thecampster

I should have caught what he was talking about with the David Lee reference. Still, it helped me realize that even if JJ signs for less than the max it could still be a sign and trade to get him the 6th year, right?

Again. I said possible, not probable. JJ holds all the cards and every major free agency player has roster drops that can be signed back. In any normal year this would be out of the question. But with the total number of free agents and teams/players considering this a make or break year, all things are on the table. It may not happen with JJ but take the top 10 free agents. One of them will be involved in a double snt, mark it down. JJ is a prime candidate because his old team is going to be over the cap. Once the major players in free agency commit all their green to the few top level players out there, the leftover players (ie Duhon for ex) will only be allowed to sign for vet minimums/exception deals. It is in their best interest to play nice in the double snt scenario as it will net them more money.

The bottom line is there is no excuse not to get value for Johnson. He is going to a team under the cap, capable of adding additional talent as long as money is right, that will have non tenured/willing players to work with.

Answering your question, yes....the incentive to sign and trade is for JJ to get his 6th year which is much more money up front. JJ is most likely to sign with the team that can get him 6 years and that requires a sign and trade.

Problem is New York has NOTHING to trade back to us. Neither does Miami, and The Nets aren't giving up Devin Harris or Lopez. Best thing we could get is a trade exception,

Wrong....dead wrong. Any player that is signable by the knicks that was on their roster last year is signable and tradeable to us in them taking on JJ. On that list is:

Tracy McGrady

David Lee

Al Harrington

Chris Duhon

Eddie House

Sergio Rodriguez

JR Giddens

Jonathan Bender

Any and or all of those players could be signed and returned to us in signing and trading JJ to the Knicks. The incentive to the Knicks is that in signing and trading for JJ they can give him the extra year and insure his signing. The Player they sign and trade to us would do it because it would increase what we could off them to play for a winner. If JJ is signed for 17 million, we can take back up to that amount in signing and trading him away. David Lee and Chris Duhon for a total of 10 million would look really nice to get for JJ walking. Yes that is possible. I wrote a lengthy writeup about this about 5 days ago.

I'm sorry but you don't single out one guy. Esp seeing that Joe wasn't trying to go into a slump. It happens! Just bad timing for Joe that it happened in the playoffs. I was pissed for a sec but after thinking about the entire season my perspective changed. Now I'm thankful that Joe gave me an excellent regular season. Yep 53 wins where he often was the best player on the floor.

Far more often this season Horford, Josh, Crawford were better and won us ballgames. I would say JJ was the second best player on the floor 2/3rds of the games last season.

First, let me give you a list of names:

Jeff Pendergraph

Jermaine Taylor

Dante Cunningham

Nikola Peković

Walter Sharpe

Joey Dorsey

Carl Landry

Gabe Pruitt

Marcus Williams

James White

Steve Novak

Solomon Jones

Salim Stoudamire

Daniel Ewing

Brandon Bass

What do they have in common? Those are the 15 guys selected 31-33 in the past 5 drafts. Of those 15, only 2 were rotation players in the NBA last year: Bass and Landry. Two out of 15. You have better odds at a crap game. When you say crap like this...

...you make it sound like getting a role player in the 2nd round (even at the beginning of the 2nd round) in the draft is a probable outcome. News flash. Look at that list of names again. It isn't. I'll take Randolph Morris over Daniel Ewing, thanks.

Second - and this is the reason I've stopped posting, though it's directed more at others than you - I've gotten sick of the wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance that underlies posts talking about the Hawks' spending. None of us know what the Hawks’ balance sheet looks like. That includes me. The difference is, I don't presume to set a budget for a business based on what I would like them to spend rather than, you know, how much money they actually can expect to make.

The assumption underlying the "this trade was a failure unless the Hawks sign a good veteran big man" is laughable. That assumption is that the Hawks' revenues are sufficient to support that kind of payroll even with the $3M. Based on piss-poor attendance and TV ratings that the Hawks continue to have, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that's not the case. Here's the more sensible way to think about it. On one end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to turn a significant profit next year), the $3M might be the difference between the Hawks having a luxury tax payroll or not. On the other end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to lose a lot of money next year), that $3M might be what the team needs just to cover their current payroll/pay taxes/vendors/etc.

