thecampster

That's a good point but you do get it back in resale value down the road. There are steeper automotive taxes, food costs, etc.

Listening to 93.7 this morning Sheridan was a guest and he mentioned something extremely important. Although the Lakers can offer the most money, the effective salary is lower than Atlanta which is lower than Houston. I'll explain. California's top state tax rate next year will top 13.3% (7.1% higher than Georgia) and a starting state sales tax of 7.5% + local county taxes (3.5% higher than Georgia). Texas has no state income tax, but a beginning sales tax at 6.25% statewide with local taxes on top of that making sales taxes about 2 percent higher than Georgia. Given a yearly salary of 18million and a federal tax bracket of 39 percent this leaves about 10.5 million after taxes on an 18 million dollar salary. California (10.5 x .867)= an effective salary of 9.1 million before sales and other taxes. Georgia (10.5 x .932) = an effective salary of 9.85 million the first season with slightly lower sales tax than Texas Texas (10.5 x 1.0) an effective salary of 10.5 million the first season As the contract grows and with the extra 3% raise annually in L.A., eventually the effective salaries become equal annually but over the 1st 4 years of the contract the effective salary for both Georgia and Texas is considerably lower than that of LA. Although LA can offer a large 5th year salary, the difference in effective salary is significantly less than an extension deal in one of the other two markets. Additionally, any extra marketing dollars would receive the same kind of devaluation. The argument about Money was just ruined by California legislature with their massive increase in millionaires taxes. IE, Golden State is also out. The rumors involving Dallas are unfounded based on salary cap rules dealing with cap holds. Thereby the only real contenders are Houston and Atlanta.

This happened last year all through the Smoove at the deadline saga. I said repeatedly that most of the rumors were not true. I kept pointing to the phrase "according to sources close to the situation". This is a common phrase used when a vendor at the stadium gives their opinion or a 5th cousin twice removed. The phrase you are looking for is, "according to "insert specific name here"" That specific name would be the player's agent, a person in the organization, a close family member (like Horford's dad), or someone else that you would trust if you were the player in question. Right now technically everyone is still under contract till July 1st. Therefore members of organizations can't talk or they violate NBA rules against player tampering. Players under contract till July 1st can't say anything or they risk fines and a bad reputation. There are few people who can officially speak. Agents being one and they say things because they are trying to drum up interest in their client.

In order to answer your question Diesel, you need to work backwards with Salary, like this. Assumed salary cap of 60 million +60 -12 (Horford) __________ +48 Million -01.259 million (Jenkins) ___________ +46.741 million There is the number assuming only Horford, Jenkins on the roster meaning you gave away Williams and renounced everyone else, Teague signed elsewhere. Now you figure in other mandatory costs +46.71 million -00.100 million (Tyler cap requirement) -1.348 million (#17 pick)-1.281 million (#18 pick) (4th player on roster) -4.7 million (6 veteran minimum cap holds - 9 available slots minus Smith/Paul/Howard) ___________________ 39.281 million Given the scenario you presented, this is what you would have to sign Smith, Paul, Horford. A piece of information. You don't have to renounce Smith to complete anything. You just sign him first. Once you renounce Smith you can't go over the cap anyway to sign him. You lose the benefit. In your scenario, you'd be looking at Smith for 10-11 a year and Paul/Howard for 14 million a year to start. Reality...not going to happen. _______________________________ More likely Scenario plausible scenario. Move forward with Teague as your PG. In the above scenario, Teague at 3.7 million leaves 35.8 million for Howard/Smith. So 13-15 for Smith (which is what it will take). 18 million for Howard and 4 million left over for a F/A of choice. Then 5 vet minimum contracts. None of which is perfect.

