TheNorthCydeRises

6th man? NO. As the 3rd PG . . definitely. I have no problem putting AI out on the court at the beginning of the 2nd quarter to spell Teague and play him in the backcourt with Hinrich. Give him 5 - 7 minutes and see if he can make something happen. If he plays well, give him minutes again in the 4th. If not, just keep him on the bench. One thing about it though, Allen Iverson in a Hawks uniform is a box office draw . . even in a limited role. We could do far worse than give him the league minimum, and play him in an Eddie House like role. There will be a few games in which AI has it going, and that's when you extend his minutes. As long as he KNOWS that he has no chance in displacing Teague ( unless Teague dramatically regresses ), then I'm cool with Iverson on the Hawks. And you're right. This team may miss Jamal's scoring punch at times, especially if Teague isn't the same guy that we saw in the Chicago series. Hopefully, a guy like Iverson would finally accept his role as a veteran mentor, and teach Teague how to become an effective scorer. Possible rotation minutes PG - Teague ( 28 ) - Hinrich ( 10 ) - Iverson ( 10 ) G - Johnson ( 22 ) - Hinrich ( 16 ) - Damien ( 10 ) F - Marvin ( 30 ) - Johnson ( 14 ) - Smith ( 4 ) PF - Smith ( 32 ) - Horford ( 16 ) C - Horford ( 20 ) - Zaza ( 20 ) - free agent C ( 8 ) Johnson ( 36 ) Smith ( 36 ) Horford ( 36 ) Marvin ( 30 ) Teague ( 28 ) Hinrich ( 26 ) Zaza ( 20 ) Damien ( 10 ) Iverson ( 10 ) free agent C ( 8 ) Now if Hinrich goes down . . . then we'd have no choice. Teague's minutes would have to increase, as well as Iverson's

As much as I've talked about dude over the years ( even before he came to Atlanta ), this was pretty dramatic. I was at that game, and the entire final 2 minutes was as dramatic of a Hawks game as I've ever seen. But as dramatic as that was, I'll never forget this game. This was the game that truly legitimized the Hawks as an up and coming team. And the performance by the captain is the 2nd best playoff performance in ATL history, maybe even the best, since we won the game.

How about telling these dumb owners to STOP DRAFTING young kids who don't have "superstar" written all over them? Raising the age limit is just another thing that keeps owners from making mistakes, because the scouting department can't properly evaluate talent. Punish the kids that think they're ready at age 18 or 19, simply because owners and GMs are too dumb to pass a few of these kids up who DEFINITELY aren't ready. That's why I can't side with the owners in this whole charade. They want an "idiot proof" system that guarantees them profits and erases each and every mistake they make, at the expense of the players. People talk about how these owners have a right to make a profit, well how about a kid having the right to enter the NBA draft? These GM's see a young guy with "potential", and just can't help themselves. Honestly, there's no way I'm drafting an 18 or 19 year old kid, unless I believe that he can be a star within 2 years. We were all duped in 2005, because scouts were selling Marvin as "James Worthy with a jumpshot", even though Marvin never got a chance to be "the man" in college. We made that same mistake with Demarr Johnson. Guys like Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans, and Kevin Durant should NOT be punished, just because these idiot basketball minds draft a kid who had no chance into developing into a NBA star.