Depending on what the team’s projected revenues are for next year, that $3M might be the difference between signing a reliable vet free agent or staying pat. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are so low that they won’t be able to afford such a free agent no matter what, and that money might be the difference between retaining JJ or having to let him walk. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are even lower than that they can’t keep JJ or sign another free agent, it might be the difference between keeping Josh or trading him for future cap relief. The point is, the people around here don't know and don't care. That's just absurd.

It’s not like the owners will ever see the money from the trade. It goes into the team revenue pile, which the individual owners can't touch (the separation between team and owner finances being another rather important fact that is casually ignored). They only see their gains and losses when the team is sold. So saying “that trade makes no sense/ASG is cheap unless the Hawks sign a significant free agent this summer” makes no sense. A view that makes sense is to start by looking at whatever the Hawks’ payroll for next year turns out to be, and subtract $3M. Because that’s the difference this trade made. Starting with what you think the payroll should be and then saying ASG is cheap unless they pay that amount reflects either ignorance or stupidity, because it ignores the fact that the team can’t just create money out of thin air when it sets a payroll.

I'm seriously done until at least the end of Wimbledon, and maybe thereafter. I know I'm being a douchebag, but I'm frankly sick of the ridiculous ignorance about (or the complete disregard for) the basic principles of running a business that underly most of the posts around here.

I got castigated last night for trying to explain this was a very good business decision. We are very close. We are no longer rebuilding. If we want to contend, we can not afford to jerk around with roster spots for non contributors and people we are developing to be backups in 3 years.

Oh this whining about the 31st pick is making my head ache. Here's the skinny. Without Joe and assuming Chilldress signs with another team and we don't have his cap hold, we only have about 8 million to spend without going over the cap. If Joe does sign, we're over the cap....period. So we have only 2 choices, unsigned rookies, or vets at the minimum (except for the exception). We currently have 8 players under contract and 8 million to spend. Add Joe and the 2 rookies and you are way over the cap, approaching the luxury tax and still only have 11 players. You still need to sign one more player bare minimum and probably 3. Even if you sign and trade chillz, you are over the cap if you sign JJ. That money to sign a vet big was way more important than developing a prospect center who had health issues at his physical.

Expect Chilldress to be gone to clear his cap hold and for us to take back the bare minimum back in salary. Expect Joe to be gone and us to take back an underutilized or undercoached veteran.

THEY CAN SIGN THREE MAX PLAYERSS

BEST FRIENDSSS: CHRIS BOSH, LEBRON JAMES, D WADE

OR JOE JOHNSON,DWADE,CRISH BOSH, OR LBJ

I'm assuming because then you'd want us to sign Beasley. Beasley is a pot head and will be out of the NBA in 5 years.

FYI....the cheapest thing you can do in the NBA is pay a 2nd round draft pick. If they pick a vet to fill that roster spot, it will cost them the vet minimum of a million plus. Not wanting another rookie on the payroll is actually spending more money, not saving it.

Where is the rumor of us getting McGee come from? If we do get McGee than that is great.

Pollack and Bell on 790 the zone talked about it today on the drive home. They stated it was more than just a rumor.

Well we got cash, which is just as good as a 7' defensive center that could help this year.

He's no where near NBA ready...too thin...soft at this point. We're most probably getting Javale McGee in the Chillz sign and trade. There is your center.

What we got here was moving down 3 spaces and got the same player we wanted. Less guaranteed money for 3 spots lower down....this was a smart business decision freeing up money. It doesn't seem like much but the difference between the 24th and 27th pick is about $95,000 a year. That may not seem like much but if you could save 95 grand on all 12 players that's a million more to spend on a free agent. It was a smart trade decision.

