Hawks Reportedly Have Backed Off Trying To Add Shaq

[Sothron]

Did they not just sign JJ to the NBA's largest contract? Did they not overpay to keep Marvin, Zaza, and Bibby last summer? Did they not overpay to get Speedy before that? Did they not make two trades (Bibby and Crawford) that resulted in the team taking on more than $30M extra in salaries over the course of two seasons? Or are those actions inherently less important because they are inconvenient to your argument?

You wanna call them stupid, fine. They have been stupid, or at least made some very stupid decisions. But I get tired of people screaming cheap one second and then conveniently shutting their eyes and mouth when the Hawks spend (too much) money. It's a sign of intellectual laziness or dishonesty, one or the other.

Your selective memory is the only thing that's useless.

They didn't overpay to keep Marvin, Zaza or Bibby. We have no idea what their open market value was. Giving Bibby a three year deal was painfully stupid as well as signing an injury riddled backup point guard in Speedy. Speaking of convenient I like you how fail to mention Bibby was on an expiring contract when we traded for him at the deadline so we only had to pay half his last year's salary as well as Crawford being on the tail end of his contract with just one year and one player option year IIRC that we picked up for this season.

They did overpay Joe and that shows stupidity. Everything else they do and do not do shows cheapness. They flat out lied when they said they were going to pay the luxury tax to have a contender and when the time comes to actually go out and do it all of a sudden it is a 180 degree reversal. They have zero credibility with the fanbase as a result.

I can not recall any owner or group in Atlanta that has been as deceitful as the ASG to the fans.

My memory is fine. When they act stupid and cheap they deserve to be called out on it.

[Diesel]

I doubt Cleveland brings him back. They know first hand that they are better without him than with him. Bringing back Shaq only means that they will have a big road block to playing their best player, Anderson Varejao, more this year.

Cleveland knows that they are not a championship contender. If they sign Shaq for 6-7 Million... and they showcase him in their system... By the trade deadline (if Shaq is having a good year), they can trade him and at the least get a late first round pick. Or they could trade him and get some young talent from a team that is in contention. The point is that Cleveland can be a winner in this situation. IN the meanwhile, he's still a fan draw.

Unfortunately Diesel it will not be Sund's job that it will affect. This ownership group is a joke.

While I'm not disagreeing, I will say this... ASG is setting the table to bring Doc Rivers in as Coach/GM. In order to do that, they will have to have a good reason to release Sund. Many of the reasons will be reasons that they were responsible for, however, I think they will get it done.

[jhay610]

Speaking of convenient I like you how fail to mention Bibby was on an expiring contract when we traded for him at the deadline so we only had to pay half his last year's salary

Bibby had another year on his deal when we picked him up, no? I want to say his last year was in the neighborhood of $14m, being the 2008-09 season (we picked him up in Feb 2008).

[niremetal]

Bibby had another year on his deal when we picked him up, no? I want to say his last year was in the neighborhood of $14m, being the 2008-09 season (we picked him up in Feb 2008).

Both Bibby and Crawford had contracts that expired one year after the players we traded them for. In addition, the Hawks actually would not have been able to do the trade of Acie and Speedy for Crawford if they had waited until after July 1, 2009 due to the fact that Speedy was due for a big annual paycut on July 1 (his contract was frontloaded) while Crawford was due for a big annual pay raise on July 1 (because his contract is backloaded). After July 1, we’d have had to throw in RandMo’s contract to get the deal done. Presumably the Warriors wanted to do the trade before July 1 for that very reason - they wanted to get the savings from Speedy’s imminent paycut and avoid having to take on an extra contract. So the Hawks ate ~$1M (plus the $1.8M 2009-10 salary differential) in order to get the deal done. $2.8M + ~$600k (the pro rata difference between the '07-'08 salaries of Bibby and the quartet we traded him for) + $10.1M (Jamal's salary this year, after Acie/Speedy expired) + $14.98M (Bibby's 08-09 salary, after the quartet of guys we traded to get him expired) = ~$28.7M in extra salary taken on in those trades.

