TheNorthCydeRises

Dieselnumerology at its finest. Clippers won 56 games. Hawks won 44 games. . . . . . . 56 - 44 = 12 Number of letters in the name Philips Arena . . . . . 12 Number of maximum roster spots open on the Hawks . . . . 12 Reminds me of Sesame Street http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZshZp-cxKg

Yeah right It's a shame that this 2010 Hawks team crashed and burned vs Orlando, because they were really a joy to watch that year. Watching that team win 34 home games that year was a true delight. Too bad they couldn't figure out how to even compete against Dwight and the Magic, because they basically beat everyone else ( except OKC ) that year. If you think watching scrub basketball is better than watching this kind of basketball, I don't know what to say.

You're still trying to keep Horford in your "tank scenario". No such thing as "halfway tanking". Just overpay a bunch of people. Give Kyle and Zaza 10 million. Give Mack 5 million. Bring in Jason Collins and give him 6 million. Call back Royal Ivey and Damien Wilkins, and give them 7 million. Give them all 1 year contracts at 2 year contract prices. Then you can have the most ping pong balls, and the most cap room. That's what you want, right? Tank it all the way. Why not go all out for that 25% chance to get that #1 pick, when Horford could mess it all up, and drop down down to 5% ( because other bad teams would be in full tank mode as well ). The good thing is that the team with the worst record ( despite the 25% probability ) hardly ever gets that #1 pick. Since 1994 ( 20 draft lotteries ), the team with the worst record has gotten that #1 pick only twice ( in 2003 and 2004 ). The team with the 3rd worst record has gotten the #1 pick the most . . . 6 times out of 20.

That's as real as you can get. Plus Kobe has always said that he's going to talk to him last, after he's made his rounds to the teams that want him. It'll be interesting to see if we're even on the "Dwight World Tour" list. Should've done that last season, by trading Josh to them for #13 and Marion. But teams know that they can get Josh by just paying outright for him, instead of giving up assets.

All-Tank team PG - DJ Augustin G - Kyle Korver F - Gerald Green PF - Tyrus Thomas ( Horford traded to Charlotte for him and a draft pick ) C - Zaza Pachulia There you go. There's your tank squad right there. We'd still have everyone's favorite Hawks on the team, along with guys who can't defend, and a young exciting dunker.

