Kirk Hinrich will be on the market!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Of course we aren't a title contender and I know that's what BK said would be his prerequisite in order to ask the ASG to pay the luxury tax, but the reality is that almost half of the league paid the tax this year and in order to keep this core together we will have to pay the luxury tax for one year unless we move a big contract to a team under the cap to get us some relief.

The other owners paying the luxury tax are either contenders or have so much money (Dolan) that they don't care. Plus they aren't having lawsuits within their ownership group.

The Suns have been contenders for awhile and have resorted to selling first round picks to avoid the tax.

Our "core" hasn't accomplished enough for the owners to feel any real imperative to pay the luxury tax to keep them together.

[Admin]

You also cannot simply let assets like Childress or Smith go for nothing just to stay under the tax. That would be foolish to develop them and simply let them go without getting something in return and unless we find a team under the cap willing to give up a young player or pick(s) we don't have any choice than to keep them or lose them for nothing.

As far as the owners paying, how much money do they have? If it is really a problem for them to pay a few million dollars extra in luxury tax for one year then we have bigger problems than our impending FAs.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be paying it on a 37 win team unless we only win 37 games next year. How many games do you think we would have to win in order to justify paying the luxury tax?

With the Hawks over the cap anyway, it doesn't really matter...

I believe it comes off the cap completely, but not until the end of the season. Honestly, the details of this situation have confused me to the point I don't even understand them anymore.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You also cannot simply let assets like Childress or Smith go for nothing just to stay under the tax. That would be foolish to develop them and simply let them go without getting something in return and unless we find a team under the cap willing to give up a young player or pick(s) we don't have any choice than to keep them or lose them for nothing.

As far as the owners paying, how much money do they have?

If it is really a problem for them to pay a few million dollars extra in luxury tax for one year then we have bigger problems than our impending FAs.

They aren't wealthy in relation to other owners which is why they had to form a group to buy the team. The guy with th biggest stake in the team (Belkin) doesn't pay any of the expenses.

It makes no financial sense for them to pay the luxury tax given the fact that the Hawks are a losing team and a weak conference and they have a lawsuit going on.

I would bet that the only non-contending teams paying the luxury tax have owners with so much money that they don't really care (Knicks, Portland).

[Admin]

So you are saying we should lose Childress or Smith for nothing? If not, then what is your solution since you don't believe we should pay to keep them.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

So you are saying we should lose Childress or Smith for nothing? If not, then what is your solution since you don't believe we should pay to keep them.

We have to keep Smith. I can't see them letting him go. From a bottom line standpoint it wouldn't make sense.

Assuming they sign Andersen they just need to let Childress walk and sign cheaper guys to fill specific roles.

It makes no sense for them to pay the luxury tax to keep Childress since Childress' weaknesses are the teams weaknesses. If Childress wasn't on the team there is NO WAY we would be talking about bringing him in.

[Admin]

I don't agree with that at all. I realize Childress has flaws, but to let him walk for nothing would compound the mistake of taking him over Deng. Childress provides many things that we as a team need so he has plenty of value to us, especially being our best bench player, but if we do decide not to keep him then we have to get something in return, which again would cost us and put us over the luxury tax. To me it seems like a wiser investment on the part of the ASG to pay the luxury tax for one season than to lose Childress for nothing and have wasted the time and money that has been spent on him in the past in order for someone else to reap the benefits.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I don't agree with that at all. I realize Childress has flaws, but to let him walk for nothing would compound the mistake of taking him over Deng. Childress provides many things that we as a team need so he has plenty of value to us, especially being our best bench player, but if we do decide not to keep him then we have to get something in return, which again would cost us and put us over the luxury tax. To me it seems like a wiser investment on the part of the ASG to pay the luxury tax for one season than to lose Childress for nothing and have wasted the time and money that has been spent on him in the past in order for someone else to reap the benefits.

What did Detroit get when Ben Wallace, a key member of their championship team, walked?

Keeping a guy around who was a mistake to begin with would be the mistake. Drafting Shelden was a mistake but at least they had the sense to get rid of him.

It is always easy to spend someone else's money. But you won't find many owners of losing teams paying the luxury tax unless they have so much money that it doesn't matter.

[Admin]

Ben Wallace was well past his prime, Josh Childress is just coming into his. With Shelden they realized the mistake and were able to get something for him which I am fine with doing with Childress, but that will cost money. It makes no sense to let a useful player who will be highly sought after go for nothing when he is just coming into his prime.

