Can Rick Sund Dictate.....

[AHF]

JJ WAS RESTRICTED.

Very true. I think we are overestimating our leverage here with these teams.

[Diesel]

Here is something I read that I agree with.

Atlanta/Phoenix SnT for Joe Johnson should be the example of what teams want in a SnT for Tier 1 and 2 players. That trade was basically picks and Diaw for Joe Johnson. Those picks became Rondo and Robin Lopez.

Joe was a restricted FA when we acquired him. We gave all that because the Suns could match.

[Diesel]

Very true. I think we are overestimating our leverage here with these teams.

The leverage only comes if Joe wants to play with Bron for the max.

Right now, if Joe just wants to leave, he can go just about anywhere and we get Nothing. Good day sir.

[MaceCase]

But to get 6 years is what JJ would want and could get elsewhere. The ball is back in our court. The ball wouldn't be in our court if NY was the only team after JJ especially for that price like R. Lewis and Orlando. If multiple teams are willing to pay more for 6 years, than the ball is back in our court. I like stated, there are only five tier 1 and 2 FA's in this class. Amare, Dirk, and Wade will probably stay on their respective teams.

What? If the idea is that JJ just wants 6 years then there really isn't any debate over him leaving us because only we can offer him that. I'm more than sure that all of this year's FAs will be more than fine without that extra year from their original teams. Him wishing to sign with another team and us giving him 6 years will only be a sign of good faith on both sides, mostly ours, and does not dictate at all what an opposing team has to offer us. To put an end to all this rubbish perhaps some clarity will suffice

JJ and all the other FAs are well aware that the CBA only allows another team to offer them a total of 5 years. If that extra year was such a sticking point to each of them then you would of already heard of all of them planning to resign with their original teams.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You have lost your mind.

Really?

A cash-strapped ownership group, that knows that if they can't retain JJ, that we have virtually no shot of improving in the 2010 - 11 season, may opt to SAVE MONEY, in order to re-sign both Horford and Crawford.

We don't have any leverage vs teams like the Knicks and the Bulls, because they have no problem whatsoever going over the luxury tax to field a real good team. Those fan bases come out to see their teams, win or lose. Put a good team out on the floor, and they'll become rabid fan bases.

That's why the Clippers are even in play now. Put Lebron in LA, and he becomes something that Kobe is reluctant to be . . . Mr. Hollywood. Wade too, if he wanted it.

Some of you are acting like JJ can be sign and traded to anybody. He's unrestricted. And it's JJ who has final say-so in a sign and trade, not us.

JJ is more likely to listen to his new team, and what they want to give us, than the Hawks, and what we want back for JJ.

We're not in the driver's seat. We're in the trunk, with our arms and legs tied up, with duct tape covering our mouths.

[Joker]

Really?

A cash-strapped ownership group, that knows that if they can't retain JJ, that we have virtually no shot of improving in the 2010 - 11 season, may opt to SAVE MONEY, in order to re-sign both Horford and Crawford.

We don't have any leverage vs teams like the Knicks and the Bulls, because they have no problem whatsoever going over the luxury tax to field a real good team. Those fan bases come out to see their teams, win or lose. Put a good team out on the floor, and they'll become rabid fan bases.

That's why the Clippers are even in play now. Put Lebron in LA, and he becomes something that Kobe is reluctant to be . . . Mr. Hollywood. Wade too, if he wanted it.

Some of you are acting like JJ can be sign and traded to anybody. He's unrestricted. And it's JJ who has final say-so in a sign and trade, not us.

JJ is more likely to listen to his new team, and what they want to give us, than the Hawks, and what we want back for JJ.

We're not in the driver's seat. We're in the trunk, with our arms and legs tied up, with duct tape covering our mouths.

If we are cash strapped, we will just let JJ walk but taking on one of the worst players in the NBA in Eddy Curry is not even close. We do not have to SnT, if we are going to SnT, it better make sense or sign him outright. He can sign with anyone, hell I've stated that a thousand times it's seems. In order for him to do a SnT, that means pieces will be shipped to Atlanta and if JJ has options for teams willing to give him 6 years, than we can say yes or no and he can move on the list or sign for 5 years.

