Possible reason we passed on Whiteside

[Anansi]

LINK

This may be why we passed on him, still wouldn't see the problem with taking him in the second but anyway.

[HawksFan87]

no, we passed on him because we a group of cheap owners...

[Anansi]

no, we passed on him because we a group of cheap owners...

Agreed (I'm sure you seen my rants last night in the chat) but just wanted to point out what may of caused Whiteside to slide in the draft.

[niremetal]

no, we passed on him because we a group of cheap owners...

No, we passed on him because having $3M is more valuable to a team trying to build a contender than having a piece of s***. And if you manage to get anything besides a piece of s*** in the second round, you're either RC Buford or the beneficiary of dumb luck.

Edited June 25, 2010 by niremetal

[HawksFan87]

that's ur opinion not that it matters..

[AHF]

No, we passed on him because having $3M is more valuable to a team trying to build a contender than having a piece of s***. And if you manage to get anything besides a piece of s*** in the second round, you're either RC Buford or the beneficiary of dumb luck.

It is not that low a % chance at #31 in the draft. If you are talking pick #53, then I agree that is a long shot that isn't worth any real investment. But the #31 pick is not much different than the #30 pick - i.e., the late first round picks. Why be excited about Crawford but think #31 is worthless? To many teams #31 is more valuable because it doesn't come with a guaranteed contract for the draftee.

You tell me, though, what big man you plan on adding to the roster. If you don't add them through the draft, they are very hard to get - even the role players.

[niremetal]

It is not that low a % chance at #31 in the draft. If you are talking pick #53, then I agree that is a long shot that isn't worth any real investment. But the #31 pick is not much different than the #30 pick - i.e., the late first round picks. Why be excited about Crawford but think #31 is worthless? To many teams #31 is more valuable because it doesn't come with a guaranteed contract for the draftee.

You tell me, though, what big man you plan on adding to the roster. If you don't add them through the draft, they are very hard to get - even the role players.

First, let me give you a list of names:

Jeff Pendergraph

Jermaine Taylor

Dante Cunningham

Nikola Peković

Walter Sharpe

Joey Dorsey

Carl Landry

Gabe Pruitt

Marcus Williams

James White

Steve Novak

Solomon Jones

Salim Stoudamire

Daniel Ewing

Brandon Bass

What do they have in common? Those are the 15 guys selected 31-33 in the past 5 drafts. Of those 15, only 2 were rotation players in the NBA last year: Bass and Landry. Two out of 15. You have better odds at a crap game. When you say stuff like this...

You tell me, though, what big man you plan on adding to the roster. If you don't add them through the draft, they are very hard to get - even the role players.

...you make it sound like getting a role player in the 2nd round (even at the beginning of the 2nd round) in the draft is a probable outcome. News flash. Look at that list of names again. It isn't. I'll take Randolph Morris over Daniel Ewing, thanks.

Second - and this is the reason I've stopped posting, though it's directed more at others than you - I've gotten sick of the wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance that underlies posts talking about the Hawks' spending. None of us know what the Hawks’ balance sheet looks like. That includes me. The difference is, I don't presume to set a budget for a business based on what I would like them to spend rather than, you know, how much money they actually can expect to make.

The assumption underlying the "this trade was a failure unless the Hawks sign a good veteran big man" is laughable. That assumption is that the Hawks' revenues are sufficient to support the kind of payroll they want even with the $3M. Based on piss-poor attendance and TV ratings that the Hawks continue to have, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that's not the case. Here's the more sensible way to think about it. On one end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to turn a significant profit next year), the $3M might be the difference between the Hawks having a luxury tax payroll or not. On the other end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to lose a lot of money next year), that $3M might be what the team needs just to cover their current payroll/pay taxes/vendors/etc.