Well it's not exactly their dollars considering that we are the ones that buy tickets, merchandise, etc. It's not like asking some stranger to spend money. If they don't want to pay to improve this team people will stop going to games and they will lose money.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Ben Wallace was well past his prime, Josh Childress is just coming into his. With Shelden they realized the mistake and were able to get something for him which I am fine with doing with Childress, but that will cost money. It makes no sense to let a useful player who will be highly sought after go for nothing when he is just coming into his prime.

Well it's not exactly their dollars

considering that we are the ones that buy tickets, merchandise, etc. It's not like asking some stranger to spend money. If they don't want to pay to improve this team people will stop going to games and they will lose money.

It absolutely is their dollars. And they might feel money spent to fill a hole on the roster would be a better use of money than resigning a guy who contributes to our weaknesses.

When they look at this team it is obvious that we need 3 pt shooting, size and defensive rebounding. With or without Childress we have the same needs.

Assume Childress costs the full MLE to resign that might be like paying $8-9 million (with the luxury tax) for a guy who doesn't fill a need. So then the needs go unfilled and that is more money coming out of their pockets.

[Admin]

You are right, Childress does contribute to our weaknesses. We are weak at attacking the glass, weak in offensive rebounding, and weak in basketball IQ and Childress helps us in all of those areas.

Yes we do have other needs but if you let Childress go then you will need someone to fill those roles that he is one of the best on our team at and you won't find anyone that will cost less than Childress to do so.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You are right, Childress does contribute to our weaknesses.

We are weak at attacking the glass, weak in offensive rebounding, and weak in basketball IQ

and Childress helps us in all of those areas.

Huh?

How do you think the Hawks scored this season? They scored by attacking the rim and getting to the line, exactly the what you say they are weak in.

Their weakness offensively is hitting jumpers. They only scored 42 ppg on jumpers this season.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL3.HTM

Only Philly was worse.

the Hawks were 7th in the league in FT attempts on the season. They got to the line by attacking the rim.

click

The Hawks were 9th in the league in overall inside scoring.

http://www.82games.com/FGTEAM15.HTM

The Hawks were 4th in the league in offensive rebounding ratio but 26th in defensive rebounding ratio. Again Childress is lame on the defensive glass.

click

As far as BBall IQ goes nobody has more late game brain farts than Childress and he has no playmaking ability at all.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

If we were to stop at, say, $66M that would rank us #20 in the league last year in salary, behind teams like the T-wolves, Nets, and Pacers. It's just not realistic to think we can compete with a salary that's below the luxury tax, unless you have guys like CP3 and Deron on rookie contracts (or you're R.C. Buford).

I think hoping for the Hawks to ever contend for a title is just setting yourself up for disappointment. The team doesn't draft well enough or spend as much as it needs to ever really contend barring some huge stroke of luck.

It's impossible to go anywhere if you can't even resign your draft picks that work out. I'd be happy with 4th seed in the East, and a 2nd round exit.

[thefloydian]

I am definitely with Exodus on this one. I don't dislike Childress like Exodus does, and I think he will be a good roleplayer for a team that he fits with, but considering the Hawks' limited resources where each dollar has to count, the money could be much better spent.

This team can't shoot at all, and neither can Childress. That seals the deal for me.

[Admin]

As I said before, I'm fine with trading Childress, but you don't just let a player with a lot of value walk away for nothing in his prime. It's bad business and makes no sense.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

As I said before, I'm fine with trading Childress, but you don't just let a player with a lot of value walk away for nothing in his prime. It's bad business and makes no sense.

That's still not a good argument for keeping him. It might be a good argument for firing someone in the front office, though.

[Admin]

I'm not making an argument to keep him, I'm making an argument against letting him walk for nothing. At least trade him and get something useful in return.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

I'm not making an argument to keep him, I'm making an argument against letting him walk for nothing. At least trade him and get something useful in return.

Yeah, I agree. But if they don't trade him, I'd still rather see him walk than give him a new contract.

[Admin]

Why? It doesn't make sense to me just to let him go. I could understand if he was a useless player but he does a lot of good things for us that won't be easy to replace next year if we just let him go.

[thefloydian]

I think it will cost too much to be worth it to us.