I don't completely agree but best case scenario they are equal. They just bring different things. Josh brings greater diversity defensively but Al is such a better 4 both inside and outside. However, Josh/Al/Dwight is something I really don't think anyone on this board truly understands (and FYI its my perfect scenario). Consider defensive assignments. You have 3 shot blockers of various ability. Al, I believe would get more blocks if he played the 4 than the 3. Historically Josh has always performed better as a weak side blocker from the 3. Dwight controls the paint. Defensively speaking, any team that plays the Hawks is forced to become a jump shooting team. Josh's job on Paul George in the Indiana series shows the effect having him at the 3 can have. At the same time, moving Al to the 4 put a stronger body on David West giving him fits. In this format, Howard, Horford and Smith would all be capable of posting their man up at any time and Smith/Howard is about a 4-5 million dollar a year cheaper option than Paul/Howard. This leaves more money for other positions, depth, shooters. In no way am I saying Smith > Paul. I'm just saying from a team dynamic, that frontline is a nightmare rivaling the Parish/Bird/Mchale Celtics.

http://www.nba.com/knicks/freeagency/faqs.html (source) Yes, however a team's free agent counts towards the team's salary against the cap while he is unsigned. In order to gain additional cap room to sign other free agents, a team would have to renounce their own player's Bird rights, meaning they give up the ability to exceed the salary cap by re-signing their player. As stated above, we will be under the cap to start. We have no exceptions. There is one traded player exception that goes away once under the cap or it counts against us as well. The simple answer is listen to Northcyde....no. If you want Paul/Howard, Korver is 99.9% gone.

You know what, let me clarify my thoughts on this first. Assume no Paul, no Horford. Assume a healthy Bynum. Assume Bynum for a 10-12 million dollar deal for 4 years with prior injury language. Assume a resign of Josh for 12 a year. Assume Teague signs the 1 year deal for a little less than 4 million. You still have about 8-12 million to sign a Shooting guard (like Reddick) or other PG. Is Teague/Williams Reddick (or similar)/Jenkins Smith Horford Bynum 2-1st rounders and 4 fill in the blank players enough to compete?

So I'm reading an article the other day that discussed Bynum's value. The article was rating his potential destinations. Per the author, he didn't think Bynum would get a long term guaranteed deal based on his injury history. That any long term deal would have prior injury language after 1-2 years. He also didn't see any team giving him a max deal and only Charlotte offering guaranteed long term money. So assuming Dwight is a no go, what would you guys do for Bynum?

I have a real problem with that lineup. Korver was really exposed in the playoffs for his soft defense and Jenkins looked lost at times. He was very slow to get to his spots, wouldn't pull the trigger when he did and struggled with defensive concepts. Despite Dwight/Horford's presence I see us as right back to not being able to defend the 3 and not being able to create effectively. Consider that lineup defensively. Who guards Wade, who guards Lebron? Or who guards Melo, Joe Johnson, etc. You have a real problem at the 2/3 in that lineup. I want a real slasher if we can find one. Someone who will recklessly attack the rim on the move and defend the 2/3. We are losing a great deal in transition both ways if Smith and Teague both leave. One last thing. Korver's cap hold currently makes it impossible to sign those 2 players and resign Kyle. It is the same issue as with Josh. We are about 19 million. Assuming Paul/Howard = 18 million each, that's 55 million in salary for Paul, Jenkins, Horford, Williams, Howard. you also have 7 cap holds to fill roster spots which effectively eats the rest. You can't sign Korver if you give that money to the other two. Yes you can go over the cap to sign your own player but not your own + someone else's. Korver would have to be renounced to sign these 2 as would Josh/Teague/Johnson

Horf Smith Iggy all work with D12/Paul. Heck I could play some 3 in that lineup.