And you're going pretty far against the grain to say that the Hawks didn't overpay to keep the trio of '09 free agents. But hey, downplaying those helps your argument, disingenuous though it may be, so why not?

The point is simple: For every example where you can say the Hawks were being "cheap," there are examples I can bring up where the Hawks could have stayed pat or paid less but instead made a move to substantially increase payroll, at least since the Hawks exited "rebuilding mode" c.2006 or 2007. I agree that they are stupid. But you have to selectively forget a huge portion of the Hawks transactions over the past 4 years to say that they are cheap.

Oh, and when did they promise to pay the luxury tax? As I recall, they said they'd be willing to pay the luxury tax for the right player (they used LeBron as an example, which suggests that they weren't saying they'd pay it to sign mediocre players), not that they'd pay it period. Again, you have a selective and convenient memory. Either that or you just love spewing BS. I'm guessing it's a combination of the two.

They've lost your support. Please pardon me while I shed a tear for them losing the support of a disingenuous blowhard who looks for reasons to bash them. You still showing up for games? Because that's the only support that matters. If you are, then who cares that you don't find them credible. If not...well then you're not much of a fan, considering that this team just came off a 53-win campaign in spite of having a terrible coach.

Edited August 2, 2010 by niremetal

[Nicholasp27]

They flat out lied when they said they were going to pay the luxury tax to have a contender and when the time comes to actually go out and do it all of a sudden it is a 180 degree reversal.

they said theyd pay the tax for the right piece, and obv don't think shaq is that piece (i agree)

with that statement, they were also saying they wouldn't pay the tax for a piece that wasn't gonna move the needle

no lies or bs, we just don't like the implications of the statement as fans as it's not our money

but he DEF did not lie

that is just propaganda being spread by people on the internet

btw, i'm not a fan of the owners or their decisions...i'm just not going to spread propaganda calling them liars when they didn't lie just cause i don't like the outcome

Edited August 2, 2010 by Nicholasp27

[Sothron]

Both Bibby and Crawford had contracts that expired one year after the players we traded them for. In addition, the Hawks actually would not have been able to do the trade of Acie and Speedy for Crawford if they had waited until after July 1, 2009 due to the fact that Speedy was due for a big annual paycut on July 1 (his contract was frontloaded) while Crawford was due for a big annual pay raise on July 1 (because his contract is backloaded). After July 1, we’d have had to throw in RandMo’s contract to get the deal done. Presumably the Warriors wanted to do the trade before July 1 for that very reason - they wanted to get the savings from Speedy’s imminent paycut and avoid having to take on an extra contract. So the Hawks ate ~$1M (plus the $1.8M 2009-10 salary differential) in order to get the deal done. $2.8M + ~$600k (the pro rata difference between the '07-'08 salaries of Bibby and the quartet we traded him for) + $10.1M (Jamal's salary this year, after Acie/Speedy expired) + $14.98M (Bibby's 08-09 salary, after the quartet of guys we traded to get him expired) = ~$28.7M in extra salary taken on in those trades.

And you're going pretty far against the grain to say that the Hawks didn't overpay to keep the trio of '09 free agents. But hey, downplaying those helps your argument, disingenuous though it may be, so why not?

The point is simple: For every example where you can say the Hawks were being "cheap," there are examples I can bring up where the Hawks could have stayed pat or paid less but instead made a move to substantially increase payroll, at least since the Hawks exited "rebuilding mode" c.2006 or 2007. I agree that they are stupid. But you have to selectively forget a huge portion of the Hawks transactions over the past 4 years to say that they are cheap.

Oh, and when did they promise to pay the luxury tax? As I recall, they said they'd be willing to pay the luxury tax for the right player (they used LeBron as an example, which suggests that they weren't saying they'd pay it to sign mediocre players), not that they'd pay it period. Again, you have a selective and convenient memory. Either that or you just love spewing BS. I'm guessing it's a combination of the two.