Even bigger than that. I'm pretty sure this marks the end of the Josh Chilldress is coming back talk. That means JChill is going elsewhere which means probably Washington. That means another player and salary cap space. Since JC was lost to us anyway, this trade of 24 for 2 picks we wanted anyway is really 3 players for a pick.

Horf has better lateral quickness and jumpshot than Smoove yet you never hear about him playing the 3 when he has two of the bigger attributes you want from a 3.

Very true and additionally, if you play either Josh or Al at the 3, it provides matchup problems for the other team in post ups and the ability to shoot over another player.

http://theondeckcircle.net/2008/07/01/nba-free-agency-guide-part-1-salary-cap-rules/

First, read the above article. It is chocked full of good information that should help you avoid throwing around crazy trade scenarios and should advance our discussions on certain topics. What I found interesting in this article is what is missing. It's dated, but it applies in theory. It's a short version of this article.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

Now this article is too long to read unless you are far nerdier than I am (a hard accomplishment). Specifically what I want to draw your attention to is Question number 14 of this article which explains how a teams salary is computated. Much of the information out there is technically, factually incorrect when explaining how much money a team has under the cap to sign players due to this one restriction

•A roster charge if the team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks). The roster charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player below 12. The roster charge only applies during the offseason.

The minimum NBA rookie salary is: $473,604

So using three example teams (Knicks, Miami, Chicago) you come up with a problem in those teams signing players and also sign and trade deals and why they are a problem or a help.

Bulls - 8 players under contract - Cap hit 4 x $473,604 = $1,894,416. So in the Bulls case, there is as much as a 1.9 million dollar incentive to take back your trash players in a sign and trade for JJ. The Bulls could take 4 players from your bench (signed by you) and trade two quality players to you to save themself 3 cap hit in signing JJ. It is lost salary against the cap to them and inhibits their signing another player.

Knicks - 5 players under contract - Cap Hit 7 x $473,604 = $3,315,228. This team gets super tricky in the sign and trade department. It is in their best interest sign and trade their own players to you in signing JJ (see Duhon, Harrington, JJ, House, Rodriguez) in that they can take back extra players from you in doing so as they are under the cap (ie, Bibby - Zaza) and therefore clear up cap space for you. Additionally, you would want to make that trade because you can go over the cap to sign JJ then you can take back players in his stead but you could not just sign those players outright. Additionally, the Knicks are in a worse spot than it looks. They may have tons of cap space but they have to sign 7 players (some rookie with set salaries) in order to meet the minimum roster space requirements. Some of those salaries will have to be decent as they can not sign all low experience players and expect to also sign big name free agents. Those 7 roster spots are deadly to them.

Heat - 6 players under contract - Cap Hit 6 x $473,604 = $2,841,624. Very similar issue as to the Knicks. Even if they signed 2 big name free agents, they will need to fill 4 additional roster spots minimum and there is currently a 2.841 million they can't use to sign players based on cap penalties. Players they could sign and trade in deals included, Jermaine O'neal, Quentin Richardson, Udonis Haslem, Carlos Arroyo, Rafer Alston, Jamal Magloire.

Remember, we do not need to take back equal salary from them in sign and trading JJ, we only need to take back similar salary to what extra pieces are included.

So for an example, the Hawks sign and trade Joe Johnson (at 17 million) and include Bibby, Zaza (roughly 10 million in salary), the Heat sign and trade back Haslem, Richardson, Alston (for let's pretend 16 million total). Miami nets 3 players on their roster making about a 1.4 million dollar improvement in their cap hit situation for signing another player and then filling their roster. The net change to the Hawks is gaining a better backup point guard for our talent, a solid big man in Haslem and a decent part time backup in Richardson.

This is a big deal when considering who can sign, when and where. Just because a team has money to sign 2 big time free agents, they still have to fill out a roster with 9 deep players to compete.

it's hard to pound on these guys for going cheap with LD. I'm honestly shocked that they are even considering paying out 20+ million per to JJ. Could someone please help me understand why ASG think JJ is so important. I understand W/L but I doubt Joe has real impact on the bottom line.

