocre teams ) and score enough to beat people. Even the last JJ team in the strike shortened 2011 - 12 season, was a team that was almost automatic for a win once they scored 92 points. They were a whopping 38 - 4 when they scored 92 or more points. This year's Hawks team have only held an opponent to 92 or less points in only 14 games. People aren't taking into account just how bad defensively this year's Hawks team is. Even with Horford, we were only a mediocre defense at best.

Horford was also hurt in his final year. The people that want to blame Horford's injury for the collapse of this year's team, need to remember that we didn't have him hardly at all during the strike shortened 2011 - 12 season. And we still won the equivalent of 50 games in that season, but lost to Boston ( who reached the EC Finals that season as a 4 seed ) The year after JJ, we win 44 games and are a 6 seed . . that lost to the 3 seed Indiana Pacers. This year, we're tracking to win around 36 games, and be an 8 seed . . that will play either Indiana or Miami, Hopefully we can at least duplicate what the 2008 Hawks did, and push one of those teams to a 7 game series, and not lose in 4 or 5 games. Like it or not, the Joe Johnson trade has only made us better financially, and not on the court. People talk about the potential for the future, and that's fine. But without that right free agent acquisition, the right 1st round pick that can play right away, or the rapid development of one of our young kids, that future improvement may be far, far away . . like 3 or more years away. And that future could be derailed significantly if Millsap leaves after next season, or if Horford leaves in the summer of 2016. That's only 2 years folks. The GM needs to simply upgrade the talent on this roster, to insure that we are right for the future. And he needs to do it fast.

See. Perfectly good explanation for Teague's questionable mental decisions and up and down play. Once he gets those ears cleaned out, he'll be good to go.

It's been proven that with the talent we have now, our system can't consistently win more than 1/2 of our games. We need a significant upgrade on defense. And if that meant that the Hawks don't play as "pretty" on offense, so be it. I just mentioned Lou because those are truly the type of contracts that kill you, and not big money deals to guys who can actually play. As much as JJ was making here, it was actually contracts like Marvin's that was the killer. If Teague doesn't progress in the near future, it could be his contract that is the killer. Here's a thought. Jefferson at 13 million might be UNDERPAID, considering that he can function as a legit #1 type option in an offense, and can rebound the basketball at a very high rate. The issue with his teams has mainly been the talent around him . . not him. He and Millsap WERE the Utah Jazz. Their fans and the organization felt that the team couldn't progress in the future if they retained them. So now you see where Utah is now . . a league laughingstock. But they've positioned themselves to get one of the young studs in the draft, so I guess everything is OK in their eyes.

Because people always said that he was a Tony Parker clone. If we start Dennis ( who is a Rondo clone ), we'll be dealing with the same issue. I guess the Hawks should've just kept Jordan Crawford and played him at the point. At least he's not scared to shoot.

Look at their senior/last years in college. Not really much difference between the two. Morrison was a 50% FG - 43% 3FG shooter . . at 28 ppg McDermott is currently a 52% FG - 45% 3FG shooter . . at 27 ppg They basically have the same strengths as a player and the same weaknesses. The big thing about McDermott will be this . . . do you have to set a ton of screens just to get him open . . or can he create his own shot and still score the basketball? If you have to set those screens, he'll be a Kyle Korver clone. If he can create his own shot, he could possibly be a lot like what Al Harrington used to be. But he's going to get destroyed on defense. And he may get exposed in the NCAA tourney.

That's because our OLD core was a much better defensive and rebounding squad . . . attributes that actually win games on most nights. The offensive system means nothing if it can't produce wins. It's simply what Golden State used to do back in the early - mid 2000s

LOL . . but then again, why take a shot you can't make?

Overrated? LOL. People forget just how good of a college player Morrison was. While his crying at the end of this game is what he'll be remembered for, he pretty much balled for most of this game. UCLA had about 4 or 5 future NBA players in this game, and Morrison was doing his thing up until about 2 minutes left in the game. Gonzaga blew that huge lead and lost it at the end . . which made Morrison cry. I kinda felt sorry for the dude because he deserved to win. But Morrison and McDermott have very similar styles of play on offense. It's the defensive end that will kill McDermott in the NBA.