They've lost your support. Please pardon me while I shed a tear for them losing the support of a disingenuous blowhard who looks for reasons to bash them. You still showing up for games? Because that's the only support that matters. If you are, then who cares that you don't find them credible. If not...well then you're not much of a fan, considering that this team just came off a 53-win campaign in spite of having a terrible coach.

They had said they were going to pay the luxury tax and told Joe they were going to use the MLE and pay the luxury tax to put a contender out there. They lied. They have never used the MLE, they have never paid the luxury tax and message board warriors like you are the only handful of people left to defend them.

They have never signed a meaningful free agent outside of Joe Johnson. They only sign veteran minimum free agents outside of the Claxton debacle and IIRC they front loaded his contract on purpose just to meet the NBA's MINIMUM salary requirement.

You haven't shown me that any team had any interest in those free agents from 09 and that we in fact had to overpay to keep them. I think it is more fair to say we stupidly gave them contracts without seeing what they could earn in free agency first.

But its ok, message board warriors who have to engage in personal attacks to try and make a point don't let facts get in the way of their overblown opinions. I'm sure you were thrilled to have the lowest payroll team in Eastern conference playoffs three years running and on the way to four years running. Cozy up to Jason Collins and Powell's veteran minimum contracts as proof they aren't cheap and that your money is going for something other than a second round exit.

they said theyd pay the tax for the right piece, and obv dont think shaq is that piece (i agree)

with that statement, they were also saying they wouldnt pay the tax for a piece that wasnt gonns move the needle

no lies or bs, we just dont like the implicstions of the statement as fans as it's not our money

but he DEF did not lie

that is just propaganda being spread by people on the internet

btw, i'm not a fan of the owners or their decisions...i'm just not going to spread propaganda calling them liars when they didn't lie just cause i don't like the outcome

Go back to the free agency period, there were quotes posted from Sund and Gearon where they said they were willing to pay the luxury tax. I'm not talking about when Gearon said he'd go over the tax for someone like Lebron. Sund said they were looking for a veteran starting quality center and would pay the luxury tax if needed.

[Nicholasp27]

i may have missed quotes then...i only knew about gearon

[AHF]

Go back to the free agency period, there were quotes posted from Sund and Gearon where they said they were willing to pay the luxury tax. I'm not talking about when Gearon said he'd go over the tax for someone like Lebron. Sund said they were looking for a veteran starting quality center and would pay the luxury tax if needed.

My recollection is that the Hawks management said:

(a) we need to sell the #31 pick so we can spend the money on vets

and

(b) we will pay the luxury tax for the right player.

I don't remember them saying them would pay the tax for a "starting quality center" or anything that specific. With the way the luxury tax comment was reported, they created the expectation that they would actually pay the tax but never committed to it as far as I remember. They left themselves wiggle room to say "Shaq wasn't the right player for the MLE" or "Jermaine O'Neal wasn't the right player for $6M" or "$1M/year was too much for Ian Mahinmi."

I think the statement about the #31 pick was a total fiction. The implication was that we were going to sign a real vet - not a 2.7 ppg/1.8 rpg vet or 0.7 ppg/0.6 rpg vet. We haven't.

[Sothron]

My recollection is that the Hawks management said:

(a) we need to sell the #31 pick so we can spend the money on vets

and

(b) we will pay the luxury tax for the right player.

I don't remember them saying them would pay the tax for a "starting quality center" or anything that specific. With the way the luxury tax comment was reported, they created the expectation that they would actually pay the tax but never committed to it as far as I remember. They left themselves wiggle room to say "Shaq wasn't the right player for the MLE" or "Jermaine O'Neal wasn't the right player for $6M" or "$1M/year was too much for Ian Mahinmi."

I think the statement about the #31 pick was a total fiction. The implication was that we were going to sign a real vet - not a 2.7 ppg/1.8 rpg vet or 0.7 ppg/0.6 rpg vet. We haven't.

