LUKE avr .5 more assist than Speedy lol

[mrhonline]

Regardless, Ridnour is an upgrade over Speedy because he's healthier and a better fit for the up-tempo style this team needs to play.

If I were GM, I would offer Speedy/Batista/lotto-protected 1st -for- Ridnour/Fortson.

[bfwolf]

Quote:

---

I agree Speedy's deal is not an albatross. He is well worth the money when healthy and it is a bad deal when he is not healthy but still not a deal that cripples the franchise by any means. His deal hasn't prevented this team from doing anything it wanted to do and likely will never do so.

---

I disagree wholeheartedly. This franchise is going to be over the cap faster than you think, certainly within Speedy's contract. His contract will undoubtedly limit who we are able to sign. Are there worse contracts out there? Sure. But his is a bad one and is going to hurt us.

[KB21]

But he's not a better fit for this team because he doesn't play a lick of defense. Speedy, when healthy, can play the up tempo game just as well as Luke Ridnour, but Speedy is one of the best defensive point guards in the entire NBA. We need that type of defense at the point guard position, because if we really want to play up tempo basketball we are going to have to defend, force bad shots, and force turnovers. If we completely forget about playing defense while trying to play an up tempo style, we will quickly become the Memphis Grizzlies.

[mrhonline]

You neglected to mention that Speedy is as much a liability on offense and with his health as Ridnour is on defense.

I'm willing to trust Woodson and Knight if they trade off Claxton because I think it indicates some frustration with Speedy (whether it's his brittle nature or his inability to shoot or whatever). I'm also VERY skeptical that the Hawks will ever see more than 60 good games from Claxton per season for the rest of his contract.

You're right that the Hawks need defense from the PG position (all teams do, regardless of playing style), but they also need a player that can keep teams honest offensively and stay healthy. Claxton has proven to be valuable in only 1 of those three areas.

[KB21]

Given the choice, I'd rather have the point guard that can defend and is limited offensively than the point guard that can shoot but is limited defensively.

[AHF]

Bear in mind that we are also limited in replacing BK or Woodson because no coach or GM that is desirable would want to come to Atlanta until the ownership dispute is resolved.

[TexasPete]

I think it will be an albatross when we have to re-up on Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and then Marvin...

The point is that our owners do not have deep pockets. They are are wealthy people but not the kind of wealth like an Arthur Blank, Dolan, Cuban, Kroenke, etc.

They run this situation on a tight string....this club is losing 20M EVERY YEAR! The stands are not exactly packed. Season ticket sales are one thing, actually going to the games is something else. The empty seats are everywhere. That means the actual missing butts in seats don't buy hot dogs, beer, or Hawks stuff. Teams make big money on those items...when Bernie talks about ticket sales being up he is technically right but the butts in seats numbers are NOT up. Not to mention that one of the owners is no longer even a part of this group. Speedy's contract may not mean as much now, but it will mean something later. And his play does not look like we will want him here in 2 or 3 years. Cut bait now while there is still a chance.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Given the choice, I'd rather have the point guard that can defend and is limited offensively than the point guard that can shoot but is limited defensively.

---

But that's not the choice. The choice is between:

1.) A PG that can defend but is limited offensively AND is almost never healthy,

and

2.) A PG that can shoot, pass, AND run an up-tempo team but is limited defensively.

Do you still take PG #1 in that scenario? I would not. (You can always sign a defensive PG to backup Ridnour).

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

But he's not a better fit for this team because he doesn't play a lick of defense. Speedy, when healthy, can play the up tempo game just as well as Luke Ridnour, but Speedy is one of the best defensive point guards in the entire NBA....

---

Speedy stinks (IMHO)...get rid of him if possible.

trade him for a corndog

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

the way that BK has been talking they have already planned on keeping the Joshes and Marvin. So I doubt it will be the case that Speedy will keep us from resigning our guys because of them already leaning in the direction of resigning them.

---

What has he said to indicate they are going to resign them?? And when?

[KB21]

That's a typical fan reaction that has no basis in fact. You completely ignore the fact that Speedy's defense makes a tremendous impact on this team. Without him in the game, the Hawks give up 111 points per 100 possessions. With him in the game, that number drops to 104 points per 100 possessions.

