SNT for Al

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

Given more thought, Atlanta's 2nd round pick would be projected to be in the neighborhood of Detroit's 1st rounder...

---

What are you talking about?? Do you think that Atlanta will be one of the top 5 worse teams in the NBA and that Detroit will be the best team in the league this up coming season?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I think you're forgetting the fact that Al is a free agent. You won't get equivalent value in a sign and trade for him... it's that simple.

---

While that ordinarily would seem to make sense on the surface, it hasn't translated into NBA reality.

Joe Johnson is case in point. One may trade one 1st round pick for another team's 3rd or 4th scoring option. Very unlikely one would trade TWO 1st round picks. And practically unheard of that one would trade TWO PLUS a former 1st round pick... and what's more, you're then going to pay the guy 12 million a year???

Why isn't that insane?

Because with a SNT, a team like Atlanta is able to enter into an exlusionary bargaining position wherein, if they can meet the price of the player and of the team, they can flip the switch and have player X who, ostensibly, they have identified to be a key component to the team that they want to put on the floor.

What makes this SOOOO different is that there is this triangulation effect where, different from a straight-up signing, the player who wants to command a big paycheck is beholden to his former team -- in order to achieve that max paycheck, they're going to have to be satisfied... and concurrently, it is different from a straight-up trade because the new team is beholden to the player who must be happy with what they're offering.

So, this is why teams have been very satisfied to hold on to players for their final year, and to do SNTs... they can be very profitable after all.

The crisis that a team can get into is that their player isn't #1 or #2 at their position in the market, and that there isn't at least one team out there that considers the FA to be that key component to add to their roster.

Atlanta has at least two teams (IND and GS), and if the newest rumors are true, possibly a third team (DET), vying for Al... and were it not for the court ruling, we'd still be very much in the proverbial catbird's seat.

(Should have written a disclaimer, btw... this trade like all others proposed here isn't likely to happen in any sense whatsoever, and all the more so under the new conditions, where no one appears to have an exact understanding of the court's "negotiations...already initiated" caveat.)

Quote:

---

They don't add quality assets (like the ORL 1st) for a minor upgrade, while adding contract in the meantime. Doesn't make sense.

---

Not sure you read closely enough, but I understand how you might have jumped to the conclusion...

I never proposed the ORL 1st rounder; rather, I proposed DET's own 1st rounder.

I agree that they're going to be loathe to let go of the ORL 1st rounder, period.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Given more thought, Atlanta's 2nd round pick would be projected to be in the neighborhood of Detroit's 1st rounder...

---

What are you talking about?? Do you think that Atlanta will be one of the top 5 worse teams in the NBA and that Detroit will be the best team in the league this up coming season?

---

No, Peoria, that's not what I mean by "in the neighborhood."

Taking off my Atlanta hat and attempting objectivity, one would reasonably expect Detroit to be a playoff team next season, and one would reasonably expect Atlanta to not be a playoff team... few outside of Atlanta would argue that. And so, when I say "in the neighborhood" I mean to convey a bottom-half 1st rounder and a top-half 2nd rounder... sure it's very broad, but that's the nature of trading draft picks in the off-season, yet teams somehow end up doing it with some regularity.

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

Taking off my Atlanta hat and attempting objectivity, one would reasonably expect Detroit to be a playoff team next season, and one would reasonably expect Atlanta to not be a playoff team... few outside of Atlanta would argue that. And so, when I say "in the neighborhood" I mean to convey a bottom-half 1st rounder and a top-half 2nd rounder

---

Well, I guess that is where our opinions differ. I don't think that Atlanta is a sure fire non-playoff team nor do i think that Detroit is a top team in the league anymore. But just to humor me, What does Detroit have on their team that is so much better than the Hawks other than an Aging Billups? Caution, if you begin your response by talking about Rasheed Wallace, There would be no need for me to respond to any of your post on this topic.

[sturt]

Peoria, where we differ isn't so much in our attitudes toward the teams involved, but in what we reference to define a given likelihood of DET or ATL's success next season.

My reference point isn't how you or I weigh it out, but rather how others appear to weigh it out...

And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that right here right now, conventional wisdom among NBA observers would be that Detroit is still ticketed for the playoffs next season (tho, not for the championship game, certainly) and Atlanta is still ticketed for something less (tho, not for a top 3 pick, certainly).

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that right here right now,

conventional wisdom among NBA observers

would be that Detroit is still ticketed for the playoffs next season (tho, not for the championship game, certainly) and Atlanta is still ticketed for something less (tho, not for a top 3 pick, certainly).

---

O.K. We'll just agree to disagree then

[mockhawk]

Quote:

---

While that ordinarily would seem to make sense

on the surface

, it hasn't translated into NBA reality.

Joe Johnson is case in point. One may trade one 1st round pick for another team's 3rd or 4th scoring option. Very unlikely one would trade TWO 1st round picks. And practically unheard of that one would trade TWO PLUS a former 1st round pick... and what's more, you're then going to pay the guy 12 million a year???

Why isn't that insane?

Because with a SNT, a team like Atlanta is able to enter into an exlusionary bargaining position wherein, if they can meet the price of the player and of the team, they can flip the switch and have player X who, ostensibly, they have identified to be a key component to the team that they want to put on the floor.