LOL . . . even the honorable GM is taking shots. Simple, but effective post.

So in conclusion . . . I'd rather overpay a guy who can play at a star or superstar level on occasion . . than to overpay a guy who is supposed to be a solid role player, but plays like the 12th man on the team.

And let's set something straight about "contract" talk. The contracts that handicap teams are bloated contracts( usually at the mid-level ) in which players are not performing up to that level. Actually paying a guy who can ball, is NOT the contract to worry about. It's the contracts in which players are being paid 8 million, but are playing like 2 million dollar players, that are the killers. A contract to worry about is one like Lou Williams, that supposedly can easily be moved. But if he doesn't have any suitors for his services, you're stuck with 5 million in useless money being paid out. Let's see how eager teams are willing to take on Lou this summer, if the GM decides to put him on the trade block. Almost every team has that small ( score first ) guard that they throw out on the floor. So why would a team trade an "asset" for a 5 million dollar small ( score first ) guard? You may find a team desperate for offense that would do it though. But why trade for Lou's 5 million deal, when you can easily sign Nate Robinson for 2 million?

Millsap isn't that good of a defensive player to make this assumption. Jefferson has the better defensive rating and he gives up less points per play than Millsap. Jefferson is not only an elite low post scorer, he's also an elite rebounder. I like Millsap a lot. But he's no Al Jefferson. Millsap has struggled mightily against the Pacers, because he can't handle the combination of David West and Roy Hibbert on the inside. Meanwhile, this is Jefferson against that same Pacers team, just the other night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ1bpOJ9Qg Jefferson alongside Horford would've been a lethal 1 - 2 combo for opponents to deal with. And we would be an even stronger team, because we could play Horford at center with the 2nd unit. But that's water under the bridge now. It's a shame that our GM valued his "system" over actually bringing in players that could win him games.

No he isn't. He's making the same money that Millsap + Brand is making. And Jefferson has the opportunity to opt out after Year 2.

Or the next Adam Morrison. Morrison used to have games just like McDermott is having.

Well if you remember, the Lakers had no PGs at one point. Nash was hurt. Blake was hurt. Farmar wasn't with the team. And Kendall Marshall wasn't with them either. And Kobe played the point that game http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/boxscores/atlanta-hawks-vs-los-angeles-lakers/2013-12-16/14/1 So the stats are accurate. And it will show tomorrow that he lost his matchup vs Chris Paul tonight.

Not truehttp://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/atlanta-hawks/players/jeff-teague/profile/14/1/14

Hayward is a restricted free agent . . . which means we'll have to overpay him to get him. He's a decent all around complimentary player. He was given the opportunity to be "the man" this year in Utah, and hasn't played well in that role. But as the 4th option on a team, he'd be a nice addition.

I say the opposite. I'll say that Bud didn't even think about putting him back in the game after being down 30 in the 4th quarter.

Because we were dang near down 30 and he was ice cold from the field and from 3. As great as the streak was, the streak is NOT as more important than the team. So what was Bud to do? Leave Korver out there until he makes a 3, even if he went 1 - 14 FG and 0 - 9 from 3 before he made a shot? Do we look to Kyle everytime down the floor, just so he can keep the precious streak going? If after 28 minutes of play he hadn't made a 3, and was having a terrible shooting night overall, it was time for the streak to end. It was a great streak.

From the way he came out in the 1st quarter, I thought that might be the game that the streak ended. And sure enough it happened. Very impressive streak from Korver. What made it more impressive is that on most nights, he made a 3 in the 1st quarter. Very seldom did the threat of the streak ending go into the 4th quarter. Ironically, when Dana Barros' 88 game streak ended, he was horrible as well. 2 - 12 FG . . . 0 - 9 3FG. Dana would go on to never even approach that streak ever again, with the best stretch only extending 20 games in a row. Good job Kyle.