LOL . . if the NBA voided contracts, that would make all of these guys free agents. And the big market teams would SALIVATE on assembling a team exactly like what you have in Miami. And guess who will be left out? You guessed it. The small market teams. I would almost bet that the Big 3 in MIA would ALL re-sign and go back to Miami. Then you'd see Chris Paul, Amare, and Melo take slightly less money to play in NYC. Then you'd see Boston try to make a MAJOR power move for Dwight Howard, possibly teaming him up with Pierce and Rondo. And i could see KG playing for the league minimum for that squad. Kobe would take less money for the Lakers to secure a few more pieces. They'd keep either Gasol or Bynum ( not both ), and go right after a guy like Joe Johnson to be that extra perimeter threat. And with LA being an instant draw for free agents, they may be able to get a guy like Steve Nash, who would be desperate to win a title in his final years. Mark Cuban would be diabolical, by keeping Dirk, but adding a Kevin Durant or Russell Westbrook to run with him. These same owners who want all of these system issues, would be trying to find loopholes out the a**, trying to field their "SuperTeam', And unfortunately, Atlanta would be left with 3rd tier guys like a Josh Smith or a James Harden to choose from. NO matter how many people want to deny it, Diesel is right. Major Free agents have traditionally not want to come here, for whatever reason. I could easily see the ASG overpay to retain Smith or even Jamal Crawford, if all contracts were voided. And the small market teams would be left out in the cold . . . again . . . but even worse if they did this. What major free agent is going to sign with the Michael Jordan run Charlotte Bobcats, when he was one of the hardliners in this lockout? The same goes for Dan Gilbert in Cleveland. Those franchises will be forced to overpay for mid-level talent, and still end up sucking.

(( clapping )) . . . very good lol @ Psycho, I’m liable to go Mark . . . Take your pick, McGuire, Morrison, Cuban, Game 6

if you could get a credible entity to put it together, this might actually be a marketable concept to put forth in the absence of the NBA. Or at the very least, it would be an interesting summer type league. Create a league based on ballers who were either born or played college or pro ball in a particular city/area . . . and have them play other teams from other cities . . for money . . BIG MONEY. Take the ATL vs Seattle concept that was going to occur. Would those guys pulled out of that game if they were playing for a pot of say $200,000? With the winner getting $150,000 to split and the loser getting $50,000 to split? Could a concept like that, if marketed correctly, draw 10,000 people a game . . if tickets were say an average of $30 apiece? Would the average basketball fan pay to see games such as these? It may not have the intensity of an NBA game, but it would be a lot more intense than a regular exhibition type game. And the end of games would be highly intense, if it came down to those players splitting $150,000 compared to $50,000. Possible teams: TEAM ATLANTA: Teague - JJ - Josh Smith - Derrick Favors - Howard TEAM CHICAGO: Rose - Wade - Iguodala - Maggette - Noah TEAM PHILLY: Jameer Nelson - Tyreke Evans - Kobe - Dejuan Blair - Rasheed Wallace TEAM LA: Baron Davis - Westbrook - Harden - Kevin Love - Gasol TEAM NYC: Johnny Flynn - Artest - Melo - Odom - Hibbert TEAM DC: John Wall - Delonte West - Durant - McGee - Greg Monroe ( Georgetown ) Sort of looks like our Hawksquawk Draft over the summer.

- this is NOT a strike . . this is an owner-initiated LOCKOUT. The owners are the ones causing this work stoppage, by them wanting it ALL . . not the players. - The failure of the Hawks to get to that next level has EVERYTHING to do with the decisions the Hawks organization made, than current system restraints. We all know what happened in 2005. We all know how the Hawks have historically drafted over the last 25 years. We all know that big time free agents tend to not want to come here, even when we have the cap space to pay them. - These owners do NOT run their NBA teams like they do regular businesses. Making a profit is not a top priority ( or hasn't been in the past ) for the vast majority of these owners . . until now. Mark Cuban lost money on the Mavs last year, and has lost money for like 6 of the past 7 years. But he doesn't care about losing money, His main goal was to construct a team that could win a championship. - Players, with their current concessions of going down to 50% of BRI, have already given back 280 million to the owners each year ( if the league makes 4 billion in revenue. With the owners wanting the players to sign a 10 year CBA agreement with an opt out at year 6, the owners will be getting back anywhere from 1.7 BILLION in 6 years to almost 3 BILLION in 10 years, over the course of the CBA agreement. The owners are duping disgruntled fans like yourself into believing that high player salaries and superstars so-called choosing where they want to play, is destroying the league. That small market teams cannot be competitive in the NBA ( despite San Antonio winning 4 championships in a 10 year span, Oklahoma City on the brink of an NBA title, and the Memphis Grizzlies seemingly right behind the Thunder. ) These owners do not want to admit that the reason why they're losing money has everything to do with them, and little to do with the players. Also, in a bad economy with expenses like gas and jet fuel being a major expense, that may have something to do with owners losing money. Corporations scaling back their entertainment and advertising/marketing dollars when it comes to the NBA, may be another reason why the owners are losing money in this economy. The owners have successfully won this PR war with the players, in the eyes of the public. They've gotten fans to believe that by not readily taking a 50 - 50 split, they're "greedy", despite everything the players have agreed to give back. They've gotten fans to believe that the system issues the owners want, will promote "competitive balance", when the league has NEVER been "competitively balanced". How is every team going to find a superstar, or have a chance at one? What is going to compel a guy like Dwight Howard to sign with Charlotte, over a team like say . . Boston . . if both have enough money to pay that player? The fact is in the NBA . . . 1 superstar > 3 good players without a superstar 1 superstar + 5 good players > 2 superstars + 1 all-star Basketball is a sport in which the most talented team ( which normally has a superstar or two playing on that squad ) will win a championship. And this is on ANY level of basketball. But because the NBA doesn't have more than 10 true superstars, there is no way that the league can be "competitively balanced", no matter what the owners try to do. This is not the NFL. Great players will tend to be the ones to win championships . . not necessarily great teams.

