Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I know the ASG didn't want to go into luxury tax territory, but we couldn't pay the man 5mil per for 2 seasons? I'm sorry but that's pathetic. To be fair, it's not my money so... By going over the tax you would essentially be doubling what you pay him....10mil/2yrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaceCase Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Don't tell Knicks fans that their bench sucks. Half of them think Shump is Wade and Jorts is Brad Miller. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted December 15, 2011 Moderators Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I know the ASG didn't want to go into luxury tax territory, but we couldn't pay the man 5mil per for 2 seasons? I'm sorry but that's pathetic. To be fair, it's not my money so... It would have cost them roughly 9M for this year alone at that price so take that however you want. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member hawkman Posted December 15, 2011 Premium Member Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 It would have cost them roughly 9M for this year alone at that price so take that however you want. So the luxury tax is almost a dollar for dollar penalty now? Ok, I can understand the decision with it put that way. But if the ASG refuses to go into the luxury tax even a little bit, how are we going to fill out the roster? We're right at the cap, but don't we still need a few players to have a complete roster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 So the luxury tax is almost a dollar for dollar penalty now? Ok, I can understand the decision with it put that way. But if the ASG refuses to go into the luxury tax even a little bit, how are we going to fill out the roster? We're right at the cap, but don't we still need a few players to have a complete roster? We are over the Cap but under the Luxury Tax by about 3 mil? they will prolly sign players to minimum contracts to fill out roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted December 16, 2011 Moderators Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 So the luxury tax is almost a dollar for dollar penalty now? Ok, I can understand the decision with it put that way. But if the ASG refuses to go into the luxury tax even a little bit, how are we going to fill out the roster? We're right at the cap, but don't we still need a few players to have a complete roster? It is a dollar for dollar penalty in the short-term. If we fill out the roster with minimum salary players, we are about 1M under the cap so if we signed Crawford for $5M this season, it would put us roughly $4M over the cap with roughly $4M in LT in addition to the $5M salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlpin Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 not to mention that teams paying the luxury tax do not get the money from the luxury tax, which is divided among the non paying teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHawks89 Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 To bad we don't have "he who's name shall not be mentioned" now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecampster Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 So the luxury tax is almost a dollar for dollar penalty now? Ok, I can understand the decision with it put that way. But if the ASG refuses to go into the luxury tax even a little bit, how are we going to fill out the roster? We're right at the cap, but don't we still need a few players to have a complete roster? Complete roster is a misnomer. You need 13 contracts. But as for our team, people undervalue what we have. Can you name a team that goes better at the 2/4/5 than they Hawks? JJ/Smith/Horford. There are a lot of teams in the league that would like a set of 3 like that. If a team has a group like that, they certainly don't have a 1/3 like us (Teague/Hinrich), (Williams). Most teams are stellar at 2 positions. The Celts of a few years ago, Miami today, the Lakers with Kobe/Odom/Gasol/Bynum are exceptions, not the rule. There is no such thing as a "complete" roster. But what you are looking for to be highly competitive is a starting lineup of 2 A's, a B or 2 and C's. What you don't want is C, D, E's in your starting lineup. This was the flaw of Miami/Orlando last year. Orlando was 1 A+, 1 B and 3 C's. Miami was 3 A's but a lot of D's. Great teams will beat you where you are weak. This was our flaw at the beginning of the season. Ailing Marvin and Joe and a D at point guard. When healthy, Marvin can be a solid B. Joe, Horford and Josh are all A/B level players...capable of A's, often play like B's. But point guard was our achilles heel often due to Bibby. All Teague (or Hinrich) has to do is be a C. Our rotation players, "McGrady, Stack, Hinrich (or Teague), Zaza, Twin" just have to be C's. They don't have to be the McGrady of old, Zaza on his best night every night. They just need to be healthy and spell the starting 5. Marvin needs to be what he can be, not what he has been and Joe, Josh, Al need to listen to Stack (assuming he's still here)!!! Joe, Josh, Al don't have to A's every night. But at least one of them does each night. We have a complete roster...what we need is 66 games of health, focus and commitment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now