I looked at it today and they don't look like they have enough for Dwight unless the cap moves a bit. Old cap was 58.04 I believe and they getting creative here is what they have. 38.74 million in guaranteed salaries. Asik Lin Harden Robinson White Jones Montiejunas Honeycutt (waived) They have 7 non guaranteed salaries which includes: Delfino Brooks Parsons They have a team option on Francisco Garcia for 6 million. His cap hold is 9 million. So in order to do this at 58.04 million they would have to waive Garcia but could keep Parsons and just barely slide under the cap. However, they would have to trade the options at the top of the roster to acquire Smith and none of hte non guarantees etc or their cap number is too great to sign Dwight. So yes, Dwight would be creative considering mandatory vet min cap holds...Smith/Dwight is impossible without trading away salary first. See above. Josh and Dwight can't happen in Houston. Josh and Dwight could technically happen here. Scenario: Renounce all Free Agents except Josh/Teague/Scott Roster: Horford Williams Jenkins Scott Smith - (14 million first year) Teague (3.47 million QO) total - 36.06 million + 2 rookie holds + vet holds This leaves approximately 18 million for Dwight. If Teague signs elsewhere it gets easier. There is no way to get CP3 and Dwight here without renouncing Teague/Smith as well. However renouncing both Teague and Smith frees up just enough room for both. So here are your options: Teague Williams/Jenkins Smith/ Horford/Scott Howard/ Picks and filler Or Paul Williams/Jenkins Horford/Scott Howard/ Picks and filler Now let me give you one last option and see what you think. Given Bynum a deal starting at the same 14 million you were giving Smith in the above Deal. Use Jenkins to pry a quality SG from a team that is in cap trouble and either resign Smith or go after another team's PG as well. The more I've considered Bynum, the more intrigued I've become.

This

Bursting your bubble. After taxes and cash payout you get about 40% of the money at going interest rates. That means you'd get $240 million. The previous failed sale was in the $350 million range.

you are speaking about things you obviously don't know. Dwight's stats the last 13 games of the season (ie: once he was approaching healthy and Gasol was back) 20.2 ppg 12.3 RPG 2.6 BPG That is not a shadow of his former self. Those are MVP candidate type numbers. When healthy, Dwight is the second most important player in the NBA. Only Lebron means more to a team. Getting Dwight > than anything else we could do. The last 2 seasons before his injury season in LA 21.5 PPG 14.3 RPG 2.3 BPG Dwight Howard controls the boards and controls the paint. You saw how awful his supporting cast was in Orlando. We lost Joe/Marvin and were nearly the same team. They lost Howard and became one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA. I would be happy with Dwight/Al/, Dwight/Josh, Dwight/Paul , Dwight/Ringo Star as our big two. Starting with "a healthy" Dwight = playoffs. Surrounding him with 2 good shooters and average to good defenders means contender.

That's my whole point. In the case of Boston...you can't sign n trade Josh because Boston is currently 4 million into the LT (76 +Million in committed salaries). I know I'm a Josh fan but that isn't clouding my judgment here. I'm saying you will have a much harder time getting back value for Josh right now because A. The trading destination has to be a place he wants to go, B. They have to want him and C. They need to be in the middle part of the salary structure....Can't be in the LT and not so low they can just sign Josh outright without giving up assets. So you're down to only about 10 teams that could do a deal for Josh out of which only a few would be on Josh's list. In the same breath, Horford has no choice in the matter. Horford is on a very reasonable contract based on his production. Horford's reputation is stellar as a team player, example, etc. We have 3 PF's right now. One is young but talented and can only play the PF defensively. One is talented, signed and can effectively play the C as well. One is able to play the SF/PF equally well. Remove Josh and you have C - Horford, PF - Scott or Dwight/Horford Scott bench and you need a SF. Remove Horford and you have C - Dwight, PF - Scott, Josh SF. In the Horford scenario Scott is a bench player, an underused commodity and you still need a SF. In the Josh scenario you can use Scott at the PF. Look at it like this. Assuming Josh gets the 14 mil I've been suggesting. On paper Horford at 12 mil is a bargain next to Josh. But the reality is 2 positions. Horf/SF or Scott/Smith. The SF in question will be a free agent acquisition or draft pick. The SF position is weak. The going rate of 5-9 million for an average starting SF. So Scott Smith at 15mil total > Horf/random at 17-21mil. Again...if you want to upgrade Teague or the SG...one of these 2 will have to go. The question is who would you rather play SF, Smith or an overpriced scrub. That's the weakness on the roster right now...who will play the 3 if Smith leaves.