Get behind Jeff Teague and forget about Jamal Crawford. We'll never know if Teague can reach his potential if we keep relying on Jamal's "semi-instant offense" to bail us out. We REALLY need to find out if Teague is the real deal by giving him real minutes. He can't get those types of minutes and control of the offense if Jamal is here. Jamal did better than expected while he was here. But it's time to part ways and see if our younger talent can get it done. Maybe even Marvin comes back to being a semi-productive player without Jamal in the mix.

That list the compiled on ESPN is what they are ranked TODAY, not what they could be ranked in the future. That is a 'right now' list, which is why they got Nash at #14 and Westbrook at #15. If Al could defend the low post better or score better down on the block or be counted on to provide "go-to" type offense, he'd easily be a top 25 player, if not a top 20 one. As for the entire list of where each Hawk is ranked, it only validates what I've been saying on here for a while. The disparity in talent, especially from our starting frontline to our reserve frontline people, is dramatic. Too dramatic. We had 3 top 40 players in the league, with Jamal having the ability to play like a top 40 player about 40% - 50% of the time. After that, the dropoff was dramatic as hell. Hopefully what Teague did in the playoffs wasn't a fluke, and he can continue to play like that. But whatever cheap reserves we pick up, have to start making nightly positive contributions. We just need solid frontline role players. Not a bunch of stiffs.

