TheNorthCydeRises

LOL . . and Bengal fans LOVED Odell. When he came on, he instantly gave that defense a mini Ray Lewis type player. Most fans thought he got a raw deal from the league, seeing that he "only" had an alcohol problem. The Odell suspension is the reason why the Bengals finished 8 - 8 in the following years, instead of 10 - 6 or 11 - 5. But how about the Hawks. Would you approve of adding Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest, in place of Marvin Williams and Mo Evans, if it could be done? T.O. looks like he has pretty much no choice. Bengals are the only ones who have made an offer, and a report form the Rams say that they won't sign T.O. ( which on a young team like that, I don't blame them ). Sign the contract T.O. . . . and welcome to Cincinnati.

Talk about bad, or perfect timing http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5411372 ( mods . . . please eliminate the "a" at the end of the word "extension" ) . . . damn typos

T.O. has proven that he can't be the #1 guy anymore. But I think he may be able to be a valuable complimentary receiver, as long as he's used on 3rd down and in the red zone. Carson Palmer is pretty much the Joe Johnson of Cincinnati, although people respect Carson much more than JJ. But Carson, along with the receivers, sold us out in that playoff game. The Bengals have dedicated almost the entire offseason to upgrade this part of the team.( TE - Grisham out of Oklahoma . . WR - Shipley out of Texas ). It's almost the opposite of what the Hawks have done so far. The Hawks think everything is "fine". To me, the Bengals are in the same situation as the Hawks. We're not the favorites to win anything, because we play in a division with Pittsburgh and Baltimore, so they will always get more respect than the Bengals. And you have the Patriots, Colts, and Chargers still out there as probably the class of the league. And the Jets made themselves major players in the AFC last year. So from my standpoint, I don't mind at all for the Bengals to take risks to try to improve themselves. If we stand pat, we may have no shot at advancing anywhere ( lol . . and we still maybe don't ). But if they sign T.O., I can't say that they're not trying. So when it comes to Shaq, ( even though the financial dynamic seems to be the major reason why we're not considering him ) I'm all for bringing a guy like that in to get us to the next level.

LOL . . dude . . I have caught HELL for rooting for both of those teams. The late 80s were great, because both the Bengals and Hawks were good. The 90s were horrific for the Bengals. The early 2000s was horrific for BOTH the Bengals and Hawks. So I've caught hell. But I've stayed loyal throughout. I almost gave up on the Bengals though, with the Akili Smith debacle. LOL @ Pimp . . . I'm also a Cincinnati Reds fan . . . who have been pretty much non-existant for about 15 years. This year though, they're right in the running. For the first time possibly ever, all 3 of my favorite teams are looking to make a little noise this year. Now if the U. of Tennessee football program could get themselves back on track, this may turn out to be a very good fall and winter for me as a sports fan. Not holding out much hope for them though.

This is a very good point. How would the signing of Shaq not only affect the box office, but other things like corporate sponsorships and in arena advertising. I have an advertising background. If I'm the ASG, and they're trying to woo Shaq, I'm even talking to some of the other corporations in Atlanta, to get their take on the situation. Even seeing if they would possibly use Shaq in their marketing plans to advance their brand. The "old man" secured 15 million in endorsements last year. That's #5 amongst American sports athletes and #2 amongst NBA players. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/2009/ He'll . . if I'm the ASG, I'm calling Coca-Cola as we speak, and see if I can secure extra money for Shaq that way, instead of having to giving up a big money deal to bring him in. People should not underestimate the box office ability from both a fan and corporate standpoint, that a Shaq brings in.

LOL . . my 2 favorite sports teams, the Hawks and the Bengals,are considering old vet "divas" who nobody seems to want, but can at least still play the game. Hawks need help on the frontline . . Bengals need help in the receiving core. Bengals seem more willing to bring in the even more volatile Terrel Owens into the mix, than the Hawks are willing to bring in Shaq. Both players are going to have to accept a reduced role, even though they're the big name player. Bengals ownership says . . "I'd rather have him line up with us than on other side. He can change field position he makes big plays" Bengals coach says . . . "Terrell has been a productive player. His goals and our goals match up" Hawks say . . "We want to build an elite team without exceeding the Luxury Tax" Hawks say on Shaq . . . ** crickets ** I have rooted for these two franchises for going on 25 years. The Bengals are obviously the worse of the two. But I'm so glad that at least one of my teams are wiling to take risks even with highly questionable players who were "locker room cancers" . . ( Cedrick Benson, Pac Man Jones, and now possibly Terrell Owens ). Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in sports. But he's at least willing to take risks.

