Somebody refute this with FACTS

[Guest Walter]

I've posted the part below before, but get personal attacks for it. Given that we cannot by all financial indications afford to keep Childress or as Exodus adds, address our big man need, given we will have $64 million committed to but nine players, HOW can this move be seen as anything other than JC, SW, Lo, Lue, AJ, 2nd for Mike Bibby, how many other, better deals that get value for Josh Childress were out there, and how can it not be seen as anything other than a 3 month move to help ensure contract extensions for BK and Woody before Childress is let go?

I want facts only. Are we going to trade Childress now, before the trade deadline for a 1st rder and an ending contract? No. That would be smart for the franchise but not for BK and Woody's job security. How then can we trade Childress in the off-season and get a 1st rder without taking on ANY salary? We did that with Al Harrington but I can't find a team out there with a similar situation (and trade exemption) this off-season.

I want facts. Only 5 teams were over the luxury tax threshold last year, 3 of them not NY or LA. How can we even expect this ownership to come remotely close to that amount? With $64 million committed to 9 players next year, how do they manage to even fill out the remaining roster with anything other than minimum contracts (again, bye, bye Childress for nothing). How do we address the big man need with no flexibility?!?

Bibby has to be not only more valuable to us than possible years of JC and SW, $9 million in expiring contracts, and a 2nd rder, but considering our plight, more more valuable than what would seem better alternatives than one recently marginal player for two seemingly valued prospects and $9 million in expirings. That should at least get you one VERY good player in his prime or two good players in theirs.

I don't think we got that or came anywhere near getting the value of JC, SW, and $9 million in expiring contracts. Show me the facts that indicate we have. No need for demonstrations showing only lacking self-control (GSUteke) or feelings. We all want the Hawks to succeed! I just want to know HOW exactly Bibby minus JC, SW, Lue, AJ, and Lo will make for a better team next year and why people actually believe we shouldn't have gotten more for JC, SW, and $ 9 million in expiring contracts.

Quote:

---

Let's assume that the deal is as advertised! Let's further assume that JS gets a MAX deal. There will be NO ROOM to resign JC. None! We can't even bluff as we would have to take back = salary in return for a JC sign & trade!

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/atlanta.htm

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#1

For JS MAX salary see question number 11

Bibby = $14.5 million

JJ = $14.2 million

JS = $13 million

Speedy = $5.8 million

MW = $5.6 million

ZaZa = $4 million

Horford = $4 million

Acie = $2.1 million

SJ = $0.8 million

That's SIXTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS committed to nine NBA players!

Let's assume that we sign the MINIMUM of allowable players (12) with the remaining 2 aside from Childress averaging $1 million per. That makes SIXTY SIX MILLION dedicated to 11 players excluding Josh Childress!

The NBA salary cap is $55.6 million this year. To project the 2008-2009 cap let us use history.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2516704

Since 2001-2002 the cap has increased from $42.5 to 55.6 millionor $13.1 million. Over 6 years that's an average of roughly $2.2 million annually.

So, let's assume a $57.8 million cap for 2008-2009. WE ARE STILL $6.2 MILLION OVER THE CAP WITH THE BARE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PLAYERS AND WITHOUT CHILDRESS!!!!

The bad part is that we cannot sign and trade Childress even for a pick because we would have to take on equal salary in return!

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml

Now if the cap doesn't scare you with our ownership certainly the lottery tax will. In 2007-2008 the luxury tax was 67.835 million. Let's assume a similar increase as the cap and predict a luxury tax threshold of $70 million. Childress will certainly get signed for $4 million. The Mid-level EX will be close to $6 million next year after this year's $5.4 million! Childress is certainly getting more than the mid-level EX!

The Bibby deal means we cannot keep Josh Childress. Nor can we sign & trade him for a pick plus contracts because we cannot take on = salary!

We might go over the cap some, but there is NO WAY this ownership goes over the luxury tax threshold where only FIVE teams did last season!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728

This deal is like trading JC/SW/expiring contracts for Bibby as there is no way to resign him or get any value for him. While I wouldn't have been against losing JC for a better player (or would have rather included JC as part of a deal to avoid this), Bibby, on the decline, at age 30, averaging 5 APG for years, for $14.5 million next year simply DOES NOT CUT THE MUSTARD!

---

[Admin]

If we cannot afford to keep Childress we can simply trade him for a draft pick or a young player on a rookie contract with a team that is either under the cap or can manage the difference with an expiring contract. You make it seem like we will lose Childress for nothing and that's nothing but an assumption. It is far more likely in this era of the NBA that we will get something for Childress if we decide we can't keep him.

Personally I believe that if we acquire a couple of late 1sts or 2nd rounders by means of cash or future considerations we can easily address our big man depth on the cheap and still keep all of our players.

