if sund trades marvin it is an indictment on himself

[gsuteke]

I'm not one to start a thread about another thread but this has less to do with the marvin/shaq trade and more to do with sund.

Sund chose to resign marvin. We all thought he got marvin at a good price but we're not an nba general manager. I saw that the hawks mau be putting marvin out there to rid themselves of his contract.

Well why do the hawks need to get rid of marvin's contract? Its not as if they just got carmelo anthony which would render marvin excess.

Is it his contract? If its his contract then who is to blame?

Sund had a happy honeymoon with the hawks cleaning up bk's obvious no brainer "duhs.".

If that contract has to go why aren't we holding sund's feet to the fire?

[D.R.P.]

I'm not one to start a thread about another thread but this has less to do with the marvin/shaq trade and more to do with sund.

Sund chose to resign marvin. We all thought he got marvin at a good price but we're not an nba general manager. I saw that the hawks mau be putting marvin out there to rid themselves of his contract.

Well why do the hawks need to get rid of marvin's contract? Its not as if they just got carmelo anthony which would render marvin excess.

Is it his contract? If its his contract then who is to blame?

Sund had a happy honeymoon with the hawks cleaning up bk's obvious no brainer "duhs.".

If that contract has to go why aren't we holding sund's feet to the fire?

Yeah, its not like Marvin went out and signed an offer sheet from another team. The Hawks straight up gave Marvin an extension unlike Josh Smith and Childress.

[ATLBob]

If that contract has to go why aren't we holding sund's feet to the fire?

It doesn't.

This is getting ridiculous.

[Chinky_eyed_hawk]

Yeah, its not like Marvin went out and signed an offer sheet from another team. The Hawks straight up gave Marvin an extension unlike Josh Smith and Childress.

I think its a solid thread... which leads to the question ... why do so many think Marv's contract is attrocious

[Seano]

I agree, gsuteke. It is kind of an indictment on Sund, as the ink has hardly even dried on Marvin's extension, I mean he signed him to that extension last August 9th. So in essence Sund is admitting he made a mistake, OR they really are that hard up to avoid the luxury tax after signing Joe. At any rate, it makes Sund look kind of foolish, and I don't even think Marvin's contract is all that bad. It's just the fact that less than one year after signing him to that extension, we're apparently already looking to get out from underneath that contract.

[Admin]

Teams re-sign players every year and many of those players are traded within a year or two. That doesn't mean it's an indictment of the GM it's just that they are able to use those players as pieces in a trade to upgrade their roster. If anything the GM should be given kudos for signing the player to a reasonable contract that another team is willing to trade for.

[Guest]

Teams re-sign players every year and many of those players are traded within a year or two. That doesn't mean it's an indictment of the GM it's just that they are able to use those players as pieces in a trade to upgrade their roster. If anything the GM should be given kudos for signing the player to a reasonable contract that another team is willing to trade for.

Exactly...if trading him brings back the right pieces then it was a good signing.

[mrhonline]

Overpaying JJ and then saying "we had no choice" was an indictment of the whole organization. The Hawks knew five years ago when JJ would be a free agent.

We tend to view these transactions independently, but most GM's have a three-year plan. What's the Hawks' three-year plan?

[aznsensation]

Overpaying JJ and then saying "we had no choice" was an indictment of the whole organization. The Hawks knew five years ago when JJ would be a free agent.

We tend to view these transactions independently, but most GM's have a three-year plan. What's the Hawks' three-year plan?

Hawks three year plan is to get to the playoffs and get bounce in the second round. LOL!

[Sothron]

I just don't want to trade marvin for a thirty freaking eight year old Shaq and then have a gaping hole at the three to fill.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

I wonder why when Marvin and Bibby sign their deals last year everyone on this MB was like, WOW, Good deal.

Now everyone acts like we gave them JJ's contract. lol

[Diesel]

I'm not one to start a thread about another thread but this has less to do with the marvin/shaq trade and more to do with sund.

Sund chose to resign marvin. We all thought he got marvin at a good price but we're not an nba general manager. I saw that the hawks mau be putting marvin out there to rid themselves of his contract.

Well why do the hawks need to get rid of marvin's contract? Its not as if they just got carmelo anthony which would render marvin excess.

Is it his contract? If its his contract then who is to blame?

Sund had a happy honeymoon with the hawks cleaning up bk's obvious no brainer "duhs.".

If that contract has to go why aren't we holding sund's feet to the fire?

Nope. Sund gets a pass. He was given Marvin. Marvin was not tradable last offseason because everybody was saving their nickles. Plus, he wanted to keep things consistent so that they could resign Joe. The same goes for Bibby. Woody promised that we would be better with the same team back. Plus, you have to get some value for Marvin. However, now that the Woody regime is over, Sund can undo the mistake he made last offseason. He can trade Marvin for a game changer.