This is arguably the most interesting thread of the year. Because as we can see, a lot of the guys that we thought that we could get on the cheap, are not only securing multi-year contracts above the LLE, they're getting contracts from 3 - 5 million per year. I don't think our ownership group anticipated this at all, and has caused them to blink. Even the lower market is overpriced for them, and in their minds, they have to settle for the bottom of the barrel. You still hear reports about the "Hall of Famer" and us being the frontrunner, but only willing to pay him even less than even these guys, because they have to fill out the rest of the roster and they don't want to go into Luxury Tax land. Interesting thread . . and a great job by AHF by tracking each individual guy listed and what kind of contract they secured.

I have never suggested that Shaq could come in and replace Horford in the starting lineup. The follow-up post by Buzz hits it right on the money. The minute we sigh Shaq, he effectively replaces all of those scrubs at the bench, and gives us a player that can still play the game. Shaq isn't going to start anywhere he goes, unless it's in Boston or Miami. And he'll only start there until Perkins comes back. If he goes to Chicago, he's not starting ahead of Noah. So if he came here, he's not starting ahead of Horford either. The fact that Shaq's numbers are comparable to Horford's illustrates what his worth could be to this team on BOTH ends of the court. Plus, by playing alongside Shaq, Horford and Smoove could become better players. And it's straight up BS to say that Shaq's presence made the team he went to worse, simply because they posted a worse record. Shaq did exactly what he was brought it to do at Phoenix and at Cleveland. But you can definitely see where others didn't do their job, hence, the declining record. As Buzz said . .. Shaq effectively replaces Zaza, RandMo, and Collins all in one stroke . . . and he gives us another rotational player to add to the arsenal. He's not going to be featured anywhere he goes. That's just rumor and agent-speak right there. Ownership won't take the risk though, so it's a dead issue to me.

So the alternative is to do nothing? Give Zaza more playing time and add Jason Collins and Josh Powell? That's what you want to roll with going into next season? He's not going to get the money he wants ( although I wouldn't be against overpaying him at that amount, and trading Marvin away ). I'm sure he even knows that by now. But if the MLE is what it takes to bring him here, I'm doing that. When you see how the fans of ATL react to big name players, you'd easily make that money back at the gate and off merchandising. And he'd definitely come off the bench if he agrees to come here. If he went to Boston or Chicago, he's not going to start ( maybe in Boston, until Perkins comes back, but definitely not in Chicago ). Just about anywhere he goes, he's coming off the bench. So the bench issue is moot, if he comes here. The Hawks center position has always been in dire straits, since Dikembe left. Horford is a good center, but Zaza is about as poor of a backup center as there is out there. Shoot, we don't even have a legit backup PF. Even if we add a Josh Powell, Marvin would still be a better backup PF than him. Shaq was a heck of a locker room cancer last year. All that team did, was go 40 - 13 when he was in the lineup and went 2 - 1 vs Orlando when he was in the lineup. It's a dead issue to me though. Ownership isn't spending more than the Luxury Tax, and Shaq isn't coming to ATL to play for the vet minimum. They are a low risk management group, in a time in which the entire Conference seems to be upgrading every facet of their teams. Staying put simply tells the fans that they are satisfied with reaching the 2nd round and being a top 8 team. They have a U. of Mississippi mentality in football . . instead of a U. of Alabama mentality.

KB . . you keep trying to act like Shaq is complete garbage. I think the real thing is that you just flat out don't like the dude, and don't want to see him here.

You're still acting like I'm approaching this like this is a competition between Horford and Shaq. Shaq adds DEPTH to the Hawks if we get him. And Shaq brings two things to the table that Al is weak at. 1) low post offense down on the blocks in the half court set . . and 2) the ability to defend bigger centers, especially at the rim. Why wouldn't you want to add that to this team, to compliment both Horford and Smith? Why would you want to keep tossing out Zaza and Joe Smith and Jason Collins to compliment Horford and Smith. That's what I want to know?

