thecampster

Here is the nonsense the Knicks have to do to get to $46 mil at a $117 million cap number. https://www.dropbox.com/s/iat2fldal5yx2ne/KnicksCap.png?dl=0

This is a composite of the Hawks cap situation described above. Hard to sign a second round pick so I just filled in the cap number for the 30th pick overall. It's a second rounder for about 1.2 million is the only difference. https://www.dropbox.com/s/2g197g3x3pg5onl/Hawks Cap.png?dl=0

Not sure liar, just lazy. He used a tool (like I typically do) and just waived everyone not in green (guaranteed). But any media worth their salt would realize at least 3 of those players are going to be back. Knicks will have about $20-$30 mil to spend at $117 million depending on which road they take. On the Hawks and holding them to a similar standard Teague will probably get $6-8 million to come back/go elsewhere. Assuming he takes $7 mil to come back. Bembry and Skal resign for $2.5 million each (I have no idea what either's value is, we'd have 13 players (1 second round pick and 1 first round pick slotted 4th overall) and would still have about $40 million to spend on 2 players. IMHO this is the most realistic scenario for us if we can keep all 3 players on reasonable contracts. One more thought here, those contracts need to be reasonable because Collins comes up for a contract next year and Trae the year after. You are going to have pony up for them. Now thought 2. There is talk that the league cap may drop as much as $30 million due to Covid. In that Scenario, everyone but the Hawks go over the cap but remember the rookie salary scale would also drop by 30% which may change some players' minds about returning to school. Just a thought.

They aren't. To get to his numbers you have to decline the option on Portis, waive every non-guaranteed contract including Wayne Ellington, Elfrid Payton, Mitchell Robinson and Reggie Bullock, It means not signing Harkless. Using his same method of calculation the Hawks are a smidge over 50 million, not at 47.

So a bit of consideration in the rooks vs vets conversation. The typical NBA off-season for rookies is about 6 weeks. Summer league interrupts their off season plans and most rookies/2nd year players don't get much of an opportunity to add weight. The most important factor in defense is effort, the 2nd most is length but the 3rd is the more elusive and that is bulk. Players add muscle naturally as they age until about 28-30. This is why most players reach their peak in that 27 ish year old range and are able to expand their games. This off-season will not or should not have a real summer league. Also, the off-season began back in March for most of these guys. Assuming the league restarts in October, that is a significantly longer stretch (5+ months) for the likes of Huerter, Reddish, Young and company to add much needed strength and bulk. I expect a natural improvement in defense next year based solely on younger players adding natural and weight training bulk. Any of you old enough to know are aware you don't add that lower body weight you need to hold position until your mid twenties, longer for Centers/Power Forwards. I would never consider drafting as a way to improve defense in the short term. Although free agency can be used to improve defense, I can only think of a few targets who would allow the Hawks to improve defensively but that would be off the bench. As currently constructed, you have to keep starting Young, Collins and 2 of Huerter, Hunter and Reddish (we all know my preference with this). You already got CC. So I'm not sure how you improve defense significantly when you aren't going to replace one starter.