If Speedy could stay healthy and we had a defensive minded big man, we would be a very good defensive team that would be turning the corner very rapidly.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

That's a typical fan reaction that has no basis in fact...

---

Oh horse manure Doc. You know he stinks and I know he stinks.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You are missing the point. There is a huge difference between 25 and 1. Talk about trying to misconstrue the facts. lol!

---

It was a hyperbole meant to make fun of you, not to be serious. I guess you didn't catch that at all.

Quote:

---

They are too broke to fire BK or Woody, right? Especially Wooody. If they are scraping change to pay the coach, how can you say they are not hindered? We are under the cap. Have been all year. If 25 million wasn't important, we would be paying a luxury tax right now, don't you think?

---

Actually money doesn't have to do anything with firing BK and Woody, this ownership group decides to keep them because they believe they are the right people for the job. It is their intelligence that is lacking, not finances in this situation. And we are under the cap not because of the ownership group but because of BK, he has the ability to spend up to the cap (per court rulings) and yet he chooses not to. If you want to talk about a "misconsruing of facts" then look no further than your posts.

Quote:

---

He is on the roster. We are losing games because of it. He is terrible. They can't dump him. We are paying for something we don't need and could do without. We still have to pay him!

---

You are acting as if I think the Speedy deal is a great one. I don't like his deal, but I have a problem with someone calling his deal an Albatross. If Speedy's deal is an Albatross, then what exactly is the Steve Francis deal? Or the deal Penny used to have? Or how about Theo Ratliffs? What sort of an outlandish word are you going to call those deals?

---

Quote:

---

It was a hyperbole meant to make fun of you, not to be serious. I guess you didn't catch that at all.

---

I understand hyperbole. Are you saying that they both make an absurd amount of money to do nothing? I don't get it. Paying a practice body very little is totally different from plunking down 25 million on a multi-year deal for a guy who will not help you in any way, who is untradeable.

What exactly are you getting at? I guess you're saying you know the ASG has enough money to make changes but chooses not to, and for that fact alone Speedy's contract is not an albatross? I'll buy into that.

Or is it just the use of the word albatross? How about burdensome, stifling, wasteful, etc ?

Quote:

---

but I have a problem with someone calling his deal an Albatross.

---

Why? By the way, it doesn't matter about Stevie Franchise and his contract. We are two different teams. There are different names on the checks.

What may be, I'll use my word, burdensome, to one team, may be acceptable to another. So I don't really understand your argument.

TP pretty much sums up the "albatross" thing:

Quote:

---

I think it will be an albatross when we have to re-up on Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and then Marvin...

The point is that our owners do not have deep pockets. They are are wealthy people but not the kind of wealth like an Arthur Blank, Dolan, Cuban, Kroenke, etc.

They run this situation on a tight string....this club is losing 20M EVERY YEAR! The stands are not exactly packed. Season ticket sales are one thing, actually going to the games is something else. The empty seats are everywhere. That means the actual missing butts in seats don't buy hot dogs, beer, or Hawks stuff. Teams make big money on those items...when Bernie talks about ticket sales being up he is technically right but the butts in seats numbers are NOT up. Not to mention that one of the owners is no longer even a part of this group. Speedy's contract may not mean as much now, but it will mean something later. And his play does not look like we will want him here in 2 or 3 years. Cut bait now while there is still a chance.

---

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

but I have a problem with someone calling his deal an Albatross.

---

Why? By the way, it doesn't matter about Stevie Franchise and his contract. We are two different teams! There are different names on the checks!

What may be, I'll use my word, burdensome, to one team, may be acceptable to another. So I don't really understand your argument.

---

My issue with the word albatross is that I think this team can work around this contract since it is declining in future years and that it could deal this contract without too much difficulty once Speedy plays a stretch of healthy games (which I think he will do over the next year). I also think that if Speedy actually plays the way he is capable of playing that he can earn that contract.

In my mind an albatross contract for this franchise would have been BK signing Kenyon Martin to a max deal. Even if Speedy never plays another game, his contract won't be nearly so bad as something like that.