And why is Horford simply a Pick and Roll PF? We all know that Al's back to the basket game is weak. He can be a very good spot up shooter from midrange though, which should come more to him, if Drew's offensive plan proves to be successful. We definitely need to up his usage. But there's a reason why Shaq's usage is high. His usage is high because he's SUCCESSFUL in the low post. But having said that, usage usually only affects the chances you have to score and maybe pass the basketball. It doesn't affect things like rebounding, and your FG%, and your ability to block shots. The fact is that we'd have BOTH of these guys on the team. And you could play BOTH of these guys together at the same time. How good could Horford be, if he's able to play some time at PF, with a space eater like Shaq anchoring the middle? This isn't a limited offensive player like Anderson Varejao we're talking about playing alongside Shaq. Or a guy that feels he needs to touch the ball on every possession like Amare. This is Al Horford . . a guy who has the best midrange jumper on the team when he's open. But he's also a guy that is best when he doesn't have to create his own offense down on the block. Shaq isn't replacing Horford. He's complimenting Horford and adding much needed depth to the entire frontline. Instead of a guy like Zaza, who shoots in the high 40% FG, you're adding Shaq, who shoots in the high 50% FG. Why people wouldn't want that on this team, is beyond me. The ONLY thing people can bring up, is Shaq's "divaness" and his ability to play a full season. But you fail when they try to diss his basketball playing ability. Basketball wise, this dude can still play the game.

PER 36 MINUTES SHAQ: 18.5 ppg - 10.3 rebs - 2.3 asst - 1.8 blks - 57% FG HORFORD: 14.5 ppg - 10.1 rebs - 2.4 asst - 1.2 blks - 55% FG That's why.

I completely disagree with this. If acquiring Chris Paul would give you a legit shot at playing in an NBA Finals, but you'd lose him in 2 years, you still make the move. If people are concerned about how good of a player JJ will be in 3 to 4 years, the time to go for it is NOW, while he's a top 15 - 20 player. The longer we wait to go for it, the less chance we'll even be in position to go for a championship. I would take a 2 year rental on Chris Paul, and give up a core piece ( even if it's Josh Smith ), in a heartbeat. Let's see if Paul changes his mind, if the Hawks are successful and come close to winning a ring. I bet he would change his mind and stay here.

People ripped that guy to shreads in his final stint in ATL, but I'm glad people can show their sincerity in a situation like this. I know the people in Memphis have always liked him, even going back to his college days. Sad story to see. I hope everything turns out OK for him. But it's never good to see someone who is in a financial situation, come up missing.

I firmly believe that ownership is waiting on the fans to go to more games. If they're for certain that acquiring CP3 would achieve that, then maybe they would. But this ownership also loves Josh Smith to death. And how would the trading of Josh Smith to get CP3 go over with fans who also love Josh Smith? It's not a slam dunk that fans would embrace CP3, if you traded away Smoove. That's why ownership would hedge at doing it. They want to know for certain that Paul would dramatically increase ticket sales. The ownership doesn't take risks, so they may even balk on a deal for CP3, if it involved Smoove. Right now, Smoove is the most popular player on the Hawks. Even more popular than JJ or Horford. Trading him would garner a mixed reaction from the fan base. I bet if we were to take a poll, more people would rather trade Joe Johnson straight up for CP3, than trade Smoove, or even Horford.

I don't believe anything this ownership group says anymore. They said that they were also looking for a PF and a C in free agency, and we're potentially getting the absolute bottom of the barrel in both categories. And those people who say it would be big that we got Shaq, may not buy season tickets, but I bet they'd be compelled to go to more games. And Shaq would definitely bring out the casual ATL fan that normally only go to games unless we're playing a big name team. But that ship has apparently passed, so we don't have to worry about Shaq anymore . . . until he pops up in Boston. Then Horford will get to go up against Jermaine O'Neal, Shaq, and Kendrick Perkins ( when he gets healthy ). I bet Big Al is looking forward to that.

You're assuming that New Orleans is still trying to field a playoff quality squad. Nope. They may simply go for financial relief, much in the mold of what Memphis did when they traded away Pau Gasol. You overvalue Smoove. He does not have the star power of a CP3. He has limited box office star power actually, because even with him here, people aren't scrambling to go to Hawks games to see Josh Smith. So if the Hornets trade away CP3, they're looking for cap relief, more than adding another muti-million dollar contract to the payroll The kicker in a deal like that, would be Jamal Crawford's expiring contract. That's what they're really going after. They'd get Smoove + Crawford . . and they'd give us CP3 + dump Okafor on us. But like I said . . our ownership wouldn't do it anyway. We'd go into the luxury tax.