Edited May 27, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Joker]

What? If the idea is that JJ just wants 6 years then there really isn't any debate over him leaving us because only we can offer him that. I'm more than sure that all of this year's FAs will be more than fine without that extra year from their original teams. Him wishing to sign with another team and us giving him 6 years will only be a sign of good faith on both sides, mostly ours, and does not dictate at all what an opposing team has to offer us. To put an end to all this rubbish perhaps some clarity will suffice

JJ and all the other FAs are well aware that the CBA only allows another team to offer them a total of 5 years. If that extra year was such a sticking point to each of them then you would of already heard of all of them planning to resign with their original teams.

What? You either had a misunderstanding or I am not understanding you.

a sign of good faith on both sides, mostly ours, and does not dictate at all what an opposing team has to offer us.

Explain? Why not? If he wants five years, he can walk but if he wants 6 years, then we are in the drivers seat. What is hard to understand about that. Each point I have made is valid. If a SnT is needed, we are in the drivers seat. Your talking to me like I am a noob, I've been analyzing trade JJ possibilities for almost a year so I fully understand all of the barricades.

[MaceCase]

What? You either had a misunderstanding or I am not understanding you.

Explain? Why not? If he wants five years, he can walk but if he wants 6 years, then we are in the drivers seat. What is hard to understand about that. Each point I have made is valid. If a SnT is needed, we are in the drivers seat. Your talking to me like I am a noob, I've been analyzing trade JJ possibilities for almost a year so I fully understand all of the barricades.

Perhaps I had a hard time understanding your gibberish in which case I would need you to clarify. Could you name to me a free agent who gave up on or was prevented from signing with another team simply because he couldn't receive a 6th year? Do you understand that the whole reasoning behind that rule/clause/ability being put into the CBA is so that the home team would have a fighting chance when it comes to retaining their own] free agents?

The idea is not that you automatically want to pay a guy more than any other team can, it's that if another team is offering him the full amount he can receive you can now swoop in and play to his greed by topping that if you so wish to do so. It is not a necessary requirement that you offer your own free agent 6 years and 10% increases, it is simply an option. If the player is leaving already and asks you if you can sign him to that full amount and trade him then it is a sign of good faith and a thank you for the good times by you and the player. If you say no or that you will only do it for the #1 pick in the draft in return then the player and the team he is signing with will just laugh and say they will be just fine with the 5 years all the while your organization is left with nothing and a bad reputation amongst players and agents .

Do you see the point I'm making here? No player or team really seeks the 6th year, it's just a bonus. Seeking that 6th year only takes away a player's leverage which makes it absolutely pointless that so many teams gutted their franchises for a chance at these FAs when they can't even offer 6 years. People need not look any further than the case of Rashard Lewis as their example of what is likely to happen this summer. You may not be familiar with the realities but I bet you our GM is....

[Diesel]

What? If the idea is that JJ just wants 6 years then there really isn't any debate over him leaving us because only we can offer him that. I'm more than sure that all of this year's FAs will be more than fine without that extra year from their original teams. Him wishing to sign with another team and us giving him 6 years will only be a sign of good faith on both sides, mostly ours, and does not dictate at all what an opposing team has to offer us. To put an end to all this rubbish perhaps some clarity will suffice

JJ and all the other FAs are well aware that the CBA only allows another team to offer them a total of 5 years. If that extra year was such a sticking point to each of them then you would of already heard of all of them planning to resign with their original teams.

Actually, the others are not in the same place as JJ.

Joe is what 29? That means that after 5 years, he will be 34 years old looking for another contract. How many 34 year old SGs do you know that can command +10 Million?

Joe has to get a 6 year deal to maximize his money. The 6th year is really more important than a max contract. That's why I say don't give Joe the max, give him a good deal with all 6 years and likely he will stay.

Lebron, Wade, and Bosh and them are all what? 26 and younger. They will still have some good years left after 5 years. Joe is on his Ray Allen contract. IF he doesn't get a 6 yr deal, he can basically say that he didn't want the money.