When they sold the pick they said they were using that three million to pay for a MLE veteran to pay the luxury tax. When Sund was talking about looking to get a veteran starting center he again said they would pay the tax if needed to improve the roster. I'm at work so I don't have time to go back to last month or the end of June to find those comments but its there.

[lethalweapon3]

Probably about time to conclude the Shaq-hunting at this point. China seems like a good destination; he and Steph can get those K-Mart sneaker brands revved up again.

~lw3

[AHF]

When they sold the pick they said they were using that three million to pay for a MLE veteran to pay the luxury tax. When Sund was talking about looking to get a veteran starting center he again said they would pay the tax if needed to improve the roster. I'm at work so I don't have time to go back to last month or the end of June to find those comments but its there.

Maybe someone can post the links to get the history on this...

[lethalweapon3]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/several-nba-teams-interested-in-shaq-as-a-person,17818

:tongue:

NEW YORK—Officials from the Hawks, Celtics, and Heat expressed interest in Shaquille O'Neal as a person Wednesday, confirming league rumors that they believed the free agent center would be highly suitable for a long-term friendship. "We have made contact with Shaq's camp and have told his people that we would love for him to meet with us, and just hang out and stuff," said Atlanta Hawks president Bob Williams, adding that he was impressed with O'Neal's passion and the sense of humor he displayed in Cleveland. "Our scouts feel that even after all these years, Shaq can still contribute in small ways, especially at parties and informal get-togethers. Say what you want about him, but he's the kind of guy you want to call up and watch a basketball game with." (O'Neal) told reporters he's ready to make a commitment to friendship for $8 million per year.

((hee hee))

~lw3

[niremetal]

Wrong. Using storyteller's values:

Jamal $8,640,000 (08-09) and $9,360,000 (09-10)

Speedy $5,757,818 (08-09) and $5,209,454 (09-10)

Acie $2,071,680 (08-09) and $2216160 (09-10)

http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/08-09salaries.htm

So if it was done in 08-09, the Hawks would have had $7,829,498 outgoing and could bring back in 125% + $100,000. That value would be $9,886,972.50 and Jamal made under that amount.

If it was done in 09-10, the Hawks would have had $7,425,614 outgoing and could bring back in 125% + $100,000. That value would be $9,382017.50 and Jamal made under that amount.

The real reason why the trade was made in the 08-09 season was because Jamal had either a player option or an early termination option (I forget which it was) and the Hawks requested Jamal sign a document saying he would not opt out of his contract. June 30th was the deadline for this.

Ok, you're right about the trade falling within the CBA even without throwing in RandMo. My bad on that. Subtract $1M from the amount of additional salary the Hawks took on as a result of that trade. That was the smallest component of the $29.5M extra in salary that I mentioned.

They had said they were going to pay the luxury tax and told Joe they were going to use the MLE and pay the luxury tax to put a contender out there. They lied. They have never used the MLE, they have never paid the luxury tax and message board warriors like you are the only handful of people left to defend them.

I'll get to the luxury tax thing in a minute. But it's funny that you say I'm "defending" them when I'm calling them stupid. The reality is that I'm not a fan of ASG, but I don't want people to get the idea that it's the amount they're spending that's the problem rather than the way they spend. It's like the philosophy of the society in The Giver - there is great importance in being precise in language and in reasoning.

My eyes are fully open to ASG's flaws. I grant that they are stupid (at least when it comes to making basketball decisions, which is all that really matters for the Hawks), I reject the notion that they are cheap. That's better than being a blind hater like you who bashes them from every possible angle while ignoring or conveniently forgetting everything that runs contrary to his argument.

They have never signed a meaningful free agent outside of Joe Johnson. They only sign veteran minimum free agents outside of the Claxton debacle and IIRC they front loaded his contract on purpose just to meet the NBA's MINIMUM salary requirement.

Mo? Flip? And considering that Speedy got paid above the MLE, the last sentence makes no sense. That's your MO, though - ignore or downplay everything that's inconvenient to your argument.