1) Trading JJ, and not using that cap space to bring in a significant player, or a group of players that can help you now, is indeed failure, and may as well equal tanking. And Al Horford isn't just going to sit back and lose for everybody, just because they want the Hawks to get a lottery pick. We went 4 - 0 without Josh Smith in the lineup, seeing Teague and Horford leading the team, and having role players like Ivan stepping up big time. That 4 - 0 would mean little, except we took out 4 playoff teams. So if the Hawks want to be bad next year, it is in their best interest to trade away Horford for guys like Tyrus Thomas or somebody. 2) The Lakers were dang near in panic mode. That's a team that cares less about how much they're paying people, and more about how much they're winning. Even if that meant rolling with a 100 million payroll with Kobe, Dwight, and JJ taking up over 70 million, they'd do whatever it took to put a winner on the floor. Especially now, with the Clippers vying for dollars in their market . . and getting a nice chunk of it. And you're talking about Mike D'Antoni here. A guy who flat out missued Gasol until the team itself basically started to play the way THEY wanted to play. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/8867466/pau-gasol-los-angeles-lakers-come-bench Quote from D'Antoni: "We got to go small," D'Antoni said before the Lakers played the Chicago Bulls on Monday. "That's just the way it is. It's after he had a great game -- it's not him. I talked to him about it and he understands where we have to go and we got to do it. "He's going to come in off the bench at the five primarily and if we can sneak some minutes in with (Gasol and Dwight Howard) both together, good. If we can't, we can't. But, we just have to do that as a team." That was a dude that had no clue whatsoever how to use both Gasol and Howard together. His solution was to do like what people say Lebron and Wade should do . . play significant chunks of the game without the other on the floor . . so they can maximize the talents of each player. D'Antoni basically benched Gasol for Earl Clark, a guy who could spread the floor with his 50% eFG ( err . . . 33% 3FG shooting ), just so that he could go small, and run his run and gun offense. Gasol quote in that article: "I've never come off the bench in my career," said Gasol last week, who started his first 345 games as a Laker and 816 of 823 games in his 12-year career coming into Monday. "(The Miami loss) was my first game off the bench with the Lakers, maybe a couple other games due to injuries, but that's it. I've been a starter my entire career. I've been a star starter my entire career, so I want to continue to be a star starter." More of D'Antoni: "Right now, we're better when we're small," D'Antoni said. "So, it's hard during a game to say, 'OK, now we're better when we're big.' It's hard to do that. You have to have an identity. We got to create the identity and we have to be able to play that way and there will be ebbs and flows of the game ... "There will be times out there that we lose and we get beat because we don't have enough height, but you can't keep going back and forth and guessing and hoping. We are going to be who we are and we're going to play a certain way and I hope that's good enough." So say we kept JJ, and he was as efficient around his old teammates like back in 2011 - 12, than he was around his new teammates in Brooklyn in 2012 - 13. Sund calls Kupchak and says . . "Hey, I hear you're having chemistry problems. Your coach wants to go small and play faster, and we need a guy who can play center, to free up Horford to play more power forward. How about doing a 1 for 1 swap? JJ for Pau." Atlanta PG - Teague G - Harris F - Smith PF - Horford C - Gasol LA Lakers PG - Nash G - Kobe F - Johnson PF - Clark ( who put up a few double-doubles when Howard and/or Gasol were out, gaining the trust of D'Antoni ) C - Howard Considering that the two players the Laker fans would like to get rid of most is Gasol and Artest, whose to say that the Lakers wouldn't have considered that JJ for Pau swap . . . especially since his old coach would probably pee on himself if he thought he could re-unite JJ and Nash, play them with Kobe and Nash, and have that beloved small lineup that he loves. I know . . too far fetched huh? Not as far fetched as the pipe dream of getting Howard and Paul in a Hawks uniform. 3) I'm not moving anything when it comes to Zaza and Kyle. Their contracts will be "small" when it comes to what we'd have to pay for Jefferson and Iggy, even if we did overpay Zaza and Kyle. And about 1/2 of this fan base would rather roll with them, than to bring in two very good players like Jefferson and Iggy, and act like whatever weaknesses they have as players, far outweigh their strengths. Jefferson is a top 25 - 30 player in the league, and Iguodala is one of the most versatile and probably the premiere perimeter defender in the league. In a conference in which we need post scoring to put pressure on Hibbert, Lopez, and Noah . . . and someone to slow down the likes of Lebron, Carmelo, George, and even Derrick Rose . . . I have no problem rolling with Jefferson and Iggy, and team them up with Horford, for the next 3 years or so. If you want to tank, definitely bring back Kyle and Zaza.

LOL @ people really dogging Al Jefferson . . . when he's one of the best post scorers in the game today. The reason why those Utah teams haven't done much but be barely in, or right outside of the playoffs, is because their guards SUCK. Their frontline of Jefferson and Millsap, is actually the strength of their team, not the weakness. I don't know why some of you are acting like this dude is some sort of scrub or cancer. He's easily a top 30 player in this league. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOy5oaxHdw You team him up with another top 30 player, and that team is NOT going to the lottery. That's why if you're going to "tank", you BETTER get rid of Horford, and construct a team full of D-Leauge guys. May have to even opt not to re-sign Ivan or Mike Scott. Trade Jenkins too while you're at it. Get the most inefficient team you possibly can here . . then miss out on the #1 pick and Wiggins . . then wonder why we can't get even mediocre free agents to come here, just like they won't go to Charlotte or Sacramento.

That still doesn't explain why we couldn't do it. Your answer explains how teams can create more room under the cap, by renouncing the exceptions. But I am wrong, because of this in the CBA ( not what you cited ) 26. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions? If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap1. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 38). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents. So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players. Basically what the league does, is add 10.5 million to everybody under the salary cap. So if they want the maximium cap space, they'll have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exception, in order to get that space. In the case of the Hawks, even if we renounce everybody right now, instead of 31 million ( if we kept the Bird Rights to Teague and Ivan ), we'd actually be at 42 million, with only 16 million to sign free agents. That's why we'd have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exemption. We don't HAVE to do it. But to get that maximum cap space, we would. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong. But you just saying I'm wrong, without any evidence, wasn't going to fly.

Or since you know the CBA better than most of us, you explain why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE in that scenario that I gave.

So say we're at 51 million dollars, with Jeff Teague and Ivan Johnson left to sign. We sign Teague to a deal, at 7 mill per year, taking us to 58 million, and sign Ivan to a 2 million a year deal, taking us to 60 million, and over the salary cap. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong . . . but please explain to me why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE at that point. If you can, please cite a link to back up why you're right.