Thats:

Thrashers - 30 mill

Hawks -10

Arena +10

There is a difference between lost money and lost money against budget. These numbers are almost assuridly lost money against budget. How does that work? Here are depictions of the two.

Lost money ... Total gross - Total costs = profit or loss. So for example 100 million - 110 million = 10million

Lost money against budget ... Total Gross - Total costs - projected profit = profit or loss. So for example: 100 million gross - 110 million - (projected profit of 10% of gross (10 million)) = 20 million

Same budget, in one we lose 10 mil but in two we report losing 20 million. This is common procedure on most company ledgers. ASG did not lose 20 million on the Hawks, they were 20 million over budget which was probably 10 - 20 million profit projected.

This was how the owners for MLB argued with the arbitrators years ago when doing their collective bargaining agreement.

The reason they do this is because it's reasonable to assume money invested returns a profit. The same money they own the team with could go into bank CD's and earn 3-5% so it stands to reason they could assume a profit in their books.

Based on the end to the season, the ways fans treated JJ and vice versa, the economics of the re-signing a player his age to a big deal and looking at our list of players we are working out has led me to one conclusion. We are NOT going to have Joe Johnson next season.

So with that being the case let's look at the Hawks roster by position/group and then take a look at what we might do on draft night based on the positions of players we scheduled for workouts and what round we might take them in. For the purpose of this post I am going to assume that we don't plan on re-signing Joe Johnson.

Position (# under contract / min. number needed)

PG (2/2)

Teague/Bibby

- JT should be a nice defensive upgrade to Bibby but we can't count on him to make a major immediate defensive impact. We're going to need to sign a veteran that can play solid defense but can also run a motion based offense and who can also mentally handle the strong chance that at least in the beginning he is going to be inactive or sitting on the bench as the 3rd PG.

SG/SF (3/4)

Crawford/Evans

Marvin/??

- Evans is far more suited to play SG than SF so I'd rank our need in this area to be SF and then SG. However, if JJ and/or Childress are here next year that drastically changes things and gives us plenty of talent and depth.

PF/C (3/4)

Smith/??

Horford/Zaza

- Assuming that both Smith and Horford are back next year and stay in the same positions the primary need here is a quality backup to Smith and I see us going after a more traditional type of PF who can bang and do the dirty work, like a Paul Millsap type. Obviously we'd like to get a quality defensive 5 that can spell Horford but chances are we're going to have Zaza backing up Al again so even if we draft a C he's probably not going to get much playing time next year.

Benchwarmers (0/3-5)

I could see Hunter, Mario and Morris coming back for another year but we really don't want any of them to be a primary backup. If they don't come back then we'll probably look to sign or draft replacement players who are similar in terms of ability since they won't play much.

Having broken it down like that and assuming that we will not have Childress or JJ next year and not considering FA's it looks to me like our 3 biggest positions of need going into the draft are at backup SF, PF and SG in that order. The way that I arrive at that order is I see needing a backup for Marvin being a bigger priority than a backup for Smith.

Now take a look list of players, by position, who are scheduled to workout for the Hawks:

1st round

PG (0) -

SG (5) - Terrico White, Elliott Williams, Dominique Jones, Greivis Vasquez, Jordan Crawford*

SF (3) - Darington Hobson, Stanley Robinson, Quincy Pondexter

PF (2) - Craig Brackins, Larry Sanders

C (2) - Solomon Alabi, Daniel Orton

*Note: Jordan Crawford canceled his workout with the Hawks.

From this set of workouts I believe that we are staying at 24 and drafting the best SG/SF available but that we are doing our due diligence in also working out Alabi and Orton, just in case we move up or one of them slides I suppose. We are also considering 1st round graded PFs as well.