[frankthetank966]

From NJ I wouldn't mind Lopez (and a pick maybe?)

Are you suggesting Lopez and Harris instead of Harris and pick? I would love that but doubt it would happen. Part of what makes NJ an intriguing team is the ability to play for with Harris or Lopez. They would never trade both.

[Joker]

Perhaps I had a hard time understanding your gibberish in which case I would need you to clarify. Could you name to me a free agent who gave up on or was prevented from signing with another team simply because he couldn't receive a 6th year? Do you understand that the whole reasoning behind that rule/clause/ability being put into the CBA is so that the home team would have a fighting chance when it comes to retaining their own] free agents?

The idea is not that you automatically want to pay a guy more than any other team can, it's that if another team is offering him the full amount he can receive you can now swoop in and play to his greed by topping that if you so wish to do so. It is not a necessary requirement that you offer your own free agent 6 years and 10% increases, it is simply an option. If the player is leaving already and asks you if you can sign him to that full amount and trade him then it is a sign of good faith and a thank you for the good times by you and the player. If you say no or that you will only do it for the #1 pick in the draft in return then the player and the team he is signing with will just laugh and say they will be just fine with the 5 years all the while your organization is left with nothing and a bad reputation amongst players and agents .

Do you see the point I'm making here? No player or team really seeks the 6th year, it's just a bonus. Seeking that 6th year only takes away a player's leverage which makes it absolutely pointless that so many teams gutted their franchises for a chance at these FAs when they can't even offer 6 years. People need not look any further than the case of Rashard Lewis as their example of what is likely to happen this summer. You may not be familiar with the realities but I bet you our GM is....

....

gibberish

The last 10 post from your mark and on is gibberish. Good faith is not taking on another s***ty contract. Is this too complicated for you to comprehend. The bottom-line is this is a business, the Hawks will not screw themselves so little J.J. is happy. This isn't that hard to understand, some of you have a gerbil mindset. Back to Rashard as stated earlier.

No one wanted Rashard at that price other than Orlando. Not even Seattle.

Smh. Read the damn thread for crying out loud, most of this has been repeated information from the last six months. No one is saying nothing new. This is like watching "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" rerun and your telling me that something different is going to happen in a scene that I have seen several times over.

Edited May 28, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[MaceCase]

....

The last 10 post from your mark and on is gibberish. Good faith is not taking on another s***ty contract. Is this too complicated for you to comprehend. The bottom-line is this is a business, the Hawks will not screw themselves so little J.J. is happy. This isn't that hard to understand, some of you have a gerbil mindset. Back to Rashard as stated earlier.

No one wanted Rashard at that price other than Orlando. Not even Seattle.

Smh. Read the damn thread for crying out loud, most of this has been repeated information from the last six months. No one is saying nothing new. This is like watching "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" rerun and your telling me that something different is going to happen in a scene that I have seen several times over.

Good faith is we are not taking back a crap contract but will still give JJ his 6th year. Grow a damn brain and read, you do realize that Rashard was sign and traded for 6 years right? All Seattle got was a TPE and conditional 2nd round pick for him. No firsts, no JJ Redick or Gortat, just a TPE and thankfully a conditional 2nd. He obviously was worth that amount to Orlando for them to even offer him that yet I don't remember Seattle raping their GM for compensation. Orlando could of just had Rashard outright at 5 years but as a sign of good faith and not to lose a player for nothing the Sonics gave him that 6th year. Hell all Orlando got for sign and trading Hedo later on was cash and I don't remember them demanding Derozan back or Bargnani in order to do so.

If you are reading what MrH and I are typing you would all realize this:

The sixth year we are allowed to offer JJ will not determine or decide or dictate what we can take back in a sign and trade for him.

If JJ signs with another team he is already doing so knowing he can only get 5 years from them.....period....