Depending on what the team’s projected revenues are for next year, that $3M might be the difference between signing a reliable vet free agent or staying pat. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are so low that they won’t be able to afford such a free agent no matter what, and that money might be the difference between retaining JJ or having to let him walk. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are even lower than that they can’t keep JJ or sign another free agent, it might be the difference between keeping Josh or trading him for future cap relief. The point is, the people around here don't know and don't care. That's just absurd.

It’s not like the owners will ever see the money from the trade. It goes into the team revenue pile, which the individual owners can't touch (the separation between team and owner finances being another rather important fact that is casually ignored). They only see their gains and losses when the team is sold. So saying “that trade makes no sense/ASG is cheap unless the Hawks sign a significant free agent this summer” makes no sense. A view that makes sense is to start by looking at whatever the Hawks’ payroll for next year turns out to be, and subtract $3M. Because that’s the difference this trade made. Starting with what you think the payroll should be and then saying ASG is cheap unless they pay that amount reflects either ignorance or stupidity, because it ignores the fact that the team can’t just create money out of thin air when it sets a payroll.

I'm seriously done until at least the end of Wimbledon, and maybe thereafter. I know I'm being a douchebag, but I'm frankly sick of the ridiculous ignorance about (or the complete disregard for) the basic principles of running a business that underly most of the posts around here.

Edited June 26, 2010 by niremetal

[Anansi]

First, let me give you a list of names:

Jeff Pendergraph

Jermaine Taylor

Dante Cunningham

Nikola Peković

Walter Sharpe

Joey Dorsey

Carl Landry

Gabe Pruitt

Marcus Williams

James White

Steve Novak

Solomon Jones

Salim Stoudamire

Daniel Ewing

Brandon Bass

What do they have in common? Those are the 15 guys selected 31-33 in the past 5 drafts. Of those 15, only 2 were rotation players in the NBA last year: Bass and Landry. Two out of 15. You have better odds at a crap game. When you say crap like this...

...you make it sound like getting a role player in the 2nd round (even at the beginning of the 2nd round) in the draft is a probable outcome. News flash. Look at that list of names again. It isn't. I'll take Randolph Morris over Daniel Ewing, thanks.

Second - and this is the reason I've stopped posting, though it's directed more at others than you - I've gotten sick of the wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance that underlies posts talking about the Hawks' spending. None of us know what the Hawks’ balance sheet looks like. That includes me. The difference is, I don't presume to set a budget for a business based on what I would like them to spend rather than, you know, how much money they actually can expect to make.

The assumption underlying the "this trade was a failure unless the Hawks sign a good veteran big man" is laughable. That assumption is that the Hawks' revenues are sufficient to support that kind of payroll even with the $3M. Based on piss-poor attendance and TV ratings that the Hawks continue to have, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that's not the case. Here's the more sensible way to think about it. On one end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to turn a significant profit next year), the $3M might be the difference between the Hawks having a luxury tax payroll or not. On the other end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to lose a lot of money next year), that $3M might be what the team needs just to cover their current payroll/pay taxes/vendors/etc.

Depending on what the team’s projected revenues are for next year, that $3M might be the difference between signing a reliable vet free agent or staying pat. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are so low that they won’t be able to afford such a free agent no matter what, and that money might be the difference between retaining JJ or having to let him walk. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are even lower than that they can’t keep JJ or sign another free agent, it might be the difference between keeping Josh or trading him for future cap relief. The point is, the people around here don't know and don't care. That's just absurd.

It’s not like the owners will ever see the money from the trade. It goes into the team revenue pile, which the individual owners can't touch (the separation between team and owner finances being another rather important fact that is casually ignored). They only see their gains and losses when the team is sold. So saying “that trade makes no sense/ASG is cheap unless the Hawks sign a significant free agent this summer” makes no sense. A view that makes sense is to start by looking at whatever the Hawks’ payroll for next year turns out to be, and subtract $3M. Because that’s the difference this trade made. Starting with what you think the payroll should be and then saying ASG is cheap unless they pay that amount reflects either ignorance or stupidity, because it ignores the fact that the team can’t just create money out of thin air when it sets a payroll.