2nd round

PG (4) - Chris Kramer, J.T. Tiller, Tory Jackson, Joe Dukes

SG (3) - Pape Sy (2 workouts), Manny Harris, Mikhail Torrance

SF (5) - Devin Ebanks, Elijah Millsap, Kevin Palmer, Lazar Hayward, Tasmin Mitchell

PF (9) - Gani Lawal, Charles Garcia, Landon Milbourne, Trevor Booker, Derrick Caracter, Patrick Sullivan, Jarvis Varnardo, Latavious Williams, Samardo Samuels

C (1) - Ryan Richards

From this set of workouts it is clear that PF is far and away the position that we are most strongly leaning towards in the 2nd round, however, if we were to draft a PF in the 1st round then we'd probably draft a SF here. I believe that Jackson and Dukes are only being brought in to be the PGs for Sanders, Alabi and Orton and that we're not really looking to draft them.

Potential Hawks 1st round Draft Board based on their Draft Express rankings (Position - Mock Draft Pick #)

Larry Sanders (PF - 16)

Solomon Alabi (C - 19)

Daniel Orton (C - 21)

Dominique Jones (SG - 24) - DX Hawks Prediction

Elliott Williams (SG - 25)

Jordan Crawford (SG - 27)

Greivis Vasquez (SG - 28)

Quincy Pondexter (SF - 29)

Stanley Robinson (SF - 31)

Terrico White (SG - 32)

Darington Hobson (SF - 33)

Craig Brackins (PF - 34)

Conclusion

What I think the Hawks are going to do based on the above information is that we're going to look for the best available SG in round one if we stay where we are at although we would consider moving up for a C (or PF Larry Sanders). We might also consider moving back a little for a SF or PF. Chad Ford has us taking Lance Stephenson at #24, a raw SG that we aren't even working out and that DX has projected to go with the 11th pick in round 2.

In round 2 we'd look at taking the best available PF but if we took a PF in round 1 we would draft the best available SG/SF.

I DO NOT see Sund drafting a player that we have not worked out, but I wouldn't put it past the Hawks to have scheduled a secret workout or two.

Thoughts?

You left out what I think is the biggest possibility. JJ wants to play for a winner and that means whatever team he signs for will need to have an established talent base. They will have a SG to move. Whatever team signs JJ is going to want to move dead contract weight. This sets the Hawks up to take back something of real value from another team by packaging the 24th pick which is guaranteed but low money to another team for a player from their roster that won't count against our cap just like JJ does and we move down in the draft out of the first round to draft a player with a non guaranteed contract. This helps give us the money to sign Chillz and 1 lower tier free agent. I think this is much more probable than the Hawks standing pat at 24. An example of this kind of player would be taking Eddy Curry off the Knicks hands for one year and getting a player thrown in to equal JJ's salary. We do the Knicks a favor by eating 1 year of Curry's contract and giving them the money to sign talent that fits the system. They repay us with a player and draft considerations. We send the 24th pick over this year so they aren't cap dinged for not having 9 players under contract.

What that means is we'd be drafting for someone else.

I don't see it that way, we're talking about a late 1st rounder here, they are usually looked at as quality depth, deep bench players or maybe even fringe starters not guys expected to get minutes and a starting role from day one. Drafting a 2/3 doesn't send any negative message to Joe and is not looked at as a waste. It is just the franchise doing it's due diligence in ensuring that we have quality depth both now and in the future. Do not forget that both Mo and Jamal are free agents just one year from now and what would you prefer then, picking up a rookie to fill in or having a sophomore who's already familiar with the system ready to step up? Is the situation I'm describing sound any different than the expectations we have for Teague?

Agreed. It's not like we're picking 6th anymore. Picking anywhere after 15 is a crap shoot and no team should expect that player to start.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-76ers-iverson

If Joe leaves, sign TMac and AI.

PG - Teague/Bibby

SG - Iverson/Craw

SF - McGrady/Mo

PF - Smoove/Draft Pick

C - Horf/Draft Pick/Siler

Both former superstars who have something to prove. If they stay healthy we could possibly go to the Finals. Better than going next season with Craw starting.

OY!!! Ok, so you have two guards now under 6'2" starting. You don't even have Marvin in the rotation as you have Mo as the backup Small Forward. You don't have Zaza in as the backup Center and instead want a rookie and Siler as the only backups to Horford.

