Strategery.........

[dlpin]

If the ASG is not willing to spend into the luxury tax, they will either not resign JJ or not resign Horford, so the "window" to try something before breaking it up would be this season and next.

[spotatl]

Would those teams trade Those players listed straight up for Zaza plus expiring contract filler?

Dalembert- no.

Dampier. No

Illgauskaus- no

MIlicic- no

Brad MIller- no

Turiaf- no

Pryzvbilla- no

Gadzuric- YES

Brown- no

Foster- no

Chandler- no

Thomas- no

Blount- no

Diop- YES

(here you list a bunch of guys that are not in any way centers)

Battie- no

Oberto- no

Curry- YES

James- NO

So congrats- you showed that Zaza's trade value is the same as Gadzuric, Diop, and Eddy Curry. To you this means he has trade value?

You are making the mistake of looking at just the salary for this year, without taking into account the LENGTH of the contract. Thats where the negative trade value goes in. If Zaza was an expiring contract at his salary he woudl certainly have trade value.

[coachx]

If the ASG is not willing to spend into the luxury tax, they will either not resign JJ or not resign Horford, so the "window" to try something before breaking it up would be this season and next.

Not true...........just think for a moment about the big picture.

Here is my opinion:

1. We need to use our draft pick on a solid wing player. Myself and mrhonline are high on 2 players here (James Anderson and Paul George). That is not to say there are not other wing players who could help. (I know we need a big but drafting a big that is ready to play between picks 24-30 is basically unheard of).

If we can actually draft a solid wing (not a star just a solid role player) then that opens up trade possibilities.

2. Assuming Mo Evans opts into the last year of his deal then he is an expiring contract. We could then trade Mo and Marvin by next seasons trade deadline for a $10 mill expiring contract (hopefully a center or another SF). Getting rid of Marvin's $7.5 mill deal could save us the necessary cap space to keep Horford and maybe Crawford.................then in Horford's 1st season under his knew contract (2011-2012) Bibby becomes and expiring contract. We can either allow Bibby to fall off the books for cap relief or trade him for a talent upgrade to team looking to save money.

There is also the possibility that next season (2010-2011) we trade Crawford and Mo's expiring contracts for a really good player (better then Crawford) that helps get us over the hump.

3. Plus, in 2011 the current CBA will expire. Owners will fight hard to drastically lower both the amount and time length of NBA player's contracts since more teams, then not, are losing money. That means it may not cost as much as we think to resign Horford if max contracts decrease.

4. There is another issue here. It is my private belief that once the ownership situation is settled (assuming the ASG wins) that they will then sell the Thrashers to a city a northern city that cares more about hockey. They have destroyed any hope of building a real hocky fan base by trading 1 young star after another. The infusion of cash flow could allow them to invest more in the Hawks.

There are alot of thing left to play out besides the game of basketball its self here.

Think big picture and don't jump to simplistic conclusions..........that is what GMs are paid to do.

Sit back...........observe............let these business matters play out.........and don't forget to enjoy the ride !

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[AHF]

Would those teams trade Those players listed straight up for Zaza plus expiring contract filler?

Dalembert- no.

Dampier. No

Illgauskaus- no

MIlicic- no

Brad MIller- no

Turiaf- no

Pryzvbilla- no

Gadzuric- YES

Brown- no

Foster- no

Chandler- no

Thomas- no

Blount- no

Diop- YES

(here you list a bunch of guys that are not in any way centers)

Battie- no

Oberto- no

Curry- YES

James- NO

So congrats- you showed that Zaza's trade value is the same as Gadzuric, Diop, and Eddy Curry. To you this means he has trade value?

You are making the mistake of looking at just the salary for this year, without taking into account the LENGTH of the contract. Thats where the negative trade value goes in. If Zaza was an expiring contract at his salary he woudl certainly have trade value.

If Zaza was an expiring contract he would still not be the most desired guy on the list even if he was the best ratio of productivity to dollars (which he isn't - but he is one of the best). That is simply because the larger an expiring contract is the more valuable it is. By this rationale, we would have been smarter to sign Zaza to a one-year max contract if the BYC rules didn't apply. As it is, there are a number of guys that even with the length of the deal would be happily traded for Zaza plus expiring filler in a second like Dalembert.

What you are saying is that Zaza was oversigned because literally a piece of human excrement with an expiring deal has substantial value in the today's NBA.

I don't find that a meaninful way to evaluate whether Zaza was signed to a reasonable deal or not. None of the players above were signed to a single year deal. So I am evaluating Zaza's deal against the one they originally signed to see if Zaza's seems out of line.

It doesn't. Upon signing and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, most of that list would have been happily traded one for one for Zaza. Probably the only ones that wouldn't be traded one for one for Zaza and his deal are Z and Pryzbilla.