You haven't shown me that any team had any interest in those free agents from 09 and that we in fact had to overpay to keep them. I think it is more fair to say we stupidly gave them contracts zwithout seeing what they could earn in free agency first.

Oh brother. Are you serious? So are you saying that "stupidly g[iving] them contracts without seeing what they could earn in free agency first" is somehow less indicative of willing to spend money? Why would "cheap" owners preemptively re-sign free agents - including a RFA - to contracts that the market might not hold? How is that not an example of them not being cheap? You have to contort yourself so much to explain away all the counterexamples that it's amusing at this point.

Go back to the free agency period, there were quotes posted from Sund and Gearon where they said they were willing to pay the luxury tax. I'm not talking about when Gearon said he'd go over the tax for someone like Lebron. Sund said they were looking for a veteran starting quality center and would pay the luxury tax if needed.

Link for the bolded part?

And it's just a myth that Sund promised to use the $3M cash from trading the #31 to spend the MLE or otherwise pay for more expensive veterans. He said the Hawks will fill out the rest of the roster with veterans, but he made no commitment as to how much those veterans would cost:

“I think we need more veterans,” he said. “We are one of the youngest teams in the league still. I think we need to fill out the rest of the roster with veterans.”

I posted this over on AJC:

The “logic” in your post is based on a bunch of assumptions that you take for granted; in other words, there are big gaps in your logic. The biggest one is the one I’ve said already: Sund never made any connection whatsoever between the $3M and the last three roster spots. None. Ever. He DID make a connection between trading away the #31 pick and [filling] the last 3 roster spots, but he never said that what the cash the Hawks acquired in that trade would be used to fill out the roster.

... Sund said that the Hawks got rid of the #31 pick (rather than keeping it) because he wanted to fill the last three roster spots with veterans. The alternative to getting rid of the pick was using the pick to draft a rookie who would take one of the last 3 roster spots instead of the veteran. Sund said that instead, those roster spots are going to go to veteran players instead of rookies (or other “young” players).

Now, of course, the Hawks did not simply give away the #31 pick. They sold it. But that does not mean that the $3M that they acquired in the trade was earmarked to be used for any particular purpose, and Sund never said that it was. The $3M from the trade could have been earmarked for a thousand different possible purposes. That could have been the money the Hawks needed to pay Joe’s new max salary. Or it could have been the money needed to pay off a debt to a supplier/landlord/etc. It could have been to make sure that the Hawks pays its share of necessary maintenance costs at Phillips Arena. Or for marketing/advertising. Or for some combination of all of those things. Sund never, ever, ever said that it was going to be used to sign more expensive veterans to fill out the bench; that is one of the thousand possible uses for the money, and it’s the one that you and some other fans seem to think it SHOULD be used for, but Sund never said that that’s what it WOULD be used for.

Let me use an analogy that, while not directly on point, might make my point clearer still. Let’s say I own an ice cream shop that sells ice cream and fruit sorbet. The sorbet and ice cream are made with different machines. One day in July, I look at my sales numbers and realize that in past years, I always have my best sales months in June-August, and that sales drop off quickly after that. During September and October in past years, I usually have trouble paying the bills because of the sales dip. I also look at my receipts and realize that at any time of year, the ice cream sells way better than the sorbet. So I decide to sell my sorbet-making equipment and focus exclusively on making ice cream. So I sell the sorbet-making equipment for $3k and tell my employees that I have sold the sorbet equipment because I decided to focus exclusively on selling ice cream from now on.

Now some of my associates might have hoped that the $3k from the sale of the sorbet stuff would be used to buy more expensive (and, in their eyes, better) ice cream equipment. And since the $3k was acquired at the time I got rid of the sorbet equipment, it might even be tempting to assume that that’s what I would use that $3k for. But I never said that. I just said that I had sold the equipment because I wanted to focus exclusively on making ice cream. It might be that I needed to set the $3k aside to pay the bills during the lean months of the fall and winter, and that the money from the sorbet-making equipment was for that.