I'm seriously done until at least the end of Wimbledon, and maybe thereafter. I know I'm being a douchebag, but I'm frankly sick of the ridiculous ignorance about (or the complete disregard for) the basic principles of running a business that underly most of the posts around here.

Everything you said made perfect sense however if they are operating at a point where 3 million dollars makes that big of a difference they really shouldn't own a professional sports team. Let's face it in this economy they aren't the only sports team losing money. Also the point you fail to realize is that the average season ticket holders aren't really going to give a rat's furry backside about things like a team's financial budget because quite frankly that isn't our job. Just like I doubt the ASG worries about our budget when it comes time for us to pay for our tickets. Rightfully or wrongly when the fans see the owners of the Thunder (who are still losing money due to them paying the city of Seattle) and the Nets who are talking about throwing money around and then looking at our team which followed up hiring the leagues cheapest coach by selling a draft pick what do you really expect a fan to say? Sounds like you have an agenda to defend the ASG and that's your prerogative but no need to question the intelligence of the fans who just want their team to spend like the other teams in the league are doing.

[DJlaysitup]

no, we passed on him because we a group of cheap owners...

Well sorta. I mean the usual definition of being "cheap" is a rich person who tips poorly or the Dickens character. ASG may or may not be cheap - but they are poor (comparatively speaking).

I pay little attention to what our ownership or GM says publicly - just look at actions. Saying that Young Crawford was the BPA is just cover for getting a SG to advance to the Craw position once Craw moves into the starting lineup after JJ leaves. Cashing in the #31 spot makes sense if you need money. Signing the lowest paid coach in the league to only a 2 year contract follows along...and many other small things in the past have shown that our organization has to pinch pennies.

I would guess that there is a whole bunch of stuff going on behind closed doors (ownership-wise).

That said - if we do lose JJ the two Crawfords might not be bad at SG. I would be more comfortable with that than our current PG situation.

[thecampster]

First, let me give you a list of names:

Jeff Pendergraph

Jermaine Taylor

Dante Cunningham

Nikola Peković

Walter Sharpe

Joey Dorsey

Carl Landry

Gabe Pruitt

Marcus Williams

James White

Steve Novak

Solomon Jones

Salim Stoudamire

Daniel Ewing

Brandon Bass

What do they have in common? Those are the 15 guys selected 31-33 in the past 5 drafts. Of those 15, only 2 were rotation players in the NBA last year: Bass and Landry. Two out of 15. You have better odds at a crap game. When you say crap like this...

...you make it sound like getting a role player in the 2nd round (even at the beginning of the 2nd round) in the draft is a probable outcome. News flash. Look at that list of names again. It isn't. I'll take Randolph Morris over Daniel Ewing, thanks.

Second - and this is the reason I've stopped posting, though it's directed more at others than you - I've gotten sick of the wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance that underlies posts talking about the Hawks' spending. None of us know what the Hawks’ balance sheet looks like. That includes me. The difference is, I don't presume to set a budget for a business based on what I would like them to spend rather than, you know, how much money they actually can expect to make.

The assumption underlying the "this trade was a failure unless the Hawks sign a good veteran big man" is laughable. That assumption is that the Hawks' revenues are sufficient to support that kind of payroll even with the $3M. Based on piss-poor attendance and TV ratings that the Hawks continue to have, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that's not the case. Here's the more sensible way to think about it. On one end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to turn a significant profit next year), the $3M might be the difference between the Hawks having a luxury tax payroll or not. On the other end of the spectrum (the Hawks expecting to lose a lot of money next year), that $3M might be what the team needs just to cover their current payroll/pay taxes/vendors/etc.