We have an MLE right now . . room level, which is 2.5 mill. When we go over the cap with one of our own signings, we'll have non-taxpayer exception, starting at 5.15 mill. Like I said, it all depends on what order we sign our contracts. Any free agent that we own the Bird Rights to, we can go over the salary cap to re-sign them. Once that happens, we can use the non-taxpayer MLE to get Dalembert. Of course Daly could still have better options, but that's what I'm offering him for one year, to be our backup center. Any team like ours is going to have to overpay a little, just to get them to play here. It's always been like that. If it's just for one year, that's OK. Your plan is to sell off everybody, and play Russian Roulette with the hope that you'll hit a jackpot within 5 years. Well, start by selling Al Horford right now then, because he's just not going to play at 1/2 speed, lower his potential stock when he comes up for free agency in 2 years, just for us to be bad enough to get a 10% chance at the top pick.

If we don't get him, we might not even be mediocre. We'll be "the lowly Hawks". Remember those days? I used to hate how ESPN would always describe us as "the lowly Hawks." You guys may want to go back to that, but I don't. I'd rather take a chance to see if Jefferson and Horford could become one of the best frontlines in the league, seeing that both guys are entering their prime years as players.

We can sign every single one of those contracts. It simply depends when we sign each player and in what order. If we wait to re-sign one of our own players to put us over the salary cap, we can then use the MLE on Dalembert. Dwight hasn't said one time that he'd like to come here and play. Not one. So I never believed for one second that we had a shot at him. If you want to run with the Ellis - Dwight duo, and how he'd like to play with him in Atlanta, go right ahead. It's time this fan base starts looking at realistic options. Either grab some people who will help us be better than what we were last year, or sell off Al Horford, be the Kings, and hope and pray that God bestows a miracle upon us by giving us the #1 pick and Wiggins on a silver platter.

Because the NBA is fixed. At least that's what people believe. So if it's fixed, how are we going to get a top lottery pick in a year in which there might be 2 Hall of Fame players in that draft? @ Leadership . . . You don't need a rim protector to be good defensively in this league ( even though I got you one in Dalembert . . 2.5 BLKS per 36 minutes . . tied 10th in the NBA . . and better than Josh Smith last year ). @ Sothron . . . so who is running the point then? Ellis? Mack? Jennings? Larkin? Who is your point guard?

It's either that, and hope the team gels enough to become a top 10 offensive and defensive team . . . or end up like the Sacramento Kings. You pick.

Math: Teague - 7 mill Jenkins - 1.3 mill Iggy - 12.5 mill Horford - 12 mill Jefferson - 11.1 mill Lou - 5.2 mill Ivan - 1.8 mill Scott - 0.8 mill Mack - 0.9 mill Dalembert - 5.2 mill Barnes - 2.5 mill 1st round - 1.4 mill 1st round - 1.3 mill Total payroll: around 63 mill for 13 players

PG - Teague ( 4 yrs - 28 million . . player option year 3, team option year 4 ) . . . flat 7 mill per year G - Jenkins F - Iggy ( 4 yrs - 44 million . . player option year 3 ) . . start at around 12.5 million, descending in value yearly PF - Horford C - Jefferson ( 4 yrs - 52 million . . . player option year 4 ) . . start at a little over 11 million, ascending yearly G - Williams Re-sign Ivan Pick up Scott option Pick up Mack option Sign Dalembert ( 1 yr - Full MLE . . once we sign an existing player ( Teague, Ivan, etc ) to put us over the Salary Cap Sign Barnes ( 2 yrs - 5 million . . team option yr 2 ) 2 first round picks ( draft a wing shooter with one of the picks, preferably Muhammad or Hardaway Jr. ) Let's roll.

LOL . . . what happens if we find out that it was actually Coach Bud's idea to take Duncan and Parker out of the game during those times, and that Pop was trusting Bud's "analytical mind" over common sense situation?

What impressed me about him during this playoff run, is how he constantly came to the defense of Wade, even deferring to him some games, just to get him going. Lebron is cool in my book. He's been hyped since his sophomore year in high school, and has pretty much done everything that people thought he could do. I'm just glad that he finally started taking that midrange jumper that the Spurs were literally begging him to take. That free throw line extended jumper is a shot that is made around 45% of the time. So if you're a perimeter player, and a team is giving you that 17 foot shot around the FT line, and you can't make it or are afraid to take it, you honestly need to get off the court.

Exactly. The people tossing vomit on Lebron, would welcome him to the Hawks in a HEARTBEAT, if he said he wanted to come to Atlanta. And if they wouldn't, they really don't want to win. Lebron does what he has to do to win games. And I'm not mad at him for doing so.

Chicago . . . if Rose is healthy.