[mrhonline]

If the choice is between Childress and Bibby, I take Bibby. (Especially if a S&T of Childress is a legit option, which it is). He's a good player, but he's replaceable.

Sorry.

[vdunkndunk]

First, my understanding is that we can match any offer to our restricted free agents even if it means we have to go over the cap to do so. If that's true - and I believe it is - then all we have to do to keep Chills is match his offer.

Second, we can always make other trades to adjust our salary situation. We don't know what moves will be made between now and the time Childress becomes a free agent, so it's just too early say that we could never possibly resign him.

Finally, and most importantly, Childress is still on our roster. So that means we didn't trade Childress for Bibby. Stating at this point that we actually traded Childress isn't a fact by any stretch of the imagination.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If the choice is between Childress and Bibby, I take Bibby. (Especially if a S&T of Childress is a legit option, which it is). He's a good player, but he's replaceable.

Sorry.

---

JC, SW, Lo, Lue, AJ, and a 2nd rder! It's also a choice between what we could get in a trade for JC, SW and $9 million in expirings. We could get alot more for that than Bibby.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If we cannot afford to keep Childress we can simply trade him for a draft pick or a young player on a rookie contract with a team that is either under the cap or can manage the difference with an expiring contract.

---

We cannot take on an expiring contract next year because we will already be at $64 million in cap commitments with only 9 players and we cannot take on equal salary for Childress anymore than we can take on Childress' salary.

We could trade Childress to a team under the cap, BUT Childress is not a top tier player and will be only sought after once teams have spent their money.

Childress is a goner and we get nothing for him. Sad for a former #6 pick.

W

[Admin]

You are correct on all of your points vdunk. Walter is just making outrageous assumptions based on his disability to be happy with anything the Hawks do.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

We could get alot more for that than Bibby.

W

Not likely. The only teams that would want the expirings aren't likely to want Childress because he'll cost them the next year.

Sorry.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

You are correct on all of your points vdunk. Walter is just making outrageous assumptions based on his disability to be happy with anything the Hawks do.

I have a suspicion that this trade may force Claxton's hand, too. Does he really want to have surgery and do all that work simply to be the 3rd string PG?

[Admin]

If he has the surgery before he retires then someone needs to Tanya Harding him for wasting an entire year while getting paid for it and hamstringing the Hawks with his salary.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

First, my understanding is that we can match any offer to our restricted free agents even if it means we have to go over the cap to do so. If that's true - and I believe it is - then all we have to do to keep Chills is match his offer.

---

We can't AFFORD to match Childress' offer! We have committed $64 million to nine players excluding Childress. WE must field at least 12 players and 14-15 is the norm. The luxury tax threshold I project to be $70 million and only 3 teams not from LA or NY went over it last year. So tell me, how do we match a likely $7-8 million offer when we cannot AFFORD to match it AND we cannot afford to take on similar salary in return as part of a trade?

Quote:

---

Second, we can always make other trades to adjust our salary situation.

---

Like what? Name one.

Quote:

---

We don't know what moves will be made between now and the time Childress becomes a free agent, so it's just too early say that we could never possibly resign him.

---

Oh come off it. You even know better. It's possible Woody wins COY but nobody is stupid enough to rest the fate of their 401K on it.

W

W

[Admin]

Walter, you need to stop saying that we cannot, because it is very misleading when the truth is that we can. It might not be likely, but it's 100% possible and allowed by the league rules.

I would say that we are most likely to move Childress in the offseason to a team under the cap that can give us a young player on his rookie contract or a draft pick.

I honestly don't see why you think the ASG would risk losing any of our young assets just to make this move for Bibby. Can you find even one instance where BK lost a player worth anything without getting something for him in return?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You are correct on all of your points vdunk. Walter is just making outrageous assumptions based on his disability to be happy with anything the Hawks do.

---

Name one part of my analysis that is "outrageous". I used links, facts, and proof.

But yes, I am not happy with mediocrity.

W

[Admin]

Childress for Crittenton. Memphis is under the cap and we get a player of similar talent still on a rookie contract so Childress could get a raise and we get a cheap comparable replacement.

[Admin]

What FACT did you use? You used ASSUMPTIONS! You assumed that Smoove will be maxed out and you assumed that we won't trade Bibby in the offseason. You assumed the team wont be willing to approach or exceed the salary cap and luxury tax.

Again, where are the FACTS?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Walter, you need to stop saying that we cannot, because it is very misleading when the truth is that we can. It might not be likely, but it's 100% possible and allowed by the league rules.

---

This is fair. I'd say the likelihood is 5%. Childress has to agree to go somewhere to some team somehow with remaining cap space after said some team has spent on some larger name FAs.

It is a huge risk and one not worth it when IMO JC, SW, and $9 mil expiring could have gotten us alot more.