Depending on what the team’s projected revenues are for next year, that $3M might be the difference between signing a reliable vet free agent or staying pat. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are so low that they won’t be able to afford such a free agent no matter what, and that money might be the difference between retaining JJ or having to let him walk. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are even lower than that they can’t keep JJ or sign another free agent, it might be the difference between keeping Josh or trading him for future cap relief. The point is, the people around here don't know and don't care. That's just absurd.

It’s not like the owners will ever see the money from the trade. It goes into the team revenue pile, which the individual owners can't touch (the separation between team and owner finances being another rather important fact that is casually ignored). They only see their gains and losses when the team is sold. So saying “that trade makes no sense/ASG is cheap unless the Hawks sign a significant free agent this summer” makes no sense. A view that makes sense is to start by looking at whatever the Hawks’ payroll for next year turns out to be, and subtract $3M. Because that’s the difference this trade made. Starting with what you think the payroll should be and then saying ASG is cheap unless they pay that amount reflects either ignorance or stupidity, because it ignores the fact that the team can’t just create money out of thin air when it sets a payroll.

I'm seriously done until at least the end of Wimbledon, and maybe thereafter. I know I'm being a douchebag, but I'm frankly sick of the ridiculous ignorance about (or the complete disregard for) the basic principles of running a business that underly most of the posts around here.

I got castigated last night for trying to explain this was a very good business decision. We are very close. We are no longer rebuilding. If we want to contend, we can not afford to jerk around with roster spots for non contributors and people we are developing to be backups in 3 years.

[KB21]

Everything you said made perfect sense however if they are operating at a point where 3 million dollars makes that big of a difference they really shouldn't own a professional sports team. Let's face it in this economy they aren't the only sports team losing money. Also the point you fail to realize is that the average season ticket holders aren't really going to give a rat's furry backside about things like a team's financial budget because quite frankly that isn't our job. Just like I doubt the ASG worries about our budget when it comes time for us to pay for our tickets. Rightfully or wrongly when the fans see the owners of the Thunder (who are still losing money due to them paying the city of Seattle) and the Nets who are talking about throwing money around and then looking at our team which followed up hiring the leagues cheapest coach by selling a draft pick what do you really expect a fan to say? Sounds like you have an agenda to defend the ASG and that's your prerogative but no need to question the intelligence of the fans who just want their team to spend like the other teams in the league are doing.

I'm glad you mentioned OKC, because I do feel the way they have done things is a model for the NBA, or the way teams should be trying to build. That team has been built entirely through the draft. Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Jeff Green, Serge Ibaka.....OKC has drafted all of them and developed them. This is not a team that is out there throwing money around in an attempt to make a show. They have manuevered their draft picks around and have gotten the most bang for the buck. In fact, OKC had three first round picks at the start of the draft. The finished with two, and they ended up getting a player at the top of the 2nd round that they were rumored to have wanted in the first round had they not moved the 21st and 28th picks to New Orleans. They also haven't gone out and spent money on a big name coach. Instead, they took a young assistant coach and gave him a chance. Scott Brooks got a 2 year deal with an option for a 3rd year that will pay him an average of $1.5 million per season. I will never criticize someone for being conservative with their money.

[DrReality]

Didn't we draft Salim Stodamire in that slot?

[Buzzard]

Depending on what the team’s projected revenues are for next year, that $3M might be the difference between signing a reliable vet free agent or staying pat. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are so low that they won’t be able to afford such a free agent no matter what, and that money might be the difference between retaining JJ or having to let him walk. Or maybe the team’s projected revenues are even lower than that they can’t keep JJ or sign another free agent, it might be the difference between keeping Josh or trading him for future cap relief. The point is, the people around here don't know and don't care. That's just absurd.

It’s not like the owners will ever see the money from the trade. It goes into the team revenue pile, which the individual owners can't touch (the separation between team and owner finances being another rather important fact that is casually ignored). They only see their gains and losses when the team is sold. So saying “that trade makes no sense/ASG is cheap unless the Hawks sign a significant free agent this summer” makes no sense. A view that makes sense is to start by looking at whatever the Hawks’ payroll for next year turns out to be, and subtract $3M. Because that’s the difference this trade made. Starting with what you think the payroll should be and then saying ASG is cheap unless they pay that amount reflects either ignorance or stupidity, because it ignores the fact that the team can’t just create money out of thin air when it sets a payroll.