Just as my statement that I sold the sorbet because I decided to only sell ice cream does not indicate that the sale of the sorbet equipment would go to get more expensive ice cream making equipment, Sund’s statement that the Hawks traded/sold the draft pick because he decided to fill out the rest of the roster with veterans does not mean that the money from the sale of the pick was earmarked to sign more expensive veterans.

Edited August 2, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

Ok, you're right about the trade falling within the CBA even without throwing in RandMo. My bad on that. Subtract $1M from the amount of additional salary the Hawks took on as a result of that trade. That was the smallest component of the $29.5M extra in salary that I mentioned.

I'll get to the luxury tax thing in a minute. But it's funny that you say I'm "defending" them when I'm calling them stupid. The reality is that I'm not a fan of ASG, but I don't want people to get the idea that it's the amount they're spending that's the problem rather than the way they spend. It's like the philosophy of the society in The Giver - there is great importance in being precise in language and in reasoning.

My eyes are fully open to ASG's flaws. I grant that they are stupid (at least when it comes to making basketball decisions, which is all that really matters for the Hawks), I reject the notion that they are cheap. That's better than being a blind hater like you who bashes them from every possible angle while ignoring or conveniently forgetting everything that runs contrary to his argument.

Mo? Flip? And considering that Speedy got paid above the MLE, the last sentence makes no sense. That's your MO, though - ignore or downplay everything that's inconvenient to your argument.

Oh brother. Are you serious? So are you saying that "stupidly g[iving] them contracts without seeing what they could earn in free agency first" is somehow less indicative of willing to spend money? Why would "cheap" owners preemptively re-sign free agents - including a RFA - to contracts that the market might not hold? How is that not an example of them not being cheap? You have to contort yourself so much to explain away all the counterexamples that it's amusing at this point.

Link for the bolded part?

And it's just a myth that Sund promised to use the $3M cash from trading the #31 to spend the MLE or otherwise pay for more expensive veterans. He said the Hawks will fill out the rest of the roster with veterans, but he made no commitment as to how much those veterans would cost:

I posted this over on AJC:

I already said I'm currently at work and don't have the time to go back and find quotes and articles posted on this site from late June to early July over this. I realize you don't have time to actually read before you launch into laughable personal attacks but try reading next time.

Mo and Flip got paid peanuts. Go back to Claxton's signing, he was front loaded on purpose so the Hawks could meet the minimum team payroll. It sorta speaks for itself, not sure how that is how to misunderstand.

I already said the ASG were both stupid and cheap. They spend when they do not and don't spend when they should. You are the one said all our own free agents were overpaid to stay. The burden is on YOU to show that was the case. They didn't have any problems telling the two Joshes to go find deals, why did they change after that?

Sund and the ASG said during the draft party when the crowd was booing them over selling the pick the money being made was to be used to PAY THE LUXURY TAX. Sund also said he wanted to get a veteran starting center and was willing to pay the tax to make it happen. Then there was an about face and the team is settling for Jason Collins and avoiding the tax.

For someone who says they don't like the ASG and don't defend them your actions speak otherwise. You might be a member of the ASG for that matter: it isn't what you say but what you do that shows your true colors.

[niremetal]

Go back to Claxton's signing, he was front loaded on purpose so the Hawks could meet the minimum team payroll.

I thought you were talking about Claxton's salary being above the player minimum salary, not the Hawks' being above the NBA salary floor.

In any case, the salary floor is defined as 75% of the cap. The cap in 2006-2007 was $53.135M. That means the salary floor that year was $39.85M. The Hawks' payroll that year was $48.4M. Speedy's salary was $6.854M. Thus, your statement is not correct.

They spend when they do not and don't spend when they should. You are the one said all our own free agents were overpaid to stay. The burden is on YOU to show that was the case.