If he wants a 6th year or even just 5 years at 10% pay raises we will more than happily give it to him regardless. If we don't find any of the particular players being offered to us to be worthwhile then we will be more than happy with just a TPE if not lower rung picks. Why? Because to any poster with any amount of sense a TPE is actually valuable to the team and better than nothing. There is no leverage on our part negotiating with a team that can sign Joe outright so a chance at getting anything from them is gravy and it will in no form or way hinder us from giving JJ what he wants.

Maybe watching less Nick at Night would allow you to comprehend this.

[thecampster]

Good faith is we are not taking back a crap contract but will still give JJ his 6th year. Grow a damn brain and read, you do realize that Rashard was sign and traded for 6 years right? All Seattle got was a TPE and conditional 2nd round pick for him. No firsts, no JJ Redick or Gortat, just a TPE and thankfully a conditional 2nd. He obviously was worth that amount to Orlando for them to even offer him that yet I don't remember Seattle raping their GM for compensation. Orlando could of just had Rashard outright at 5 years but as a sign of good faith and not to lose a player for nothing the Sonics gave him that 6th year. Hell all Orlando got for sign and trading Hedo later on was cash and I don't remember them demanding Derozan back or Bargnani in order to do so.

If you are reading what MrH and I are typing you would all realize this:

The sixth year we are allowed to offer JJ will not determine or decide or dictate what we can take back in a sign and trade for him.

If JJ signs with another team he is already doing so knowing he can only get 5 years from them.....period....

If he wants a 6th year or even just 5 years at 10% pay raises we will more than happily give it to him regardless. If we don't find any of the particular players being offered to us to be worthwhile then we will be more than happy with just a TPE if not lower rung picks. Why? Because to any poster with any amount of sense a TPE is actually valuable to the team and better than nothing. There is no leverage on our part negotiating with a team that can sign Joe outright so a chance at getting anything from them is gravy and it will in no form or way hinder us from giving JJ what he wants.

Maybe watching less Nick at Night would allow you to comprehend this.

Didn't you already expose what you didn't know about this topic in this thread. http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/344839-the-toronto-game-should-kill-the-life-without-jj-talk/

There are many things to be gained by trading away players. What isn't useful to one team and is a bad contract isn't bad to another. For example, Tyson Chandler would have looked really good in a hawks uniform during the playoffs standing next to Horford but for many teams in the league, his contract is terrible.

Months ago I stated this would end in a sign and trade and at that time you stated it wasn't going to happen, there was absolutely no incentive for any team to do so. Now you come on this thread and say you and MrH have been real tight on this. MrH...absolutely, you...you're posing and the above thread shows it.

Edited May 28, 2010 by thecampster

[niremetal]

Didn't you already expose what you didn't know about this topic in this thread. http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/344839-the-toronto-game-should-kill-the-life-without-jj-talk/

There are many things to be gained by trading away players. What isn't useful to one team and is a bad contract isn't bad to another. For example, Tyson Chandler would have looked really good in a hawks uniform during the playoffs standing next to Horford but for many teams in the league, his contract is terrible.

Months ago I stated this would end in a sign and trade and at that time you stated it wasn't going to happen, there was absolutely no incentive for any team to do so. Now you come on this thread and say you and MrH have been real tight on this. MrH...absolutely, you...you're posing and the above thread shows it.

Actually that thread and this one exposed that you don't know anything about this topic. You showed that you don't understand the significance of a team having the cap space to sign a player outright. But thanks for bringing back good old memories.

Edited May 28, 2010 by niremetal

[coachx]

There simply isn't historical evidence that a team losing out on a solid, unrestricted player gets anything of value from another team's reasonable GM.

That is, unless you're like me and think a TPE is of solid value.

+1 for truth

[MaceCase]

Didn't you already expose what you didn't know about this topic in this thread. http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/344839-the-toronto-game-should-kill-the-life-without-jj-talk/

There are many things to be gained by trading away players. What isn't useful to one team and is a bad contract isn't bad to another. For example, Tyson Chandler would have looked really good in a hawks uniform during the playoffs standing next to Horford but for many teams in the league, his contract is terrible.