Here's a reality check for people. The following are the division winners in each division from the 1980 - 81 season to the 1989 - 90 season. I'm using this period because many people believe that basketball was best during this era and more balanced and competitive. 1981 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . WEST: Phoenix CHAMPION: Boston 1982 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Los Angeles 1983 ATLANTIC: Philadelphia . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Philadelphia 1984 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee . . MIDWEST: Utah . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Boston 1985 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee ( again ) . . MIDWEST: Denver . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Los Angeles 1986 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Milwaukee ( 6th in a row ) . . MIDWEST: Houston . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Boston 1987 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Atlanta . . MIDWEST: Dallas . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Los Angeles 1988 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: Denver . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Los Angeles 1989 ATLANTIC: New York . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: Utah . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Detroit 1990 ATLANTIC: Philadelphia . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . WEST: Los Angeles CHAMPION: Detroit Division Titles Los Angeles - 9 Boston - 7 Milwaukee - 6 San Antonio - 4 Detroit - 3 Denver - 2 Utah - 2 Philadelphia - 2 Atlanta - 1 New York - 1 Houston - 1 Dallas - 1 Phoenix - 1 Question . . . was there parity back in the "Golden Age" of basketball in the 1980s? - 13 teams win a division title ( 56.5% of teams . . 23 teams ) .. ( 52% of teams . . 25 teams ) - Lakers win 4 NBA Championships . . Boston 3 . . Detroit 2 . . Philly 1 ********************************* The NBA goes to 3 divisions starting with the 2004 - 05 season. Let's see what the division winner + NBA champion looks like now. 2005 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . SOUTHEAST: Miami . . NORTHWEST: Seattle . . PACIFIC: Phoenix . . SOUTHWEST: San Antonio CHAMPION: San Antonio 2006 ATLANTIC: New Jersey . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . SOUTHEAST: Miami . . NORTHWEST: Denver . . PACIFIC: Phoenix . . SOUTHWEST: San Antonio CHAMPION: Miami 2007 ATLANTIC: Toronto . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . SOUTHEAST: Miami . . NORTHWEST: Utah . . PACIFIC: Phoenix . . SOUTHWEST: Dallas CHAMPION: San Antonio 2008 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . SOUTHEAST: Orlando . . NORTHWEST: Utah . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles . . SOUTHWEST: New Orleans CHAMPION: Boston 2009 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Cleveland . . SOUTHEAST: Orlando . . NORTHWEST: Denver . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles . . SOUTHWEST: San Antonio CHAMPION: Los Angeles 2010 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Cleveland . . SOUTHEAST: Orlando . . NORTHWEST: Denver . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles . . SOUTHWEST: Dallas CHAMPION: Los Angeles 2011 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Chicago . . SOUTHEAST: Miami . . NORTHWEST: Oklahoma City . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles . SOUTHWEST: San Antonio CHAMPION: Dallas Division Titles ( 7 year span . . 42 possible division titles to win ) Boston - 5 San Antonio - 4 Detroit - 4 Miami - 4 Phoenix - 4 Los Angeles - 3 Orlando - 3 Denver - 3 Dallas - 2 Cleveland - 2 Utah - 2 Oklahoma City - 1 New Orleans - 1 Toronto - 1 New Jersey - 1 Seattle - 1 Chicago - 1 - 17 different teams win a division within a 7 year span ( 56.7% of teams in the league ) - 5 different NBA Champions: San Antonio 2 . . Los Angeles 2 . . Boston 1 . . Miami 1 . . Dallas 1 ************************************** Old alignment 2005 ATLANTIC: Miami . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . PACIFIC: Phoenix 2006 ATLANTIC: Miami . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . PACIFIC: Phoenix 2007 ATLANTIC: Toronto . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: Dallas . . PACIFIC: Phoenix 2008 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Detroit . . MIDWEST: New Orleans . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles 2009 ATLANTIC: Boston . . CENTRAL: Cleveland . . MIDWEST: Denver . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles 2010 ATLANTIC: Orlando . . CENTRAL: Cleveland . . MIDWEST: Dallas . . PACIFIC: Los Angeles 2011 ATLANTIC: MIami . . CENTRAL: Chicago . . MIDWEST: San Antonio . . PACFIC: Los Angeles Division titles ( old alignment - 28 possible division titles in 7 years ) Los Angeles - 4 Detroit - 4 Phoenix - 3 MIami - 3 San Antonio - 3 Boston - 2 Cleveland - 2 Dallas - 2 Denver - 1 New Orleans - 1 Orlando - 1 Toronto - 1 Chicago - 1 - 13 teams win division titles in 7 years ( 43.3% of teams in the league )

A guy who isn't the #1 offensive option on the team, nor the best defender on the team, nor can create his own offense, can't be the 25th best player in the league. It's just hard to put him ahead of JJ or Smith, because both JJ and Smith frequently can change a game with the skills they bring to the table. Al is solid and consistent on most nights with a B-grade caliber game, which he definitely deserves credit for. But he's normally not a threat to put up 25 points in a game . . nor get a 4 or 5 block game . . nor a 3 steal game . . He's a good rebounder though, but even that has been falling as of late. And both JJ and Smith have had better playoff showings than Horford, even with Smith and JJ not having consistently good playoff performances. Smith is too low at #43. He's definitely a top 40 player if not a borderline top 30 player. JJ for his all-around skill, is slightly too low at #32. Both he and Iggy are top 30 players. Horford is rated too high, and should be right around the #30 - #35 mark.