Funny how you place the burden on other people when it's not convenient to your argument to put it on yourself. Calling a player overpaid is a matter of opinion. Statements like that are inherently incapable of being proven one way or another. The consensus around here seems to be that the Hawks overpaid to keep them. I mostly agree with that assessment (I think we overpaid for Bibby and Marvin, but got a good deal on Zaza). I gave you my reasoning on why paying them before their market value was known was a decision tending to indicate they are not cheap. Saying the "burden" on me is yet more intellectual laziness on your part - it's a cop out because you've run out of contortions to make your reasoning to the contrary seem sound.

The vast majority of what you have said has been unsourced BS. Let me know when you've found a link to the supposed statements saying that the Hawks would pay the tax. Your posts have been filled with incorrect statements about the Hawks' spending (Bibby and Crawford's contract, and then the salary floor line). And the burden is on me here? Please.

For someone who says they don't like the ASG and don't defend them your actions speak otherwise. You might be a member of the ASG for that matter: it isn't what you say but what you do that shows your true colors.

I knew this was coming. It was inevitable. You're so arrogant and sure that you're right that I could tell you'd pull out the "you must be part of ASG" or "ASG must be paying you" line eventually. Yes, you're that sad and predictable.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a judicial clerk living in Philadelphia right now. I don't know, am not related to, and have never been paid by ASG. I simply don't like people who are intellectually lazy.

But thanks for showing the world just how arrogant you are. After all, no one could possibly disagree with you unless they were a stooge, right? Even if I call ASG stupid, the mere fact that I spend time saying they're not cheap must mean I'm a stooge, right?

By that logic, you must be working for Belkin.

Done with you, fool.

Edited August 2, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

I thought you were talking about Claxton's salary being above the player minimum salary, not the Hawks' being above the NBA salary floor.

In any case, the salary floor is defined as 75% of the cap. The cap in 2006-2007 was $53.135M. That means the salary floor that year was $39.85M. The Hawks' payroll that year was $48.4M. Speedy's salary was $6.854M. Thus, your statement is not correct.

Funny how you place the burden on other people when it's not convenient to your argument to put it on yourself. Calling a player overpaid is a matter of opinion. Statements like that are inherently incapable of being proven one way or another. The consensus around here seems to be that the Hawks overpaid to keep them. I mostly agree with that assessment (I think we overpaid for Bibby and Marvin, but got a good deal on Zaza). I gave you my reasoning on why paying them before their market value was known was a decision tending to indicate they are not cheap. Saying the "burden" on me is yet more intellectual laziness on your part - it's a cop out because you've run out of contortions to make your reasoning to the contrary seem sound.

The vast majority of what you have said has been unsourced BS. Let me know when you've found a link to the supposed statements saying that the Hawks would pay the tax. Your posts have been filled with incorrect statements about the Hawks' spending (Bibby and Crawford's contract, and then the salary floor line). And the burden is on me here? Please.

I knew this was coming. It was inevitable. You're so arrogant and sure that you're right that I could tell you'd pull out the "you must be part of ASG" or "ASG must be paying you" line would come out eventually. Yes, you're that sad and predictable.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a judicial clerk living in Philadelphia right now. I don't know, am not related to, and have never been paid by ASG. I simply don't like people who are intellectually lazy.

But thanks for showing the world just how arrogant you are. After all, no one could possibly disagree with you unless they were a stooge, right? Even if I call ASG stupid, the mere fact that I spend time saying they're not cheap must mean I'm a stooge, right?

By that logic, you must be working for Belkin.

Done with you, fool.

Yet even more personal insults! Yay! Is that all you can bring to the table? :thumbsupsmileyanim:

The Hawks front loaded Speedy's deal to help reach the league minimum payroll. Look at how close his 6.85 salary comes to bringing them up to it. Are you telling me that wasn't intentional? Laughable. They only needed 1.7 left on top of his deal to make sure they reached it.

You are the one who said the Hawks overpaid for those guys. All I did was ask you to show where that was true. You can toss out more insults here but it is a fair question. I already told you where my sources were. Where are yours? You didn't answer me when I asked why they let the two Joshes go find their own deals and yet they didn't do that with anyone since then. Why the change?