What makes this SOOOO different is that there is this

triangulation effect

where, different from a straight-up signing, the player who wants to command a big paycheck is beholden to his former team -- in order to achieve that max paycheck, they're going to have to be satisfied... and concurrently, it is different from a straight-up trade because the new team is beholden to the player who must be happy with what they're offering.

So, this is why teams have been very satisfied to hold on to players for their final year, and to do SNTs... they can be very profitable after all.

The crisis that a team can get into is that their player isn't #1 or #2 at their position in the market, and that there isn't at least one team out there that considers the FA to be that key component to add to their roster.

Atlanta has at least two teams (IND and GS), and if the newest rumors are true, possibly a third team (DET), vying for Al... and were it not for the court ruling, we'd still be very much in the proverbial catbird's seat.

(Should have written a disclaimer, btw... this trade like all others proposed here isn't likely to happen in any sense whatsoever, and all the more so under the new conditions, where no one appears to have an exact understanding of the court's "negotiations...already initiated" caveat.)

Not sure you read closely enough, but I understand how you might have jumped to the conclusion...

I never proposed the ORL 1st rounder; rather, I proposed DET's own 1st rounder.

I agree that they're going to be loathe to let go of the ORL 1st rounder, period.

---

Joe was a restricted free agent, and Phoenix wanted him back. So, there is a difference there.

In this case, unless we're seriously considering bringing Al back to this team, teams are not going to overpay to get him via trade. Especially teams who already have starting forwards, locked into long-term contracts, in place.

The Detroit pick plus Dyess seems like a fair offer; however, I'm thinking that they'd push Dale Davis, pick, plus filler, instead. Once again, depends how many teams in the mix, and how much flexibility we have taking on contract. Personally, my expectations of getting anywhere close to equal value here aren't high.

btw, I wasn't pointing you out as saying we'd get the ORL 1st. It was mentioned above, amongst a few other trade ideas that I was arguing against.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

In this case, unless we're seriously considering bringing Al back to this team, teams are not going to overpay to get him via trade.

---

Actually, if bringing back Al wasn't plausible as a bargaining chip before, it's certainly plausible in this new context.

Quote:

---

...Especially teams who already have starting forwards, locked into long-term contracts, in place.

---

I can't speak to how badly IND, GS, or DET might want Harrington, and none of us can... just that they do, and that they've evidently identified him as having enough value to pursue this in spite of their other options.

Quote:

---

The Detroit pick plus Dyess seems like a fair offer; however, I'm thinking that they'd push Dale Davis, pick, plus filler, instead.

---

If one is willing to assume the assumptions laid out above, then Detroit would see it as beneficial to (a) replace aging low post players who have relatively large contracts and yet very little horizon left (especially Davis of course) with Foster and Batista, and (b) to gain an adequate back-up PG in Lue.

[sturt]

Peoria: Good enuf.

[mockhawk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In this case, unless we're seriously considering bringing Al back to this team, teams are not going to overpay to get him via trade.

---

Actually, if bringing back Al wasn't plausible as a bargaining chip before, it's certainly plausible in this new context.

Quote:

---

...Especially teams who already have starting forwards, locked into long-term contracts, in place.

---

I can't speak to how badly IND, GS, or DET might want Harrington, and none of us can... just that they do, and that they've evidently identified him as having enough value to pursue this in spite of their other options.

Quote:

---

The Detroit pick plus Dyess seems like a fair offer; however, I'm thinking that they'd push Dale Davis, pick, plus filler, instead.

---

If one is willing to assume the assumptions laid out above, then Detroit would see it as beneficial to (a) replace aging low post players who have relatively large contracts and yet very little horizon left (especially Davis of course) with Foster and Batista, and (b) to gain an adequate back-up PG in Lue.

---

Well, I guess we'll see once the dust settles. Detroit and Indy are very much money conscious; so, there will be trepidations taking on Al when they have cheaper options at starting positions already in place. GS just isn't a favorable trading partner to us (unless they're willing to package up expirings/youth), which wouldn't make much sense considering the contracts they have at the 2/3/4 already.

Anyways, as mentioned, time will tell. Certainly, Al and his agent are looking forward to a massive sign and trade deal.

[Traceman]

Quote:

---

What does Detroit have on their team that is so much better than the Hawks other than an Aging Billups?

---

Well, first of all, they have everybody who matters back other than Big Ben on a team that just lost in 7 games in the playoffs to the eventual NBA Champions. Now of course Big Ben was important but he was only one of a group of very good players who have played very well together for years. Besides, even if they lose 14 more games than they lost last year due to the loss of Big Ben (I HIGHLY doubt it), they will STILL win 50 this year. As for us, if we win TWENTY more games than we won last year (HIGHLY UNLIKELY), we will STILL likely finish with a worse record than DET.

In addition, I don't think you can say we are better than DET at ANY position. At least not yet. We have guys who COULD be better down the road but certainly they haven't proven to be better yet.

Bottom line, DET's own pick has very little value. I would rather have a LOT of guys who are still out there rather than DET's #1 including Al, Chris Wilcox and Mike James. Heck, I'd just as soon sign Marcus Banks as have DET's #1 pick next year.