I cannot believe you are arguing that Jerome James signed a more attractive contract than Zaza when he was signed, for example. That is the relevant comparison. Jerome James and a rotten apple with the same expiring contract have the same value right now. So I understand the argument that an expiring contract is worth more in this financial environment where teams are desperate to clear cap space than multiyear contracts of non-stud players, but I don't get the argument why because Jerome James contract is expiring that somehow informs what a reasonable FA contract is for a center in the NBA because his FA deal was not an expiring contract.

Edited February 16, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

I am saying that Zaza currently has a more undesirable contract than any of them. save the 3 I mentioned. If other players were signed to poor deals long ago that doesn't cxhange the fact that when they only have 1 or 2 years left on their contract it makes their contracts much more palatable. You are not looking at the big picture of what his trade value is- the contract LENGTH is the problem and you want to just wave your hand and pretend it doesn't exist.

And absolutely Jerome James is worth more than Zaza. How can you even argue otherwise? You know there is absolutely no way in hell that the Bulls would trade Jerome James for Zaza right? You know Zaza is on a bad contract because NO ONE WANTS HIM FOR WHAT HE IS OWED. Zaza isn't on a reasonable contract- he is on a contract so big that no one else in the league would take him without being compensated or sending back another contract just as bad. If Zaza were playing at the same level as last season he would be on a reasonable contract- right now he is completely overpaid. Its ridiculous to try and ask whether Jerome James or Zaza were a worse contract when they signed- right now Jerome James is worth more than Zaza and that should tell you all you need to know about the contract that Zaza signed.

And I think you are delusional if you think the Sixers woudl be willing to do Dalembert for Zaza plus expiring contracts. The sixers aren't going to willingly take on the last 2 years of Zaza's contract.

Edited February 16, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

I am saying that Zaza currently has a more undesirable contract than any of them. save the 3 I mentioned. If other players were signed to poor deals long ago that doesn't cxhange the fact that when they only have 1 or 2 years left on their contract it makes their contracts much more palatable. You are not looking at the big picture of what his trade value is- the contract LENGTH is the problem and you want to just wave your hand and pretend it doesn't exist.

And absolutely Jerome James is worth more than Zaza. How can you even argue otherwise? You know there is absolutely no way in hell that the Bulls would trade Jerome James for Zaza right? You know Zaza is on a bad contract because NO ONE WANTS HIM FOR WHAT HE IS OWED. Zaza isn't on a reasonable contract- he is on a contract so big that no one else in the league would take him without being compensated or sending back another contract just as bad. If Zaza were playing at the same level as last season he would be on a reasonable contract- right now he is completely overpaid. Its ridiculous to try and ask whether Jerome James or Zaza were a worse contract when they signed- right now Jerome James is worth more than Zaza and that should tell you all you need to know about the contract that Zaza signed.

And I think you are delusional if you think the Sixers woudl be willing to do Dalembert for Zaza plus expiring contracts. The sixers aren't going to willingly take on the last 2 years of Zaza's contract.

I am talking about whether his deal was reasonable or not. I have not been talking about trade value where a player who will never play again with a $10M expiring deal is highly desirable.

The Sixers will take the best salary reduction they can get for Dalembert. If they don't have to pay him $20M over the next two years and can cut that obligation to $14M to Zaza over the the few years, I think they would do it. I think, however, they are hoping to combine him with Iggy and trade him for an expiring deal that will clear both Iggy's and Dalembert's contracts off the books. Zaza will take $4.5M of their cap space for next season. Dalembert will take > $10M. Despite the extra years, I think they take Zaza and expiring filler.

Again, you are arguing that the going rate for a mid-20s center with Zaza's productivity is substantially less than what Zaza signed for. How Jerome James helps you make that argument, I'll never know.

[spotatl]

AHF- and you don't really understand expiring contracts. Expiring contracts are not valuable- they are worth a little less than nothing. You would literally rather have nothing. Expiring contracts just sometimes seem valuable because sometimes good players are worth less than nothing because of their contracts. When you have signed someone to a reasonable contract, then another team would prefer to have that player for the next several seasons at that price and they woudl be willing to give you the expiring contract of a lousy player in order to acquire that contract. Its because they WANT that contract. The opposite is Zaza- he has negative trade value where no team would voluntarily take his deal without the Hawks compensating them to do so or by sending an equally bad contract in return. You can close your eyes and try and pretend really hard that Zaza signed a good contract, but the fact that no team would voluntarily take him on shows you otherwise if you just stop and pay attention.

[coachx]

And absolutely Jerome James is worth more than Zaza. How can you even argue otherwise?

What are you argueing about ?