Months ago I stated this would end in a sign and trade and at that time you stated it wasn't going to happen, there was absolutely no incentive for any team to do so. Now you come on this thread and say you and MrH have been real tight on this. MrH...absolutely, you...you're posing and the above thread shows it.

Wow Camp, I've never seen a poster intentionally undress themselves in public like this. If you actually spent time reading your astounding exhibit A you would see that I am parroting now what I said then. Sad to see you haven't smartened up in the two months since.

Maybe you missed my first post in that thread which is, not without coincidence, in response to your foolishness then. I'll summarize :

There is no need for them to give up any valuable piece or draft pick

Boom, my posts tend to be wordy lately and I feel my message is getting lost amongst the lazy or just plain stupid on here so I made it short and sweet. Unless you think there is a young player with allstar potential out there named TPE, that is about the most you can expect for JJ from all the likely suitors this offseason.

[Diesel]

There simply isn't historical evidence that a team losing out on a solid, unrestricted player gets anything of value from another team's reasonable GM.

That is, unless you're like me and think a TPE is of solid value.

I was going to let this inaccuracy go... However, you're getting +1 s for this so I thought I would join in here...

First example:

Tracy McGrady UFA to Orlando for a first round pick.

2nd Example.

Grant Hill UFA to same Orlando team for Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins... The beginning of the Pistons Championship team.

3rd Example.

Spurs traded Kurt Thomas, Fabrico Oberto (Amir Johnson), Bruce Bowen to the Bucks for Richard Jefferson.

The Spurs had the money for Jefferson outright but they were saving to get Rasheed Wallace which turned out to be Antonio McDyess.

4th Example.

Al Harrington for a First round pick.

there are others.

[Buzzard]

There simply isn't historical evidence that a team losing out on a solid, unrestricted player gets anything of value from another team's reasonable GM.

That is, unless you're like me and think a TPE is of solid value.

No doubt man. Only way we get more than that is if someone wants two unrestricted free agents; which is what Diesel is hoping for. Problem is that is a one in one hundred shot at best; maybe a one in one thousand.

[Joker]

I was going to let this inaccuracy go... However, you're getting +1 s for this so I thought I would join in here...

First example:

Tracy McGrady UFA to Orlando for a first round pick.

2nd Example.

Grant Hill UFA to same Orlando team for Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins... The beginning of the Pistons Championship team.

3rd Example.

Spurs traded Kurt Thomas, Fabrico Oberto (Amir Johnson), Bruce Bowen to the Bucks for Richard Jefferson.

The Spurs had the money for Jefferson outright but they were saving to get Rasheed Wallace which turned out to be Antonio McDyess.

4th Example.

Al Harrington for a First round pick.

there are others.

+1

[niremetal]

I was going to let this inaccuracy go... However, you're getting +1 s for this so I thought I would join in here...

First example:

Tracy McGrady UFA to Orlando for a first round pick.

2nd Example.

Grant Hill UFA to same Orlando team for Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins... The beginning of the Pistons Championship team.

3rd Example.

Spurs traded Kurt Thomas, Fabrico Oberto (Amir Johnson), Bruce Bowen to the Bucks for Richard Jefferson.

The Spurs had the money for Jefferson outright but they were saving to get Rasheed Wallace which turned out to be Antonio McDyess.

4th Example.

Al Harrington for a First round pick.

there are others.

1) Tracy McGrady was restricted. He was a first-rounder coming off his rookie scale contract. The Raptors held the right to match offers.

2) Wallace and Atkins were both free agents too. The Pistons were planning to sign both players anyway, but the players could get more money and the teams would have fewer trade restrictions under the old CBA if the deal was structured as a double sign-and-trade instead of each team signing the players outright. If you can find free agents on another team that we want and could "acquire" in that fashion, great. But that's a very difficult thing to negotiate. The Hill trade is, to my knowledge, the only example of such a double sign-and-trade.

3) Jefferson was not a free agent at all.

4) The Pacers lacked the cap space to sign Harrington outright. He was acquired using a trade exception that came from the Stojokovic deal. Different ballgame.

Edited May 28, 2010 by niremetal