The Dream simply lost to the better team. That Minnesota squad is stacked. - Seimone Augustus is a future Women's Basketball Hall of Famer, and is the best mid-range shooter in basketball ( male or female ) . . I've long believed that. - Maya Moore is a future Women's Basketball Hall of Famer who may be the best long range shooter amongst women's players. Right now, she's essentially a young Ray Allen. - Lindsey Whalen is a borderline Women's Basketball Hall of Famer due to what she did in college and because she's #4 all time in the WNBA in assists And the other women ( McWilliams-Franklin, Brunson, and Wiggins ) aren't slouches either. That team was stacked folks. No way could Angel beat them by herself. It would've had to take a total team effort, especially on the defensive end and on the boards. They simply had too many people who could score the basketball. And when Seimone gets rolling, there's not a female on the planet who is going to stop her.

LOL @ that score. NO defense whatsoever. I was most impressed by that steal Teague had. He ripped Wall clean as he was going hard to the hole. I know people want Teague to be this great PG, but as of right now, he's Spud Webb. And that's not a bad thing. If he continues to push the ball in the open court and score that way, along with developing his floater in the lane, he'll be a solid PG in this league. I would love to see him really become that defensive PG that this team desperately needs.

More indication that the NBA owners definitely want a hard cap. Specifically listen and watch the video. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6972265/nba-lockout-nfl-union-head-demaurice-smith-address-players

As far as the revenue sharing issue goes, I'm sure the Lakers aren't going to be happy if not only a hard cap is implemented, but is also told that they have to share some of their lucrative cable and local TV money to the "poor" teams. Without significant revenue sharing, the teams that are struggling now will continue to struggle, unless they somehow acquire a superstar that can sell tickets. That audio clip of David Stern talking for about an hour about the NBA labor negotiations, had Stern saying that having everybody on an even playing field will be good for the league. His theme was "parity". Parity and the economy is why the owners need a different financial structure in the NBA. It's good in "theory". But unlike the NFL, I don't know how many people would be hyped up to see a Charlotte - Sacramento NBA Finals, if they didn't have 2 of the top 5 players in the NBA playing for those teams. How many fans would like an Atlanta - Memphis NBA Final, if the current rosters on each team made it to the Finals? Conversely, NFL fans would still watch a Miami - Washington Super Bowl . . simply because it's the Super Bowl. And we all know that because this is a superstar driven league, the teams with the superstars on them are the ones most likely to win. Unfortunately for Stern, there are not 30 superstars in the NBA. There are barely 5 or 6 "franchise changing" superstars in the NBA.

The owners don't want a hard cap? You sure? http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/05/report-nhl-owners-tell-nba-brethren-losing-season-%E2%80%9Cworth-it%E2%80%9D/ And this is a good article on the potential impact of a hard cap in the NBA http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/9/14/2424499/nba-lockout-2011-hard-salary-cap-david-stern-derek-fisher