Where was I wrong about their deals? I said Crawford had one year left and a player option and that was correct. Bibby's deal had one more year as an expiring, so what, my point still stands they the ASG was only on the hoof for one and half seasons of it.

You knew I was going to say what now? Whose the one from their first post in this argument has been tossing out insults left and right? Now you want to play the victim card? LOL ok big baby go cry in a law office somewhere. All I did was point out your words are as hypocritical as the ASG and boy was I proven right.

[niremetal]

Yet even more personal insults! Yay! Is that all you can bring to the table? :thumbsupsmileyanim:

*************

You knew I was going to say what now? Whose the one from their first post in this argument has been tossing out insults left and right? Now you want to play the victim card? LOL ok big baby go cry in a law office somewhere. All I did was point out your words are as hypocritical as the ASG and boy was I proven right.

Your posts take an arrogant and superior tone that is every bit as insulting as the outright insults that I throw at you. I decided a few ASG-related BS posts ago to start attacking you directly because I knew it would be easy to get a rise out of you and highlight just how much you talk out of your butt. Try talking the way you talk on here in real life. See if the reactions you get are any better than the reactions that my insults would get. Truth be told, we'd both have our asses kicked by mid-week.

In any case, I'm not a member of ASG, and thus cannot explain why they do the things they do. I have no clue why they let the market set the prices for the Joshes and then jumped the gun to sign the '09 trio. Maybe they were feeling more financially secure in '09 than in '08 because of the playoff series win. Or maybe they just don't have a good sense of what players will draw the most market interest. My guess, based on watching them fall for Phoenix's bluff on JJ, paying more than the MLE for a player not worth more than the BAE in Speedy, and guess wrong on some of the most important draft picks in Hawks history, is that they are just incompetent when it comes to making basketball decisions.

I actually do think the current roster can contend for a title if Drew can get them to buy what he's selling. But I think the Hawks stumbled onto having a roster as good as they have now. The roster is the result of drifting along without direction coupled with two shrewd trades (which I credit to the GMs, not ASG) that came at the right time. I harbor no great affection for ASG. But calling them cheap is, frankly, a meme that took on a life of its own during the Belkin feud, and many people have never really questioned or examined it thoughtfully since then. You are one of the most vehement spewers of that viewpoint, and you are so utterly convinced that you're right that you don't see just how many transactions have to be ignored or dismissed in order for the argument to hold water. Basically, you're stuck in the past, and have viewed every transaction that the Hawks make with the same lens you put on years ago.

I frankly think you're capable of more. But I also think, based on reading your posts over the past year, that trying to explain things to you in a rational and calm manner is a fruitless venture because you have absolutely no desire to step back and view things without a lens for a minute. You don't have the capacity to say "these are things that the Hawks' management do well, and these are the things they do poorly." You start with your conclusion of "ASG is dumb, cheap, incompetent, and deceptive," and take the attitude that anything that happens must be viewed and interpreted with that in mind. That's intellectually lazy. And there is nothing that makes me more pissed off than normally smart people who so completely lose their perspective.

Edited August 2, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

Knock off the personal comments here. We are not going to have members debating who is a true fan, who is an ASG crony/hater, etc. Feel free to debate what the ASG said publicly or what their intentions may have been behind the scenes, but knock off the personal comments. No one needs to comment on another poster in order to discuss what the ASG has or has not done.

Edited August 2, 2010 by AHF

[Sothron]

I decided a few ASG-related BS posts ago to start attacking you directly because I knew it would be easy to get a rise out of you .

Mods how long does one poster get to make continued personal attacks before it gets called out? I haven't insulted this guy once and he even admits in this post he is intentionally baiting and insulting me for a reaction. There's nothing to be gained in responding to him except to have even more insults thrown at me because he can't debate things in a civil manner.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Sothron

[lethalweapon3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liq_wYFkMoU

~lw3