Man, I hope we got the Bibby of old, 6 years ago, but that is even less likely IMO

W

[Admin]

Some team may see Childress as a player just waiting on a chance to start and may see him as their big FA acquisition of the offseason. Last year we did that with Speedy, who's to say that another team won't see Childress that way and make him their #1 target.

We can also make a 3way deal where a 3rd team under the cap takes on a player from the team that acquires Childress and they give us a draft pick.

[Iman]

Yup, Walter the Bulldog bites into a subject until the next good one rolls around. He may be right. And then I'd just point him back to the recent poll which seemed to say most of us just want the playoffs this year. I think Bibby pretty much assures us of that. He's even good insurance that we should make the playoffs even if we lose JJ to any injury.

Chillz on a running team could be special. He's my favorite Hawks actually. If we could have moved him and Shelden for Ridnour/Petro that might have been wiser given we'd still have capspace left vs with Bibby but who knows if a move like that was out there.

This is actually a little like the Braves Texiera trade (except we directly gave up the farm for Tex). We got a good player for a few yrs to get us into the playoffs again but it may hurt our future. I still like both trades and think we'll figure something else out if this doesn't work. Speedy's capspace, Smoove getting signed for $10mil per, etc will help. Then we'll have Bibby's capspace for Marvin and most importantly Horford who we better not mess around with waiting to extend.

How I see it panning out. We sign Jelani McCoy and Mike Wilkes (is he still available?) the next few weeks. We make the playoffs, 6th seed, lose to Cleveland in 6 games. Offseason, Speedy retires, Zaza is gone, Salim is gone, giving us $9mil? total back. Chillz take the qualifying offer, Smoove is extended for $10mil per. David Anderson comes over and we pick up a few others to round out the team. We still are only in the low the mid $60mil overall and then we drop Bibby and extend Marvin starting at $8mil. By then we better be contending or else we won't be able to afford Horford without dumping JJ, etc.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You are correct on all of your points vdunk. Walter is just making outrageous assumptions based on his disability to be happy with anything the Hawks do.

---

Name one part of my analysis that is "outrageous". I used links, facts, and proof.

But yes, I am not happy with mediocrity.

W

---

Fact: We CAN resign Childress. To say that we WON'T resign him is merely an assumption.

Fact: We CAN make trades to adjust our salary situation. To say that we WON'T make further trades this summer is merely an assumption.

Fact: Chills is STILL ON OUR ROSTER. To say that he has been traded for Bibby is an assumption at best and a delusion at worst.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

I've posted the part below before, but get personal attacks for it. Given that we cannot by all financial indications afford to keep Childress

I don't see why you'd assume Childress was in the long-term plans to begin with.

Quote:

---

or as Exodus adds, address our big man need

The Hawks have four big men under contract for next season. They only need one more player, and adding someone for MLE-type money only to play him behind Horford makes no sense financially.

Expect a veteran big at around $2-3M.

Quote:

---

given we will have $64 million committed to but nine players,

I'm not convinced Memphis makes Smith an offer, and Philly doesn't have max $ at this point. Let's wait until the deadline passes before we assume a max deal is going to be offered to Josh.

Quote:

---

how many other, better deals that get value for Josh Childress were out there

Then they're still very much out there. Knight knows that he can't keep Childress, and would trade him if the right offer came along. Bash his draft picks, and rightfully so, but the guy makes solid trades.

Quote:

---

How then can we trade Childress in the off-season and get a 1st rder without taking on ANY salary?

If Claxton retires, the Hawks can afford to take salary back. If not, they can force teams to take back his contract if they want Childress, and bingo bango, you've traded Josh.

Quote:

---

How can we even expect this ownership to come remotely close to that amount?

Don't you think they were aware of that when they okayed the trade, hence our excitement? Put 2 and 2 together here, Walt.

Quote:

---

how do they manage to even fill out the remaining roster with anything other than minimum contracts

Welcome to how 85% of the NBA operates. We've just been accustomed to other practices over the past few years (read: things being ran cheaply under/around the cap).

Quote:

---

Bibby has to be not only more valuable to us than possible years of JC

Again, likely gone anyway.

Quote:

---

and SW

Worthless.

Quote:

---

$9 million in expiring contracts

Used well already.

Quote:

---

and a 2nd rder

Snooze.

Quote:

---

for two seemingly valued prospects and $9 million in expirings

Again, you can't trade Childress with the expirings b/c of his cap hold.

Quote:

---

That should at least get you one VERY good player in his prime or two good players in theirs.

Read around a little, Walt. You will see fans calling the expirings+Shelden package by its true name - "garbage." Give Knight some credit - he turned crap into something usable.

There are your FACTS, Walt. Let's see what you do with them.