You sure? http://www.basketbal...1/gamelog/1995/ http://www.chron.com...ion-decert.html What about our crowd in Atlanta? You maybe have about 8,000 die hards or "Joe Publics" that enjoy watching the Hawks unconditionally, while the other 6,000 - 10,000 that might show up to Hawk games are simply casual basketball fans that might not even be there to watch the Hawks. They may be there to watch the other team. One of the reasons cited for the 2 year decline in attendance for the Hawks, has been the economy. So if the economy is still bad, and the owners want to retain a little more money to make a profit, how can they make a profit if fans may feel that ticket prices are just too high to watch the Hawks ( unless they're playing against a marquee team with a superstar? ). Is simply cutting team expenditures the goal here, and not increasing the revenue taken in at the ticket gate and concessions? I'm personally wondering how a team like the Hawks ( who supposedly was one of the 23 teams that lost money in the NBA ) is going to turn a profit, even if a hard cap is implemented? The same issues that keep fans away ( especially during weekday games ) isn't just going to go away. And if the economy is still bad, will "Joe Public" keep paying $60 a pop to see the Hawks? Or if not "joe public" . . will "Casual Chris" attend more Hawks games, even though he only goes to a few games a year? A lockout right now could do significant damage to us, as far as attendance goes. And God forbid we lose the entire season. The LA crowd may come back, but will the Atlanta crowd come back? One thing is for sure. A hard cap probably means that Josh Smith will not be re-signed, even if the Hawks wanted to. Either him or Teague would be the casualty in 2013. I agree with the first part. What JJ makes in salary does not deter me from watching the Hawks. It's all about the quality of the product on the floor. But the question is, are we typical fan in that regard, or are we the exception? Because the fact is that a lot of fans do care what these players make. And their disdain for the players and their astronomical salaries ( and the owners for that matter ) keep them away from the arena. A lot of fans rationalize that they would rather watch their team on TV, than to go to the arena and give the "millionaires" their money. LOL . . how many times have we seen people rail against the ASG out of frustration, even suggesting boycotting Hawk games to hurt the ASG's bottom line, so that they would be forced to sell the team? I guess that "strategy" worked, seeing how attendance fell for a 2nd straight year, and the ASG finally gave up the team.

LOL @ calling us a "small market" team, when you have 4 million+ people living within 50 miles of ATL. That would be a hard sell to a real small market team like Memphis, who barely have a million people within that same radius. I get what you're saying though. The "mega markets" don't mind at all going over that luxury tax threshhold to get a player, especially when all they have to do is trade away a few expiring contracts. I guess an elimination of the luxury tax is really what is needed. Once the owners get the deal that they want, they're still not going to be satisfied 2 years later, when you have those same teams that traditionally don't do well, still not making a "profit".

You keep talking about 1999, like the NBA hasn't had negotiations between players and owners before then that DIDN'T lead to a strike or a lockout. For example, in 1995, the owners were seriously thinking about a lockout, and actually imposed one after the 1995 Finals when the players didn't ratify a deal struck between the owners and the upper level representatives from the Players union. Ewing, Jordan and a few more big name players were trying to rally the players to de-certify the players union. They were concerned about restrictions on player movement, thus, leading to them not ratifying the deal and wanting to de-certify the union so they could possibly sue under anti-trust laws. The players as a whole voted not to de-certify, but that did lead to a new deal being struck, in which the players and owners agreed to before the start of the 1995 season. And I'll ask the question again . . . If the owners get what they want as far as significantly reducing player salaries and eliminating guaranteed contracts, will we then see a significant reduction in ticket prices? If you don't think ( or if research shows ) that labor strife doesn't necessarily impact the demand for the product, that means that they're not going to reduce the ticket prices, right?

And this pertains specifically about the "star" NBA players. I've been listening to the Stephen A. Smith show in the evenings out of ESPN 1050 in New York the past couple of weeks. He makes interesting points about the NBA lockout and the involvement of the superstar players in these talks. ( NOTE: tunein.com, a site in which you can listen to most of the major radio stations in the U.S. and around the world, is one of my favorite sites these days. ) Stephen A's position is this . . when you're negotiating a deal like this, you need your superstar players across the table for the owners, in order to make it seem like this is a real serious issue. He cites that back in the day, you had guys like Patrick Ewing, Jordan, Magic, and David Robinson all representing the players in these negotiations. This gave the players the necessary star power at those talks in order to secure the kind of deals that the players want. But in 2011, these are some the guys who the owners sees at these meetings. - Derek Fisher - Mo Evans - Etan Thomas - Matt Bonner - Kenyon Dooling - Roger Mason Jr Now granted, these may be the "smart guys" amongst the NBA players, but the owners are by no means affected by the presence these guys bring to the table. LOL @ two Hawk scrubs negotiating a CBA for the entire league. Stephen A., over the past couple of weeks, has stated that if guys like Kobe, D-Wade, Lebron, Howard, and Dirk aren't directly involved in these talks, the owners aren't going to budge on their demands. From our perspective, you can even add Joe Johnson to that list of people who probably should be negotiating directly with the owners. Stephen A. also firmly believes that either the season will start on time, or the entire season will be cancelled. He believes that in this economy, the owners may be willing to do just like the NHL did, cancel the entire season, and stack their money. The question then will be, can the mid and lower tier players survive an entire season being lost, only to be forced to come back to a system almost identical to the NHL. I still side with the players in all of this. But they may not have a choice but to accept a deal that they don't want. And after the owners get what they want, the question then becomes . . do they significantly lower ticket prices, or do they expect fans to pay the same ticket price, while they pay the product on the floor less money?