Let's forget the cancerous actions of Iverson in the past. Forget the trainwreck that has been his last 3 stops in the NBA. Forget the trainwreck that has been McGrady the last 2 years. Iverson of 8 years ago, McGrady of 8 years ago and yes this lineup would win and Horford would go to jail for killing at least one of his teammates for their antics.

This is a LD quote from an MC article.

"–LD offered more evidence that the Hawks are all-in with Rook’ (I’ve decided he’s Rook’ until the league officially changes years on July 1).

“I believe in both guys,” Drew said. “Both have the capabilities of running this offense; both guys will benefit from this offense. Mike is getting closer to my age, but the thing he brings to table is he can still shoot the basketball. [The offense] will create for him instead of him creating for himself. I believe in Teague. I think he has the ability to make team better and have an impact. I think the offense will benefit him with his speed and quickness and ability to break the defense down.”

In other words, the ball is out of J.J.’s hands, in Rook’s hands and Bibby is a spot-up shooter.

– Raise your hand if you think the Hawks are in trouble if this Rook’ experiment doesn’t work out. Because then wouldn’t the temptation be great to turn it back over to J.J. and Bibby again? Good luck going out and finding a legit vet point guard and a center with that mid-level."

I'll eat crow if JJ is back this year. I don't buy it, it's too long term an investment when you can send him packing in a sign and trade taking back an exemption and bring back Childress. Signing Joe means getting rid of other pieces to sign Horford (who I think will require 12 million per).

How old are you? I watched Larry Drew play PG in the NBA!

I was thinking the same thing.

I have no idea how much actual effort was put into it, some people put a lot of effort into short post and others put no effort into really long drawn out posts that are just ramblings. Length doesn't give an indication, and "number crunching" also doesn't give an indication of effort. If you have knowledge of something as simple as excel it takes no time at all to calculate averages, but if you don't it may take a minute more to whip out your calculator and compute. I just can't judge the effort.

But the math (which is supposed to be the main point of this thread) just is awful. For one, there is no reasoning behind adding points, assists, and rebounds together. What purpose does that serve? And then just to drive the point home, why would anyone trust the "math" of someone who calculates the PPG of 9 players by just adding their PPG without taking into account they don't play the same number of games as the team? I don't like pointless math with no reason and I also don't like incorrect math. With this board, I feel there needs to be someone to point this out or else you risk no one realizing the flaws.

That is a fair point but because of the exact issues you raise, there is no fair way to calculate that. I've given countless math related posts to show a players value. Most come to the same conclusion. That although Joe is a good player, he is not a max contract player. If you go with the base premise of my post and realize that a few games missed here and there and minutes divided are based on players value, you realize this is pretty close to accurate. The conclusion states Joe was worth 73% of the money paid to him which = 10.933 million. That still shows him to be a fine player but not a max contract player.

A rebound stops the other team from getting another chance at the basket or gives you another chance. NBA statistics show that each shot attempt is worth about 1 point. Assists are worth 2 points in the real world of the NBA as you only get an assist if you make a basket. So split the difference between the passer and the shooter and that's worth a point. So yeah, I have no problem with that. I consider rebounding and playmaking to be equally important to scoring in the game of basketball. Using this flaw in Joe's game to bear out the stats. If you go to 82games, you will see Joe had the ball in his hand an enormous amount of time for the team. That should lead to more assists (see Lebron/Wade), rebounds (following your shot) and points. But other players on the team were much more efficient with their touches. getting more assists and points per touch. I understand Joe draws a lot of doubles but his opportunities to score are much higher than everyone elses and that means his assist chances are just as high.

Whatever the methodology, could somebody apply it to the Cavs and Heat so the ratios of Joe's summit contemporaries can be considered? I'd try it myself but I've screwed up enough numbers in real work today (no, I don't schlep for BP).