Good post. LOL @ that 1998 draft 1) Michael Olowokandi - LA Clippers 2) Mike Bibby - Vancouver 3) Raef LaFrentz - Denver 4) Antwan Jamison - Toronto 5) Vince Carter - Golden St ( who then swapped picks ) 6) Robert "Tractor" Traylor - Dallas 7) Jason Williams "White Chocolate" - Sacramento 8) Larry Hughes - Philadelphia 9) Dirk Nowitzki - Milwaukee 10 ) Paul Pierce - Boston 11) Bonzi Wells - Detroit 12) Michael Doleac - Orlando 13) Keon Clark - Orlando Two Hall of Fame players ( Dirk and Pierce ), one guy who SHOULD get into the Hall of Fame ( Carter ), and 3 flat out busts drafted in the top 6 ( Kandiman, LaFrentz, and Traylor ) Peoria . . . if it makes you feel better, Al Horford can be added to this list, if we add the right talent around him, and he plays well enough in an NBA Final to win an MVP award. The real question with Al is can he still be a highly efficient scorer, if we increased his usage to at least #1 scoring option level ( 26% usage and over ). While I don't think he can become a 25 ppg scorer who can carry his team, I do think he can become a 20 - 22 ppg scorer who could be very capable of doing at least what JJ did for us on a nightly basis, but shoot 50+% FG in the process. Scoring wise, I believe Horford could become LaMarcus Aldridge . . a guy who can get you 21 ppg and shoot 50%. Unlike LA though, I believe Horford could also become a 10 - 12 rebound per game guy and play better defense. With no Josh Smith here, Horford could really break out as a player, and play at a legit All-Star level. I've always described those two as being the equivalent of what Golden St had in Curry and Ellis. One of them had to go, in order for the other to get better and reach his maximum potential. That's not to say that Horford will become a superstar like Curry did, but he will be a better player without Smith . . . if the right complimentary pieces are put around him, just like they did with Curry. So here's the question. Can we put the right type of people around Horford, who can help him get this team to the next level? Most people in this thread do not believe that Horford could be the lead guy. The issue then becomes if the Hawks can find 2 or 3 other guys who are capable of picking up the scoring, rebounding or defensive slack, to lead the team. The common element in AHF's list, is that those Finals MVPs are going to be in the Hall of Fame. It's not enough to say that they were lottery picks. Those guys are Hall of Fame players, or going to be in the Hall. So if we are to win a title, we probably either need to develop, or acquire a Hall of Fame guy. And then we need to find All-Star caliber players to put around those guys to compliment them, or even take the lead role. That's why you basically go all out to get Howard and/or Paul. Those are two potential Hall of Fame guys. If you can't get them, you bring in All-Star caliber talent to help him out. Or you sell Horford off for a high draft pick, and go to the bottom, and hope you'll be able to identify a player who is a Hall of Fame caliber player in the draft.

Speaking of Hollinger . . he absolutely LOVED Josh Childress, and what he brought to the table as a player. He loved him so much, that when we lost him, he picked us to finish DEAD LAST in the East. Under his PER statistic, Chill had high value. But for the people like us who watched Chill on a nightly basis, knew that he got points by sometimes "cherry picking" on fast breaks, or simply putting back offensive rebounds. He couldn't create his own shot off the dribble, unless he took the ball all the way to the hole. He couldn't shoot over people, because of his low trajectory on his shot ( ala Jeff Teague ). And his defense was less to be desired. That's how "metrics" can fool people about a player, if they really don't watch how he plays. If you ask me who I'm going to trust about basketball players . . Hollinger or Magic . . . I'm taking Magic every single time.

Well I could care less if he was making the league minimum. I'm talking about his on the court value. His ability to affect the outcome of games on a nightly basis. It's always great to see him knock down 2 or 3 threes in a row, and maybe spark a run. But because that's just about ALL he can do, he spends a great deal of a game simply being a "threat", rather than a "weapon". The guys that have true value in this league, are not only "threats", they are "weapons". Most people hate Nate Robinson and the way he plays. But he had much more value to the Bulls this year, than Korver had last year on the Bulls. The fact that he can elevate his game to be a big time weapon at times, even a superstar like weapon, puts him over a guy like Korver, who only shows that superstar-like shooting ability maybe 15% - 20% of the time. And when I say that, I'm talking about games in which he'll take over a game in a short stretch with his 3 point or mid range shooting.

Well Magic was dead on with his analysis bout the NBA Finals. Everything he said was right on point, right down to Lebron having to "score" more, instead of just trying to get everyone involved. Magic, on most nights, knows what the hell he is talking about. Wilborn is simply a homer. He's the opinion that you should shun, not Magic's.