Quote from Jermaine: "If it's about small-market teams not profiting, if the owners are really using that as a bargaining tool, if you're really concerned about it, then why aren't you profit-sharing like the other leagues are doing?" "So do we accept a deal that totally butchers our game? Because what they don't understand, if you take out mid-tier deals and say, 'Fend for bare minimum at the bottom,' they'll be individualizing our game so severely." Think about the point he makes for a second. And think about how that would relate to our situation here in Atlanta. Right now, the big dog who is getting paid is JJ. Also right now, the worse contract on the team is Marvin. Horford is signed long term. Smith's deal ends in 2 years. Teague still has 2 years on his rookie deal. If Jermaine is correct, any guy who is not making the big money contract, but may be up for a deal, is going to be more concerned about getting his numbers, than possibly worrying about team play. Now this already goes on during contract years. If the owners have their way, the difference now would be that you would see this every year from a lot of players that have no business trying to do more than they're capable of doing. If the owners get their wish and have a hard cap + non-guaranteed contracts, you may see all kinds of mid to lower tier players just going out and trying to put up the best numbers they possibly can. How does that relate to the Hawks? Imagine a guy like Teague or even Marvin taking ill advised shots in a game, in order to pad their stats. In other words, would you see players across the league with a Jordan Cra-ford mentality, in which guys are just going out and chucking up shots? Even if the owners get their way, the one thing that will be true is that these owners are still going to pay top dollar for the superstars. And guys who are on that 2nd tier of stars are still going to get paid. But if a hard cap basically eliminates the mid-level guy, how is that mid-level guy going to get more money? By trying to show their perspective teams that they're better than what they are . . even if they're not.

Al is getting a taste of what it is like to be the #1 scoring option for his team. John Calipari is coaching the Dominicans with Del Harris being one of his assistants. So he's definitely getting quality coaching during this tournament. Big win yesterday vs Brazil after losing against Canada the day before. Al is doing fairly well in the tournament, although he's shooting under 45% FG in the tournament. Still having a little difficulty scoring in the post when having to create his own shot. The midrange jumper looked good in the 3 games I saw the Dominicans play. The Hawks probably should take a look at the other big man playing alongside him. A guy name Jack Michael Martinez. He's basically a energy/garbage man type of PF that hits the glass well. He'll be 30 by the time the season is set to start ( hopefully ). Since the Hawks make a living in bringing in cheap big man talent, I wouldn't mind giving him a look in training camp to see if he can be a benchwarming PF that you could put in the game as a 3rd PF.

I meant Bibby and Jamal . . Acie too for that matter.

The past season proved that these guys were NOT a better defensive team when they didn't do all of that switching. The defense didn't get better until we got Kirk on the team, a guy who could acutally guard and stay in front of most PGs. Before that time, Bibby and Jamal were defensive liabilities, and Teague hadn't proved that he could come in and be a defensive stopper. Woody did what he had to do to try to maximize what this team could do defensively. Player personnel had a lot to do with how Woody coached defensively. Even a guy like Jason Collins is only effective against centers who play with their backs to the basket. In today's NBA, he can't be your full time starting center, because of his lack of mobility. Give Woody a defensive minded center like a Marcus Camby or a Joakim Noah to team with Al, Josh, and JJ, and the Hawks would've been a much better defensive team. I mean, unless people believe that a guy like Thibs can even make Acie and Jamal much better defensive players?

Happy belated b-day GM. You've been the "voice of reason" around here for years. Continue to be that please.