I do agree that if West could've opted out this year, he definitely would've. And next year, if the owners and players association can come to an agreement, he may opt out next summer. But if they add Josh Smith, they pretty much have to let West go. And if they're hurting for money that much, they may give West completely away even before the trade deadline, if they acquired Smoove. If Smoove + Crawford was the deal for CP3 and Okafor, then the Hornets would just let Crawford walk, and trade West in the process. They'd completely rebuild, with Smoove and Collison as the centerpieces. The discussion is moot though. Our ownership has already told us that they want to field an "elite team" without going into the Luxury Tax. Acquiring CP3 + Okafor . . then re-signing Horford, would put us in the Luxury Tax. So unless we're going to lose Horford for nothing, they wouldn't do the deal anyway.

They can, if they simply want a lot of cap relief, which Vince Carter's expiring contract will provide. That's an 18 million team option that New Orleans could refuse to exercise on Vince's contract going into 2011 - 2012, plus add Jameer at the point, and draft picks ( which I would ask for if I were them ).

No . . he's this generation's version of Shawn Kemp . . even though he refuses to fully embrace his "Kemp-ness". If he did, Smoove could take his game to the next level. But to compare Smoove to Barkley is a disservice to Barkley. Smoove is a good, exciting player in the mold of Kemp. But Barkley flat out DOMINATED people. Josh Smith Shawn Kemp

I mean . . we had one of the most inefficient 2nd units in the NBA last year, that was only saved by Crawford's shotmaking. Shaq would represent the only legit low post scorer on the team. so of course you would go inside to him when he's in the game, maybe every 1 out of 2.5 possessions. EDIT: And even if you don't go to him that much, you're still talking about a guy who can grab rebounds, to create his own opportunities.

And why do yoy say that Shaq wasn't as productive as Horford and Smoove? Shaq's PER 36 Minute numbers of 18.5 pts - 10 rebs - and 58% shooting, trumps what Horford and Smoove did on a PER 36 minute basis. And Shaq did his damage in the one area we could use it the most . . . right around the rim. That's the reason you're seeing Shaq reluctant to accept just anything. He knows that he is still better than 75% of the centers in this league. Tossing Shaq's age out there doesn't change the fact that this dude is still a presence in the paint. A presence that you simply can't overlook. As far as the usage goes, let me ask you this? Why would you want to keep Jamal Crawford's usage at 26% if we had Shaq on the squad? Shaq is the more efficient offensive player. If anything, you'd want to see both Shaq's and Jamal"s usage down to 20%, with the 2 of them being the pilars of the 2nd unit. The facts are that Shaq can still score, he can still rebound, he can still draw fouls on people, and he still represents a big body to throw up against bigger centers, to keep Al and Smoove from taking a beating. The ONLY issues with Shaq, is if he would be cool with playing for less money, and if he would be cool with coming off the bench. His ability on the court is NOT in question. Dude is still a top 10 center in this league.

(( raising hand )) Could we please refrain from using "very good player" and "Josh Powell" in the same sentence? Why tell a lie and say that he's a very good, or even a good player, or even an average player? I'm going to say the exact same thing I said about Joe Smith when he was signed . . . If Josh Powell plays more than 10 minutes a night, something has gone HORRIBLY WRONG with our frontline. The more I look into Josh, the more I laugh. I'm amost convinced that the only reason the Hawks are seriously thinking about signing him . . is because he's from Riverdale, GA. I guess ownership believes if they keep stocking the end of the bench with Atlanta high school heroes, that it will motivate a few fans that know him to come out and support the Hawks. Or maybe one of the owners listened to Waka Flaka Flame, and noticed that he mentioned "Riverdale, GA" in one of his songs, and got an ephinany to sign Powell. I predict that Powell will be in streetclothes, more than he plays on the court.

Thomas can play both PF and C. He's more of a PF anyway. Right now, I guess our backup PF is Powell . . but it will end up being Marvin and Horford who are the primary backups at the 4.