He said James only value is that he is an expiring contract. Isn't that just common sense ?

Jerome James is a worse player then ZaZa. That should not even be a debate.

ZaZa is a better then average big off the bench and his contract seems pretty fair compared to other bigs around the league (who are not on rookie deals). Over the next 3 years this is what ZaZa is owed:

2010-11 - 4.2 mil

2011-12 - 4.7 mill

2012-2013 - 5.2 mill

That seems reasonable to me.

Lets move on to some real substance.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[AHF]

AHF- and you don't really understand expiring contracts. Expiring contracts are not valuable- they are worth a little less than nothing. You would literally rather have nothing. Expiring contracts just sometimes seem valuable because sometimes good players are worth less than nothing because of their contracts. When you have signed someone to a reasonable contract, then another team would prefer to have that player for the next several seasons at that price and they woudl be willing to give you the expiring contract of a lousy player in order to acquire that contract. Its because they WANT that contract. The opposite is Zaza- he has negative trade value where no team would voluntarily take his deal without the Hawks compensating them to do so or by sending an equally bad contract in return. You can close your eyes and try and pretend really hard that Zaza signed a good contract, but the fact that no team would voluntarily take him on shows you otherwise if you just stop and pay attention.

An expiring contract helps you clear cap space which has substantial value. Think that the Chicago Bulls wouldn't give up a player with value like Tyrus Thomas if it can help them clear cap room?

Expiring contracts are worth a lot.

Centers with a profile like Zaza had sign multi-year deals. For you to pretend like the Hawks should have landed Zaza for an expiring deal is willfully ignoring the track record of what other centers sign for.

[Johnnybravo4]

Bibby is the only person movable for a true PG. The team is to fragile to move anyone else...

We could move Marvin and not skip a beat.

[coachx]

AHF- and you don't really understand expiring contracts. Expiring contracts are not valuable- they are worth a little less than nothing.

LOL ! :questions:

Every year there are teams looking to save money by trading longer contracts for expiring contracts even if the talent is not close to equal.

Give it up..........this arguement is looking pretty foolish.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[spotatl]

I never said the Hawks shoudl have signed Zaza for an expiring deal- I think the Hawks should have signed someone else instead of paying Zaza what they did. Now he is a contract the Hawks are stuck with. This all started with a conversation about whether Zaza or Bibby had more trade value- and Zaza's bad contract is the reason why he has no trade value at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think that Zaza is on a reasonable contract when its obvious that no other team would want his contract right now. Thats the true measure of whether someone is owed what they are worth. And when you look at it from that perspective its clear that Zaza is a bad contract.

[spotatl]

Expiring contracts are how the Bobcats got Stephen Jackson, are what the Suns want for Stoudemire, are what we gave up for Bibby, are what the Lakes gave up for Gasol.

No.. you are the one missing the point. Stephen Jackson is a good player on a bad contract. The Suns are PETRIFIED that Stoudamire will not opt out of his contract in the offseason and they will be stuck with him. Bibby was very overpaid- and very well may be overpaid once again even after hitting FA. Memphis wanted Gasol off the books because the owner was bleeding money (though that trade actually has worked out really well for them). Thats exactly what I am talkgin about- in all of those situations good players had negative value because of their contracts. If Golden State could have just waived Stephen Jackson and had someone pick up his contract for them they would have easily preferred that. Its not that expiring contracts are valuable- the team literally would have rather had nothing in return. And to me when something is worth less than nothing then it has negative value.

Once again- good players can have negative trade value. That doesn't mean that expiring contracts are valuable. Expring contracts are just filler that you can use to voluntarily take on a contract that another team doesn't want with minimal obligation going the other way.

Edited February 16, 2010 by spotatl

[coachx]

I never said the Hawks shoudl have signed Zaza for an expiring deal- I think the Hawks should have signed someone else instead of paying Zaza what they did.

This shows you simply have no understanding of the CBA.

Now I see I've been argueing with a brick wall. :brick wall:

The Hawks were over the cap and could not sign other team's FAs...............they could only go over the cap to resign there own FAs. What FA big was out there that you wanted more then ZaZa who was signed to equally sized or cheaper contract ?

All they had was the MLE. I'm glad the resigned ZaZa and saved the MLE to use later...........maybe this off season.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[AHF]

I am judging the deal by whether it is in line or out of line with free agent contracts offered to other 7 footers with profiles similar to or better than Zaza's. It looks to be a reasonable deal to me.

[spotatl]

What FA big was out there that you wanted more then ZaZa who was signed to equally sized or cheaper contract ?

I would have easily preferred Brandon Bass and David Andersen to Zaza. Both signed for less than Zaza did.