[Diesel]

I think its a solid thread... which leads to the question ... why do so many think Marv's contract is attrocious

Because Marvin is not worth the money.

When you think about a guy like Raja Bell or Matt Barnes will be signed for less than Half of what Marvin makes and when you think about Marvin's output in the Orlando series:

9, 8, 6, and 2 ppg all in games where he played more than 20 mpg.. we expect more out of a guy making twice as much as Mo, More than we were willing to spend on Chillz, and More than Half as much as Smoove.

[gsuteke]

Teams re-sign players every year and many of those players are traded within a year or two. That doesn't mean it's an indictment of the GM it's just that they are able to use those players as pieces in a trade to upgrade their roster. If anything the GM should be given kudos for signing the player to a reasonable contract that another team is willing to trade for.

Both you abd I are on record saying we wouldn't trade marvin for shaq.

Bit the reports I see on hs - and take them with a grain of salt - the hawks are putting marvin's contract up for trade.

Sund signed him last year. I'm not a panicker but if sund trades marvin to get out from under that contract its a chicken little move to me and he needs to be held accountable.

My hope is they will spend the mle on a center and hold on to marvin.

[Diesel]

Overpaying JJ and then saying "we had no choice" was an indictment of the whole organization. The Hawks knew five years ago when JJ would be a free agent.

We tend to view these transactions independently, but most GM's have a three-year plan. What's the Hawks' three-year plan?

I don't see the JJ signings as an indictment. You have to understand, FAs are beating down our door to get here. The last one to beat down our door was JJ.. Is JJ taking advantage of the situ? Definitely. Do we want to experience life without JJ? Hell no.

[Admin]

Both you abd I are on record saying we wouldn't trade marvin for shaq.

Bit the reports I see on hs - and take them with a grain of salt - the hawks are putting marvin's contract up for trade.

Sund signed him last year. I'm not a panicker but if sund trades marvin to get out from under that contract its a chicken little move to me and he needs to be held accountable.

My hope is they will spend the mle on a center and hold on to marvin.

If he trades Marvin just to get out from under it then yes absolutely I'd consider it an indictment of his GM skills but I am one to rarely believe rumors and I highly doubt that he's looking to trade Marvin just to trade him. It wouldn't surprise me if we traded Marvin to upgrade the team, even if upgrading the team means trading for Shaq because the Hawks might consider that an upgrade not only in talent, but also in size and possibly more importantly in putting butts in the seats.

[Diesel]

Both you abd I are on record saying we wouldn't trade marvin for shaq.

Bit the reports I see on hs - and take them with a grain of salt - the hawks are putting marvin's contract up for trade.

Sund signed him last year. I'm not a panicker but if sund trades marvin to get out from under that contract its a chicken little move to me and he needs to be held accountable.

My hope is they will spend the mle on a center and hold on to marvin.

There's no chicken little to the Marvin signing or the JJ signing.

The point is that we're not in a position where we can just allow tradable talent walk out of the door. We knew last year when we resigned Marvin that he could be used as trade bait. Just like we know that after Dec. 15, if things aren't productive in Atl, Joe could be used as trade bait. However, we are not in a position contractually to say that we will just let a Joe Johnson or a Marvin Walk and not get something.

[gsuteke]

Diesel you replied to me saying we got marvin because everyone else was saving their nickels.

Then you say he wasn't worth the money in the next post even though we were bidding against ourselves according to you.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Diesel]

Diesel you replied to me saying we got marvin because everyone else was saving their nickels.

Then you say he wasn't worth the money in the next post even though we were bidding against ourselves according to you.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No, I said that we couldn't trade Marvin last season because everybody was saving their nickels.

If you could go into the past and tell NY that their efforts to get Lebron would ultimately fail and show them footage of his press conference announcing he's going to Miami (or Chicago) don't you think that they would be more likely to do a deal with us on July 1, 2009? Don't you think Chicago would be interested in moving Salmons for Marvin during the season if they knew that they had no shot at KIng James?

That's why we couldn't trade him.

Why did we sign him is because you don't allow value to walk. We don't like value even if it's non-impactful value go without getting something in return. Marvin had a good contract year as most FAs do. However, no one was willing to trade for him and since he was restricted, nobody was going to bring out the big guns and outbid us for him. That left us to try and sign him. We followed suit a little higher than LAL did with Artest and Houston did with Ariza.

[99PROBL3MS]

I have been rather "tongue in cheek" concerning Marvin but have come to grips. We need Shaq's presence down low against certain teams. If he trades for Shaq and picks up Matt Barnes, I would be fine with it.

Barnes + Shaq > Marvin