~lw3

Cleveland Cavaliers - top 9 payroll $76,317,987 (skewed as Antawn Jamison's contract was only partial paid by Cleveland)

Lebron James - $15,779,912 for 20.7%

29.7 ppg - top paid 9 on team 102.1 - 29.1%

Rebound totals - 2477 - Lebron 554 for 22.4%

Assist Totals - 1690 - Lebron for 38.5%

The math (38.5+22.4+29.1) / 20.7 divided by 3. = 4.35/3 = 145% return on investment.

FYI Shaq made 20 million. 26.2% of payroll. His percentages added up to 30.8% /26.2% /3 =39.2% return on investment. Yes, paying Shaq hosed them. To figure out what he should have made vs. his production you multiply his salary $20,000,000 x his return 39.2% and you get his team worth of $7.84 million dollars.

Miami - top 9 payroll of 69,527,387 (Jermaine O'neal making 23 million kills them)

Dwayne Wade - $15,779,912 - for 22.7%

26.6 ppg - top paid 9 on team 92.1 - 28.9%

Rebound totals - 2843 - Wade 373 for 13.1%

Assist Totals - 1001 - Wade 501 for 50%

The math (28.9+13.1+50.0) / 22.7% divided by 3 = 4.05/3 = 135%

FYI, Jermaine Oneal was similar in production to Shaq, Production minorly skewed because Chalmers is not top 9 paid.

Phoenix - top 9 payroll of $57,084,458

Amare Stoudemire - $16378325 - for 28.7%

23.2 ppg - top paid on team 106.4 - 21.8%

Rebound totals - 2826 - Amare 732 - 25.9%

Assist totals - 1756 - Amare 82 - 4.7%

The math - (21.8+25.9+4.7) / 28.7 /3 = 1.826/3 = 61%

The reason Amare's is so low is he only scores and rebounds. No assists. He requires others to get him his points. Although he is a force, Without Nash and Richardson he would suffer. Additionally, the extra 10 million plus in salary this team is missing that would bring his salary percentage down was lost when the team traded for and then waived Ben Wallace last June. That would have skewed the numbers significantly. What this shows is that his value was closer to Josh Smith level money at about 10-11 million. Maybe twelve.

This metric works extremely well to expose flaws/holes in a players game that should keep him from getting a max contract. There are 9 players competing for about 60 million dollars. That means the average player should earn 6.67 million. When we gave Joe over 15 million, we were saying we expected him to produce about 250% of an average player.

Correcting myself, I trust camp didn't use "per-game" stats to make the %ages, but rather the "totals," so that resolves the conundrum.

~lw3

Totals on rebounds and assists. Percentages on points because the lower level players contribution was typically replaced by other marginal players. FYI, the 9 best paid, did have the highest scoring averages.

I'll try the Lebron, Wade, Amare comparisons in a sec. This took me about an hour to compile on our team so give me a bit.

There's a flaw in your statistics.

For instance, your statistics says that Mo Evans, Teague, and Bibby are three of our most profitable players and that Joe, Craw, and Zaza are on the bottom. This is not true. It's almost as if you set up a system that rewards the cheap guys. I would hate to see what's down for Joe Smith and RandMo.

There is no flaw in this math at all. Joe wants to be paid 24% of the team salary, then Joe needs to produce 24% of the production. He's not worth that kind of money. The numbers bear that out. Maybe the best example of that (remember this is tangibles only), is Marvin's piss poor production against his salary.

In a post recently, I made the point that an NBA team is 9 players that are in the rotation and 3-6 who are there for practice and emergency fill. They aren't the real team, but just ornaments. When you consider that the cap + exceptions comes out to about 60 million dollars and most of that needs to go to 9 players, you understand what it takes to build a team. Looking back at the 09-10 Hawks, I decided to do a comparison of the top 9 paid players based on the percentage of the team money they earned and what percentage of team stats they got in the key stat areas of points, rebounds, assists. quantifying their defensive contribution would be much harder so I won't attempt that right now. Salaries according to hoopshype.com.