A trio of Rondo, Dwight, Josh will cost you 12/18/14 respectively. About 44 million a year. With Lou, Jenkins, Scott on the roster and 2 1st rounders you are at 53 million. You still have Teague as an asset and the 2 first rounders plus future firsts. My original point on this stated signing Reddick for about 7 million and using Teague and the 1st rounders in trades as well as sign and trades for our old talent. So picture this roster. Rondo/Williams/Mack Reddick/Jenkins/filler Smith/Pick Scott/johnson Howard/Zaza/filler Approximate cost - $68 million Defensively that is probably one of the best teams the league has seen in years, is under the LT and can score from anywhere on the floor. The main problem is depth. Yes that team is a contender. Now assume you keep Teague/Horford and lose Rondo/Johnson. You start out 3 million more in Salary. But next year you have to resign Teague and its at approximately 9-10 a year. You are in the LT.

Okay...the reason you can't do Josh for Rondo is because Josh is a F/A and Boston is in the LT. That's the whole point of my statement. There is no "rumor" for Rondo other than Boston tried to move him (multiple times) before he got hurt. I was just using an example of a player with similar salary to Horford and yes I believe 90% of teams in the league would trade their 12 million dollar a year player for Horford's 12 million. My point was that it will be easier in the offseason to sign A and B level talent without overpaying if you pair people with others they want to play with. In the offseason we get to completely remake our roster. I want 3 things: rebounding, interior D and perimeter D. If you see me discussing players, they will fill at least 1 of these needs.

Adding on to that, the wildcard is Bynum. If you are willing to gamble that Bynum is going to be healthy, happy and focused then by all means a big 2 of Horford/Bynum is cheaper and possibly better than Dwight/Smith. Horford/Jefferson is not. Horford/Petrovic is not. Your only hope of landing a 1-2 punch that will give Miami and Indiana fits is Bynum/Dwight. Their collective size is something Hibbert can't deal with and their defensive presence makes Miami's free throw carosel run a little slower. If you fail to land either, you aren't contending next year. Defense isn't sexy but defense wins. Rebounding is boring but rebounding controls the flow of the game. We were woeful in these categories after Zaza went down and unless we fix it, Horford is nothing more than a trophy on a shelf.

Moving Horford can bring you back another piece. You aren't thinking about this as a whole picture thing. For example, you can't trade Josh for Rondo right now. But you could trade Al for Rondo and keep Josh. So ask yourself. Is Rondo/Josh/Dwight better than Teague/Horford/FA? This is a complicated mess of who can you get to take our money and how much of it do you have to give up to get them here and if you build around Horford you don't have tradable assets. If you build around Josh you get Horford as a tradable asset. If you trade Horford for a comparable PG/SG/SF, you now have the goods to sign Dwight. Don't think of it as comparing Josh and Al...its a puzzle, not a straight up comparison. By letting Josh get to free agency and letting all your talent get to F/A...the only assets you now have are Horford, Teague and an injured Williams. Even Jenkins, Scott and your two draft picks aren't real assets at this point thanks to Drew barely playing developing the rooks. Because of the difference between the cap and the LT you can't just sign 70 million in talent but you can trade for it to fill in the gaps. Building your roster into a contender is easier building around Dwight and trading Al than letting Josh walk and hoping to sign the best of what's left after Dwight/CP3.

