if sund trades marvin it is an indictment on himself

[gsuteke]

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.

I'm agreeing with you that we needed to retain an asset. However since nobody else was willing to offer him why did we wind up with a contract we can't palate?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but sund is on the hook here.

[thecampster]

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?

By resigning Marvin, we weren't just resigning Marvin the basketball player, but also Marvin the commodity. Now if Marvin net's you Shaq and Shaq can play 25 minutes a game in the playoffs against Dwight Howard and and allow Horford to completely overmatch whatever shmoe they throw out there at the 4 and Josh to completely overpower whomever is at the 3 and it allows the Hawks to play straight up man defense successfully then what you have to say is that Sund did a good job at holding on to a commodity. You see, we couldn't just sign Shaq to 7 million this offseason because we are over the cap. But we could trade 7 million for him.

This also goes for whatever others would be willing to do for Marvin.

[Diesel]

I'm agreeing with you that we needed to retain an asset. However since nobody else was willing to offer him why did we wind up with a contract we can't palate?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but sund is on the hook here.

Well, I don't think we thought we would resign JJ. All the signs are there. JCraw was brought in to replace JJ. JCraw II was more JJ insurance. We probably had one more player swingman that we had targetted with the 8 million we would have had after JJ. However, i believe that ownership got a good sign somewhere and gave Sund the greenlight to offer the max to JJ in order to keep him. What I think we will see over the next 2 years is this:

• Belkin finally bought out.
  
• New owner brought in and approved by NBA.
  
• New coach named either Next year or the year after.
  
• Horf resigned.
  
  

They got a green light.

When we resigned Marvin, I don't think we saw life with JJ after this season.

[gsuteke]

Well diesel we need to agree based upon your response that sund miscalculated. I'm in the accoiuntability business.

[Joker]

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

Since when is Barnes a guarantee for Atanta and why is Marvin being traded for a spot player when he's a cheap starter who can defend the best player in the league better than anyone in the NBA. Common sense says this isn't a likelihood but more a wishful thought.

[Diesel]

Well diesel we need to agree based upon your response that sund miscalculated. I'm in the accoiuntability business.

Again, I don't think it was Sund.

Sund plays the same role everytime he's the GM. He carries out the wishes of the owner. If the owners say find the best way to save money, he does that. If they say find a good trade, he does that. IF they say make a good deal with this player, he does that. Many people wonder why it takes him so long to make a move. The reason being is because he has to wait to hear from his owner most of the time. This is why I don't consider him a good GM. NO VISION. He's a Babysitting GM. IF you leave him directions, he will get the job done perfectly and professionally. However, if you have a team that you want built from scratch, he's not the guy you call. BK was better at that than Sund because BK had a vision. It was a failing vision but a vision. So I can't point the finger at Sund and say.. You f-0000 up Buddy. Because the truth is that I believe going into 2009, he was probably told, we have this much money and we need to be considering building a team without Joe. Then as FAcy approached, I'm sure that he heard that Joe was talking with Lebron, Bosh, and Wade... at the summit. Then the owners said, max him out. Sund is the GM that follows orders. He's not a good GM but his inability to build is what makes him not responsible in this instance.

Since when is Barnes a guarantee for Atanta and why is Marvin being traded for a spot player when he's a cheap starter who can defend the best player in the league better than anyone in the NBA. Common sense says this isn't a likelihood but more a wishful thought.

:help wanted3:

[HAWKSFAN89]

Its more of both.

Marvin is terrible as is his contract. Fact is we could probably get a player for less that plays the equivalent (if not better) than Marvins play.

[Joker]

:help wanted3:

Who defends Bron better than Marvin?

[wolvetigers]

If we trade Marvin to Cleveland for Shaq....I would lose all faith in the Hawks Mgmt. The only way Marvin should be trade to cleveland is if Varajao is coming to us...THats IT...no more guards, etc.

[Joker]

If we trade Marvin to Cleveland for Shaq....I would lose all faith in the Hawks Mgmt. The only way Marvin should be trade to cleveland is if Varajao is coming to us...THats IT...no more guards, etc.

This. +1

[Chinky_eyed_hawk]

Who defends Bron better than Marvin?

I agree, even though through most of the LeBron highlights its Marvin on the wrong end of it.

[99PROBL3MS]

Since when is Barnes a guarantee for Atanta and why is Marvin being traded for a spot player when he's a cheap starter who can defend the best player in the league better than anyone in the NBA. Common sense says this isn't a likelihood but more a wishful thought.

I don't know. You tell me? Where did I say he was a guarantee? I didn't even imply that he was. Of course it is wishful thinking. I was just pointing out that IF he traded for Marvin for Shaq AND signed Barnes it would outweight the loss of Marvin. Do you disagree with that? Where did I make any guarantees?

[Atlantaholic]

Marvin sucks. People act like he is some kind of defensive stopper, which is far, far from true. He isn't even a better defender than Joe Johnson. The guy will have one or two nice defensive stops every few games and people act like he is Bruce Bowen.

Lebron James has averaged 29 points 9 rebounds and 7 asssists on 50% FG shooting against us the last three years, so I don't know where this talk about Marvin being the #1 Lebron stopper in the league is coming from. Anyway, stopping (or slowing down, rather) the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world isn't done with one guy. We need to shore up our TEAM DEFENSE and the best way to do that is to get some help at Center, and/or at PG. Not saying I would trade Marvin for Shaq straight up though. Marvin is 24 and trading him for a 38 player who has pretty much been ran out of town his last three stops would be a real bad deal for us. If we could set up a package that includes someone like Varajao or even Moon though I would be all over it.

As for the idea that it is an indictment on Sund if Marvin is traded that is faulty logic. When we signed Marvin it was pretty much taken for granted that he would continue to improve his game, instead, last season he regressed in pretty much every single aspect of his offensive game save for maybe his back to the basket game which was pretty crude to begin with. If he is traded the indictment is on Marvin for not living up to his expectations (again!).

Edited July 15, 2010 by Atlantaholic

[Joker]

I don't know. You tell me? Where did I say he was a guarantee? I didn't even imply that he was. Of course it is wishful thinking. I was just pointing out that IF he traded for Marvin for Shaq AND signed Barnes it would outweight the loss of Marvin. Do you disagree with that? Where did I make any guarantees?

I disagree, Barnes will be a big disappointment as he usually is when he's not on teams w/o Dwight or teams that play no defense. Shaq impact is average. Good v. Orlando, not so good otherwise.

[thescout5]

We resigned Marvin so the Hawks wouldn't lose him for nothing AND we thought Marvin had more potential at the time. It's one year later and can we say Marvin has improved ,stayed the same or got worse? I don't think he has improved and some players when they sign their new deal just are not motivated to get better. Was that Sund's fault for not reading the tea leaves correctly?

I think you get rid of Marvin and find a player that can produce. Marvin is't a no1,no2 or no3 option and what does he do effectively? Small forward is the easiest position to fill in the NBA and you would think there has to be someone out there that you could get more bang for the buck.

Edited July 15, 2010 by thescout5

[Diesel]

Who defends Bron better than Marvin?

Starting with the Hawks: Joe Johnson.

Moving around the league: Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade, Shane Battier, Gerald Wallace, Trenton Hassel, and Luol Deng.

[txsting]

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?

I don't think they are still trying to trade Marvin. I know they were trying to, but that was before Childress was out the door. I could have seen a scenario where they could get good value on Marvin, and then sign Childress to start at SF. But that is over - we need to keep Marvin. Anything else out there would be a downgrade. I want to see Marvin play in an offense that has more equitable distribution, as it sounds like L.D. is going to put in.