A sampling I'm a bit more apt to believe. It shows a similar pattern to what @bleachkit has mentioned only not as extreme. I spoke with AHF about this last week when I was first made aware of the findings but couldn't talk about it openly until the Governor released the findings. https://fsph.iupui.edu/news-events/news/iu-isdh-release-preliminary-findings-about-impact-of-covid-19-in-indiana.html?fbclid=IwAR3J1G_9oIEKVd_k74xxx4HUzT12RQ4SZhf31jtT4i4HA04znJ_XpI7a7xM Some differences to past tests is that these were actual tests for Covid-19. The previous tests being used (up until about a month ago) would give positives for the common cold as explained below, as well they were poorly controlled. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html " There has been concern that some of the tests might confuse the coronavirus causing the current pandemic with one of several coronaviruses that cause the common cold. "Lots of tests confuse the two," Relman said. CDC report says people in four key cities are listening to stay at home orders The tests would then end up telling people they had antibodies to the pandemic coronavirus when they didn't, and people might think they're immune when they're not. A few days after the phone call, the NAS scientists wrote a letter to the White House frankly apprising them about the quality of antibody tests. Results from antibody tests "should be viewed as suspect until rigorous controls are performed and performance characteristics described, as antibody detection methods can vary considerably, and most so far have not described well-standardized controls," according to the letter. Second, there are good tests in the midst of the bad ones, but they're not yet widely and easily available throughout the country. Third, it's not entirely clear that having antibodies to Covid-19 means that you truly have immunity and won't get the disease again." The Indiana Study is significant in that the formula used is closer to a true scientific test and used a greater sample in a smaller population. Also because I have a bit of inside knowledge on this, the kits used by Indiana were the newer, more reliable types and not the types suggested in the CNN article from a month ago. Indiana waited to get tests that met their criteria for the study. Some bias still exists in the Indiana survey (as it will with all of these surveys) because the "random" testing still involved highly populated areas where transmission is easier as well as the easiest bias of those who volunteered for the test would be more likely to believe they were exposed. Still the results show an 8 to 11 times greater infection rate than reported through confirmed cases. The most important takeaway form the Indiana study (IMHO) is that the estimate is the coronavirus is 6 times more deadly than the flu and only 2.8% of the population show positive infections.

Its a very basic thing man. The NBA players have rights. They have a legal right to a safe work environment. Running up and down a court in a crowded building of 20,000, rubbing up and down against other sweaty athletes for an hour is not "safe" in a pandemic. They are workers and have the right to refuse to work in a safe environment. Nobody want to watch an NBA with 20% of the stars at home protesting. You push this on the players and the next collective bargaining agreement will be insane. You force them to work and a player like John Collins gets sick and dies or gets serious lung damage, you are looking at a law suit for his expected net income for the next 10 years.

One acronym - OSHA. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHAFS-3747.pdf "Workers’ Rights Workers have the right to: • Working conditions that do not pose a risk of serious harm. • Receive information and training (in a language and vocabulary the worker understands) about workplace hazards, methods to prevent them, and the OSHA standards that apply to their workplace. • Review records of work-related injuries and illnesses." "Medium Exposure Risk - Workers with high-frequency interaction with the general public (e.g., those working in schools, restaurants and retail establishments, travel and mass transit, or other crowded environments)."

It isn't fear and anxiety, its risk management plain and simple. There are whole books written about it. They're an interesting read. You should pop one. Here, here's a list. https://www.google.com/search?q=risk+management+books&oq=risk+management+book&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l2j46j0l3.2831j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Many years ago when managing pizza restaurants it was common for prominent athlete households to ask to speak to the manager and ask that he deliver or that he let the driver know to respect their privacy. Being in Duluth at the time, we serviced Sugar Loaf Country Club where many Atlanta athletes lived at the time. One night I delivered to Lorenzen Wright. A number of other hawks players were there that night. But more prominently, his handicapped cousin answered the door and he had 5 or 6 family members living there with him (10,000+ square feet holds a few folks). These athletes keep a small circle, which includes mostly family members and old high school friends. Almost all have an older family member living with them or at least visiting weekly. I met a lot of them, their circle is always family. If one does good, we all do good mentality.

See...I can recognize sarcasm when I see it.

How is that comment not tongue in cheek? Its the apocalypse because AHF and I completely agree, not because of corona....geez.

Way to take a perfectly fun tongue in check post and make it weird.

Holy Crap! This is the apocalypse! You and I have been in total agreement from day 1. It might be time to start rethinking my life choices.

C'mon man...that's only on pace to lose 75,000 this month. Okay, full disclosure here. Both my wife and myself work in industries where we are able to work from home. What I mean by this, is the financial impact hasn't reached me yet. If anything, I've put less miles on my car, put less electricity into it, eaten at restaurants less and have a very safe comfortable place to ride this out. So I fully admit my views are biased. I am in no hurry to reopen, because the only inconvenience to me is the public park and silver comet trail were shut down for a month. I understand the financial hardship this will cause some individuals. I realize some will lose their businesses, marriages might end, some people might go hungry. I realize these impacts, I do. But I've weighed that against the worst case estimates that if we fully reopen as many as 350,000 could be lost. I've weighed it against the emotional toll taken by emergency workers, the strain on systems, etc. I realize that this could change everything from voting blocks to the loss of many elderly Americans and the disabled could actually help shore up the Social Security system vs the loss of social security contributions caused by people not working. I've worked it all out, but in risk management you care about life before property every time and that's the angle I'm taking. Though its possible I'm completely biased by my fortunate circumstance.