Player ---------------Salary----------Sal%-----------Pts%----------Reb%--------Assist%-----%totals added Total/sal%

Joe Johnson - 14,976,754 ----- 24.24%--------21%-----------11.1%-------21%--------------53.1----------------2.19

Josh Smith - 10,800,000 ------- 17.48%--------15.5%---------22.2%------19.5%------------57.2----------------3.27

Jamal Crawford - 9,360,000 --- 15.15%-------17.7%-----------6.3%------13.6%------------37.6----------------2.48

Marvin Williams - 7,500,000 ----12.14%--------10%-----------13.1%-------8.1%-------------31.2----------------2.57

Mike Bibby - 6,217,617 ---------- 10.06%---------9%--------------5.8%------17.7%------------32.5----------------3.23

Zaza Pachulia - 4,750,000 ------- 7.69%--------4.2%------------9.2%--------2.4%------------15.8----------------2.05

Al Horford - 4,307,640 ------------- 6.97%--------14%------------25.2%-------10.8%----------50.0----------------7.17

Maurice Evans - 2,500,000 ------ 4.05%---------5.6%-----------4.85%-------2.7%-----------13.15--------------3.25

Jeff Teague - 1,373,880 ---------- 2.22%---------3.1%-----------2.1%---------7%--------------12.2---------------5.50

-------------------------------------------

Total - 61,785,891

Points - These 9 players accounted for 101.6 PPG, 3172 rebounds and 1753 assists when they played. Their contribution percents are listed per those total numbers.

The total% divided by the salary % gives you a "did we get our money's worth rating" on each of our players. What this chart does is say that based on the money we pay you, we expect that kind of production. Showing the investment is low for Teague and Horford, the return they gave was very high. Bibby's investment wasn't high...it was almost exactly average for his pay and so the expectation wasn't high based on pay. Look at the difference between Joe's Pay and Josh's. Similar pay. The number at the far right shows their return on investment. The number on the right should be divided by 3 for their categories. So in Joe's case, he scored a 2.19. divide that by 3 and you get 73%. They got a 73% return back on their investment in Joe back based on these 3 categories. The pay is the expectation level. Josh, Bibby, Evans all come in at about 107-109% return on investment. Marvin 86% return, Crawford 84% return, Zaza a 68% return on investment and no surprise at all, Teague a 183% return on investment and Al Horford a 239% return on investment.

If you were a CEO, you would have to say you were paying JJ more than he brought back, same with Marvin and Crawford. You would consider firing Zaza and giving Horford a raise.

for everyone saying pay JJ the max, this is what it does to us financially when you do that. Now consider defense a second. Josh, Al, Marvin get bumps for solid defense based on pay all have holes but all are above average defensive contributors....JJ again is expected to be stellar defensively (above average but not elite). Bibby and Crawford would get marked down for their defensive contributions against their salary. Both are average or above average salary wise but killed us defensively this year.

When you try to use the PG weakness to justify the Sf weakness... that's giving the Sf a pass.

The Sf has to be able to do something other than take up space on the floor. It was like we were playing 4 on 5 basketball. Marvin didn't insert himself into the offense or defense and it looked as though he didn't care to. I can't blame Bibby for that. I can't blame Woody for that. That's Marvin's personality and has been since forever.

Just a question here, not a criticism but a question to help you validate your point. How many players that played the majority of their games at SF this year played better (statistically) than Marvin and earned less that 7.5 million. It's just a question, but a fair one I'd say. I'd be interested to see the list.

Obviously any fool who watched the ORL debacle knows we need a center. A reasonable center would give us one of two things. if he was a tall shooter he could lure the big guy out of the paint...or otherwise fight him straight up.

Having a reasonable center would allow Al Horford to play PF..where he could dominate. Smooove could be the odd SF.

People complain about Josh's perimeter D, but I know that basketball is played from the inside out. Center positioning settles many things which is why Ewing's Knicks were so good for so long. He changed the floor spacing. It's not Al's lack of height, it's his lack of weight that hurt him against Howard. Howard backed him down with ease and that made the distance with the spot up 3's that much harder to cover when people came to double. if we get a center, he needs to be able to hold the block and that is where true defense begins.