I'm seriously done until at least the end of Wimbledon, and maybe thereafter. I know I'm being a douchebag, but I'm frankly sick of the ridiculous ignorance about (or the complete disregard for) the basic principles of running a business that underly most of the posts around here.

I really do not understand your aurgument here. Are you saying we should support the move based soley on the fact we do not know their bottom line? Is that not the exact samething in practice as disagreeing with the move when we do not know their bottom line? Surely you can see that either for or against the 3 million dollar sale is still just an opinion based on how we perceive the business end of our team. None of us knows s*** concerning their bottom line, including yourself, yet you think we should all support this for some reason based soley on your opinion. Kind of ironic if you ask me; and I am being really polite here.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

I got castigated last night for trying to explain this was a very good business decision. We are very close. We are no longer rebuilding. If we want to contend, we can not afford to jerk around with roster spots for non contributors and people we are developing to be backups in 3 years.

Clearly signing vets like Joe Smith and Jason Collins for MORE than you would pay a 2nd round pick (out of which there is All-Star potential as we have previously detailed in addition to more likely role player potential). So the cost savings is pretty minimal and you are left deciding what crappy washed up veteran is going to make us more competitive. Solomon Jones busted for us and was still better than Joe Smith. A guy like Kendrick Perkins, however, could dramatically change the financial and performance formula for this team. You aren't getting a Gortat in free agency. Orlando drafted him in the second round and is holding onto him tightly. You don't get a Paul Millsap in free agency because he is too valuable to his team. You need to draft those guys - especially if you are unwilling to spend the MLE.

Anyone GM who thinks pick #31 can't land a solid player has to look in the mirror and ask why RC Buford grabs those guys but you don't. The Spurs get Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, DaJuan Blair and others later in the draft in the same range where you are advocating that picks should be sold. Where would that team be now if they had bought off on that rationale? Would they have a single title? Doubtful unless you think the run down vets you sign for minimum priced contracts would have provided similar value.

Guys like Millsap, Arenas, Blatche, Redd, etc. are out there. Even in the worst draft in NBA history (the 2000 debacle) there was an All-Star available in the second round.

If you give up your shot at those guys, you do yourself a disservice and you might as well have sold the #27 pick, too, because the rationale for one is the exact same as the other. The #27 pick has slightly better value and significantly higher costs associated with it. They aren't much different.

If don't add cheap young talent we are doing ourselves a real disservice, IMO. If we don't have a GM who can ID some of those guys, then let's find one that can.

[AHF]

Didn't we draft Salim Stodamire in that slot?

Yes. And Monta Ellis, CJ Miles, Brandon Bass and Ronny Turiaf followed in the next 9 picks. Louis Williams, Andray Blatche, Ryan Gomes, Amir Johnson, and Martin Gortat followed after that (along with the great Cenk Ankyol).

[MaceCase]

You mean to tell me that a guy on an unguaranteed contract would allow something as minuscule as popping his Concerta to get in the way of his financial security? If yes then yea, I can see why we rather sell that pick.

[Buzzard]

I got castigated last night for trying to explain this was a very good business decision. We are very close. We are no longer rebuilding. If we want to contend, we can not afford to jerk around with roster spots for non contributors and people we are developing to be backups in 3 years.

One last point on this issue besides the obvious assumptions that neither camps know the true bottom line for our owners. I am a NFL and NBA fan and want to see a championship come to Atlanta for both the Hawks and Falcons. I am also 52 yrs old and that has yet to happen; it would be great if we could get this done in my lifetime.