The Hawks were over the cap and could not sign other team's FAs

Uhhh... Do I need to explain the MLE to you?

Edited February 16, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

This shows you simply have no understanding of the CBA.

Now I see I've been argueing with a brick wall. :brick wall:

The Hawks were over the cap and could not sign other team's FAs...............they could only go over the cap to resign there own FAs. What FA big was out there that you wanted more then ZaZa who was signed to equally sized or cheaper contract ?

All they had was the MLE. I'm glad the resigned ZaZa and saved the MLE to use later...........maybe this off season.

He already listed a few guys he wanted:

Chris Andersen - Not available to the Hawks (signed a submarket deal out of love of and loyalty to Denver)

David Andersen - Not performing any better than Zaza and not a free agent

Brandon Bass - Not a center

Gortat - Not available to the Hawks (matched by Orlando)

The only viable one to me looks like an argument that we should have let Zaza go and signed David Andersen.

[spotatl]

It looks to be a reasonable deal to me.

But it doesn't look like a reasonable deal to anyone else or else some team would be willing to acquire it right now. Maybe those deals were more reasonable 4 years ago, but in the current climate of the NBA where teams are losing money and with Zaza's poor play its a terrible contract RIGHT NOW. If you want to have the imaginary conversation of whether the deal would have been reasonable in 2004 or 1994 then I don't really see the point.

RIGHT NOW zaza has a bad contract.

[spotatl]

Brandon bass played more at center last season than he did at PF. I'd easily take him over Zaza on this team.

The Hawks had the rights to David Andersen- he signed for less than Zaza and brings a skill set that the Hawks could really use. I'd easily take him over Zaza on this team.

I wasn't listing the other guys as peopel the Hawks should have acquired- just whether Zaza's contract at this point looks like a better or worse value than other FA bigs signed in the offseason. And at this point Its a VERY short list of centers I think the Hawks could acquire for Zaza right now as we have already demonstrated.

Edited February 16, 2010 by spotatl

[dlpin]

Not true...........just think for a moment about the big picture.

Here is my opinion:

1. We need to use our draft pick on a solid wing player. Myself and mrhonline are high on 2 players here (James Anderson and Paul George). That is not to say there are not other wing players who could help. (I know we need a big but drafting a big that is ready to play between picks 24-30 is basically unheard of).

If we can actually draft a solid wing (not a star just a solid role player) then that opens up trade possibilities.

2. Assuming Mo Evans opts into the last year of his deal then he is an expiring contract. We could then trade Mo and Marvin by next seasons trade deadline for a $10 mill expiring contract (hopefully a center or another SF). Getting rid of Marvin's $7.5 mill deal could save us the necessary cap space to keep Horford and maybe Crawford.................then in Horford's 1st season under his knew contract (2011-2012) Bibby becomes and expiring contract. We can either allow Bibby to fall off the books for cap relief or trade him for a talent upgrade to team looking to save money.

There is also the possibility that next season (2010-2011) we trade Crawford and Mo's expiring contracts for a really good player (better then Crawford) that helps get us over the hump.

3. Plus, in 2011 the current CBA will expire. Owners will fight hard to drastically lower both the amount and time length of NBA player's contracts since more teams, then not, are losing money. That means it may not cost as much as we think to resign Horford if max contracts decrease.

4. There is another issue here. It is my private belief that once the ownership situation is settled (assuming the ASG wins) that they will then sell the Thrashers to a city a northern city that cares more about hockey. They have destroyed any hope of building a real hocky fan base by trading 1 young star after another. The infusion of cash flow could allow them to invest more in the Hawks.

There are alot of thing left to play out besides the game of basketball its self here.

Think big picture and don't jump to simplistic conclusions..........that is what GMs are paid to do.

Sit back...........observe............let these business matters play out.........and don't forget to enjoy the ride !

How is it not true? It is quite possible that the hawks would have to go into the luxury tax to resign JJ alone, nevermind resigning JJ, Horford and Crawford in the next two offseasons.

Unless the new CBA doesn't have a luxury tax, or unless the new CBA allows for the renegotiation of existing deals, it is quite probably that, even with reduced salaries, the hawks would have to go into the luxury tax to resign those 3 players. Luxury tax threshold next season should be between 65 and 70 million. The hawks have 47 on the books for 8 players already. Add cap holds and the guaranteed contract of a 1st round pick, and the fact that a max deal for someone of JJ's experience will be around 17 to 18 million, and the hawks are right there on the edge of the luxury tax. And if they resign JJ to anything close to the max (say, 15 a year), come 2011 and the hawks would have a little over 45 million in the books in 2011 for 5 players (plus at least a couple of million for the draft picks), needing to resign Horford AND Crawford.

Edited February 16, 2010 by dlpin