One more subtle reminder, 3 teams have been added since 1995 watering down the talent. If anything, there are more scrubs on rosters today. Also, Prior to 1998 the max NBA roster size was 12. So there were 27 teams of 12 players. Only the best 324 players were in the league in 1994. Today, you can carry up to 17 on 30 teams or 510 max players. The player pool is much bigger meaning the best talent is more spread out and plays against lesser talent on average. The league is more watered down today. Though I believe our best players would match up in any era. New Orleans Pelicans New Orleans, LA 2002 2002 1* 1 Memphis Grizzlies Memphis, TN 1995 1995 1 0 Toronto Raptors Toronto, ON 1995 1995

But short answer, it was a big man's game. Jordan changed everything. Everyone was looking for the next one and teams from AAU on up worked to developed ball handling in bigger players and outside shooting. Perimeter defense became all the rage and the game moved farther and farther from the basket. Today's NBA could not handle Olajawon and Robinson. They'd go for 40 every night.

How skilled were the Power Forwards? Let me take you back to 1990.

Supes - Willis was no where near the top F/C playing in his day. How badly would you want that jump hook on our team today?

Rules man, what rules. Because all of those Gobert plays in that video show a clear lane because of the 3 point shooters and high pick n roles. Gobert would be operating in a clogged lane and be asked to pound the ball, back his man down. Its a completely different skill set then. Gobert impact defensively greater but in that era he's offensive Bill Cartwright.

I disagree. Reddish 3 years from now should be better than Hunter 3 years from now. That's the assumption.

Gobert offensively is a joke compared to 1/2 the centers from that era.

That said, perimeter defense is much better in the modern game and the transition game is much, much faster.

He is no where near big enough to guard the centers from the 80's 90's. 58 second mark, Smits blocks Jordan. This was early 90's basketball. Smits, 7'4" with good mid-range game was an average to above average (but no where near best) center in the 90s. Capela gives up 6 inches and about 10 inches of length to Smits. Patrick Ewing/Shaq video below as well. These were all centers in the early 90's. But the last video, Hakeem vs Robinson is just post up after post up. They did this every night. The game ran inside out. They were all big and all skilled back to the basket. Capela is not a center in that era.

The 80's was physical, the 90's was no where near as physical. But here are my questions? Are we playing 90's rules or 2010's? Which 3 point line are we playing with (history - " This is of variable distance, ranging from 22 feet (6.7 m) in the corners to 23.75 feet (7.24 m) behind the top of the key. During the 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 seasons, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring by shortening the overall distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet (6.7 m) around the basket. It was moved back to its original distance after the 1996–97 season.") Who on our team check's Hakeem 1v1, or Shaq or Robinson? Who on our team checks Jordan, Pippen, Drexler, Kobe? Do you really see Collins checking Malone? Considerations - In 1992-93 Chicago Bulls shot 8.2 x 3PT attempts per game making 36.5%. They shot 79.7 x 2 pt attempts per game, making 49.4%. For comparison, the 2019-20 Hawks shot 37 x 3 PT attempts per game making 35.2%. They shot 54.8 x 2 Pt attempts per game, making 51.8%. Defensively, teams worked inside and kicked out to keep teams honest. Teams were built defensively to hold position, play the post. During this time, teams were developing mid-range shooters to loosen things up and every team had 1 to 2 shooters on the floor to shoot 3's. Almost no big men shot 3's. That was the job of PG, SG and some SF. Teams would struggle to get out on the Hawks through their never ending PnR sets. Defensively we would give teams fits shooting from range and we would be much better equipped to stop teams shooting the 3. We would shut that down. However, see above. Teams would destroy us posting us up. Teams with real centers (half of the league) would score at will underneath and outrebound us 2-1. I don't think the 3 pt efficiency + volume could make that up. We would be bottom 3rd until we came up with a plan to defend the post up.