Teams with owners who say or its rumored that they cannot afford a 2nd round pick and do not sign quality vets ( the MLE) for the same reason are not going to give us much of a chance to do this IMO. Call me callous, but if our ownership group cannot afford to spend money on our team in a similar manner that one owner can, they got into the wrong business if their goal is the same as mine.

If Golf is the sport of Kings, I would say owning a American sports franchise is the Business Hobby of Kings. We need some new Kings if all we are going to hear for their remaining tenure is about what they cannot afford.

The 31st pick is a good pick to use. And if they thought it was worth taking a flyer with our 53rd pick, the only reason it was not worth doing the same with our 31st is they are way too limited financially and/or worried about trying to increase their profit margin to be in this business.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Buzzard

[KB21]

One last point on this issue besides the obvious assumptions that neither camps know the true bottom line for our owners. I am a NFL and NBA fan and want to see a championship come to Atlanta for both the Hawks and Falcons. I am also 52 yrs old and that has yet to happen; it would be great if we could get this done in my lifetime.

Teams with owners who say or its rumored that they cannot afford a 2nd round pick and do not sign quality vets ( the MLE) for the same reason are not going to give us much of a chance to do this IMO. Call me callous, but if our ownership group cannot afford to spend money on our team in a similar manner that one owner can, they got into the wrong business if their goal is the same as mine.

If Golf is the sport of Kings, I would say owning a American sports franchise is the Business Hobby of Kings. We need some new Kings if all we are going to hear for their remaining tenure is about what they cannot afford.

The 31st pick is a good pick to use. And if they thought it was worth taking a flyer with our 53rd pick, the only reason it was not worth doing the same with our 31st is they are way too limited financially and/or worried about trying to increase their profit margin to be in this business.

Here's the thing. If they offer Joe Johnson a max deal, which all indications right now are saying the Hawks will indeed offer Johnson a max deal, then all this talk about the ASG not being able to afford this or that is moot. If Joe gets a max deal from the Hawks, all of this is shot down.

Honestly, I would rather someone else give out that max deal to Joe, because it will end up being a contract that will come back to haunt the team.

[Buzzard]

Here's the thing. If they offer Joe Johnson a max deal, which all indications right now are saying the Hawks will indeed offer Johnson a max deal, then all this talk about the ASG not being able to afford this or that is moot. If Joe gets a max deal from the Hawks, all of this is shot down.

Honestly, I would rather someone else give out that max deal to Joe, because it will end up being a contract that will come back to haunt the team.

I dissagree KB. If Orlando and San Antonio can keep drafting in the 1st; while the Lakeshow ( two picks) and Boston also think some guys in the 2nd where worth picking, it just stands to reason our owners see things a little differently. We are not as good as they are yet, even with JJ, so us selling out of the 2nd makes no sense.

All four of those teams have max players on them, yet still go after FA and trades, resigning their own guys, and keep drafting every year. Cleveland was strongly rumored to want back into the first round and failed; AND no one can call the Cavs cheap. Resigning JJ is not our only need, if it was we would have at least gotten to the Conference finals.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

I dissagree KB. If Orlando and San Antonio can keep drafting in the 1st; while the Lakeshow ( two picks) and Boston also think some guys in the 2nd where worth picking, it just stands to reason our owners see things a little differently. We are not as good as they are yet, even with JJ, so us selling out of the 2nd makes no sense.

All four of those teams have max players on them, yet still go after FA and trades, resigning their own guys, and keep drafting every year. Cleveland was strongly rumored to want back into the first round and failed; AND no one can call the Cavs cheap. Resigning JJ is not our only need, if it was we would have at least gotten to the Conference finals.

I agree with both of your last two posts.

Looking at Orlando, it is amazing that many of the same people that wanted Whiteside over Orton are now saying the 31st pick was practically worthless while Orlando recognized the value of developing young big men enough to draft Orton just two picks earlier. Orlando doesn't need to develoo that depth given their bigs and their ages. We do.