Its a choice thing and for the record I don't want to get rid of Horford. But being realistic, Howard > Horford at the 5. Assuming Josh + Howard = defensive juggarnaut and a lesser 4 nets you a better SG/PG pairing...then yes you would move Horford. You make hard moves like that because team flexibility with the cap/LT is finite. Hard choices will be made. Not bringing back Smith is one possibility. Moving Teague is another. Pretending for a moment you could land Howard but it meant Mike Scott at the 4, Smith at the 3 but meant you could get absolute studs at the 1-2 (like Rondo and Reddick). If moving Horford returned you a starting lineup of Rondo (12 mil 2013) Reddick (8 mil) Smith (14 mil) Scott (1 mil) Howard (18 mil) That's 53 million committed. You'd still have Lou, Jenkins, 2 draft picks eating up to about 62 million. 3 roster spots and 8 million to go. You aren't stuck with Scott starting in that lineup if you aren't impressed with him and can get a serviceable vet. But a starting lineup with Rondo, Smith, Howard is a defensive nightmare for almost every team in the league. You would have to consider that. That team would be so incredible defensively and you'd still have money for a bench.

That's really what I'm seeing this offseason. When I put my list up a few days ago, a look at the bottom of the list shows a lot of teams in LT Hell. (found here) You can really pick some good talent from those teams desperate to get out of the Luxury tax. I can imagine us trading both of our firsts in 2 separate trades to acquire talent. Here are the teams at 72 million in committed salary or greater. Denver - $72.6000 Boston $73.0650 Chicago $73.2030 Golden State $74.8850 Orlando $75.3540 New York $76.4050 LA Lakers $78.1870 Miami $85.6010 Brooklyn $89.5490 This is why I originally said it would make sense to execute a sign and trade Howard while sending Horford to the Lakers. The net difference to the Hawks is 6 million a year in salary while providing 6 million a season in LT relief to the Lakers. This would allow the Hawks to go the full five years for Dwight and allow the Lakers to save face in the situation. On that subject, I did some research and yes the Lakers could sign and trade away Dwight but they couldn't trade their assets for a sign and trade. However the point is moot. The new CBA only allows for 4 year deals on sign and trades at 4.5% raises. It is the same as if the Hawks signed those players outright. So we won't be seeing much in the way of sign n trades anymore. To clarify. Old team resigns player - 5 years maximum of 7.5% raises Old team signs player and trades him away - 4 years and 4.5% raises New team signs player - 4 years and 4.5% raises. So the only reason a team would do a sign n trade is if they need to drop assets to maintain roster flexibility. For example Atlanta could allow someone else to sign Pachulia in a sign and trade but take back their extra point guard to clear a roster spot/cap room for the team signing Pachulia. This would be rare.

Notice missing from the article is the phrase, "according to (insert name here)". If there is no attribution, its speculation.

You left out the quote from the article which says he has said he'd like the opportunity to interview if he isn't being retained. I derive from that he hasn't been given permission to seek other opportunities which is normal because he's still under contract. But if the ASG has no intention of retaining him, they should just cut him loose. It would be a conflict of interest for LD who is privy to the Hawks off-season plans to be allowed to talk to other teams while under contract. It would be a special permission. I have yet to see an article that says he has that permission at this time. It is asking a lot to have someone stay on, be led to believe they are a candidate for a position they already hold and to keep them from seeking those opportunities elsewhere. Without a guarantee of starting next season as the coach, they should let him go find his own deal. I've seen nothing that says that is what they are doing. Life is about commitments. If they have no commitment to LD, its very odd they are asking him to hold one for them.

Not without a 3 inch/30 lb growth spurt.

Actually he's under contract. From the article They are stringing him along. It's a jerk move. Larry should resign and begin looking elsewhere immediately. At his rate the 6 weeks of remaining salary aren't worth it. Word is Philly considers him a candidate and I'm sure numerous college programs would like his name recognition. As long as he's under contract and doesn't have permission to talk to other teams, he can't. Should they keep him employed through 6/30 without any intention of hiring him it will basically keep him from getting a similar level job for next season.