Did the fans understand what we had in Joe?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Try to remember this is a 4 year decision. We found a buyer today. Because of that we don't have JJ in 4 years when his knees are shot, his defense will be suspect and his cost will be 25 million.

4 year decision? I disagree. If Joe Johnson isn't replaced by someone equal to or over what he brought to the table, and the Hawks aren't at least making a little noise in the playoffs, that deal will be questioned for years. I do think most fans will and should give the Hawks a pass, for whatever happens next season. The media ( local and national ) will never let us forget it in upcoming seasons, if Brooklyn happens to make deep playoff runs while the Hawks are at home. Ferry must start turning this around, and quickly. And the results have to show out on the floor, not just in the ledger. The whole purpose of doing this, is to give us a little flexibility financially, and to possibly re-construct the team for the better. But we can't still be on the outside of the playoffs 2 - 3 years from now. Fans aren't going to go for that. You keep talking about the cost of Johnson in the latter years, like we wouldn't have been able to get out from under his contract the same way we did this summer. As his cost to the team increased, so would his trade value. Rashard Lewis has been moved 3 times in 2 years, simply because teams use his contract to get out from under longer contracts. This will not change under this new CBA. You're going to have teams willing to get out from under less performing contracts, and will take on a larger, but shorter contract.

[Diesel]

Try to remember this is a 4 year decision. We found a buyer today. Because of that we don't have JJ in 4 years when his knees are shot, his defense will be suspect and his cost will be 25 million.

IS THIS what you use to pacify yourself? A 4 yr deal? Are you sure? There is no formulation of a plan. Just hope. Like many times before, we could just be starting over only to get back to the same place and start over again. In 4 yrs, we could have still amnestied Joe.. IF he had bad knees. However, this is what I saw... without Horf... Team gets equivalent of 60 wins. We didn't get Horf back until game 3 of the playoffs. Smoove got hurt in the playoffs. Lots of blown calls. Now.. change that. Josh is in his contract year. It's possible we could have gotten Gasol. Or Bynum... it's possible we could have gotten Jefferson or any other bigs. Just imagine, we do the same deal for Marv and lose Hinrich. Joe at Sf with a Harris/Teague backcourt is interesting. NOt to mention is we had just tried to go after 1 big. Right now, we're in the great unknown... so no need in acting like we have a plan.

[thecampster]

IS THIS what you use to pacify yourself? A 4 yr deal? Are you sure? There is no formulation of a plan. Just hope. Like many times before, we could just be starting over only to get back to the same place and start over again. In 4 yrs, we could have still amnestied Joe.. IF he had bad knees. However, this is what I saw... without Horf... Team gets equivalent of 60 wins. We didn't get Horf back until game 3 of the playoffs. Smoove got hurt in the playoffs. Lots of blown calls. Now.. change that. Josh is in his contract year. It's possible we could have gotten Gasol. Or Bynum... it's possible we could have gotten Jefferson or any other bigs. Just imagine, we do the same deal for Marv and lose Hinrich. Joe at Sf with a Harris/Teague backcourt is interesting. NOt to mention is we had just tried to go after 1 big. Right now, we're in the great unknown... so no need in acting like we have a plan.

You see..this is why Mace criticized your knowledge of the salary cap. This ridiculous post right here. You put Harris and Gasol on the same team with Joe, Horford. Let's assume for a brief second you got your wish. Marvin for Harris went down. Josh for Gasol went down. No other changes were made. 2012/2013 salaries Johnson - 19.75 million Gasol - 19.0 million Horford - 12 million Harris - 8.5 million Zaza -5.23 million Teague - 2.4 6 players - 66.88 million. Can you do this? Sure you can Diesel. You can do this, but you are playing with monopoly money at this point. You need 7 more players, you are 7 million from the hard cap., 3.2 million from the luxury tax. You have mismatched parts. 2 fast guards, an iso SF, 2 F/C's of which only Horford isn't soft. Your 2 players you are counting on are 31 and 32 and have a lot of miles on them. You have no bench whatsoever. There is no Korver, no Lou Williams, no Morrow, no Stephenson. Your only remaining asset is a good backup center in Zaza Pachulia. Your only players who can run are Horford and the 2 PG's. Your only good outside threat is JJ. You can't move JJ until the last year of his contract. Gasol is only signed 1 year longer than Smith and is 5 years older. Summary: Your team is at the hard cap with rising salaries for 4 years. You can't keep Gasol after 2 seasons, can't afford to keep one of Harris, Teague, Horford. Won't be able to sign a free agent to replace them and have 2 aging stars who are pissed because they are in the lottery the following year. It's not monopoly money.

[thecampster]

4 year decision? I disagree. If Joe Johnson isn't replaced by someone equal to or over what he brought to the table, and the Hawks aren't at least making a little noise in the playoffs, that deal will be questioned for years. I do think most fans will and should give the Hawks a pass, for whatever happens next season. The media ( local and national ) will never let us forget it in upcoming seasons, if Brooklyn happens to make deep playoff runs while the Hawks are at home. Ferry must start turning this around, and quickly. And the results have to show out on the floor, not just in the ledger. The whole purpose of doing this, is to give us a little flexibility financially, and to possibly re-construct the team for the better. But we can't still be on the outside of the playoffs 2 - 3 years from now. Fans aren't going to go for that. You keep talking about the cost of Johnson in the latter years, like we wouldn't have been able to get out from under his contract the same way we did this summer. As his cost to the team increased, so would his trade value. Rashard Lewis has been moved 3 times in 2 years, simply because teams use his contract to get out from under longer contracts. This will not change under this new CBA. You're going to have teams willing to get out from under less performing contracts, and will take on a larger, but shorter contract.

Disagree all you want. This is America after all. I can disagree with my woman all I want, but that doesn't mean in the end I'll like the result. Think of Lewis being moved. If he was moved, there was a reason. The team with the big contract said, "boy..that was a mistake". But millionaire ego kicks in and the new team says, but I can make that work. They never do. There are maybe 10 players in the league worth max contracts. They're easy to recognize because most of them are in the conference finals pretty often.

[MaceCase]

You sure? I mean, correct me, and this, if I/they are wrong. And be mindful of the cap holds as well.

http://www.shamsport.../2012/hawks.jsp

Got me, actually. That was a quirk I actually forgot of, the NBA taxes the team salary not the actual salary.

And that team that you keep calling a "1st round and out team" had made it to the 2nd round for 3 consecutive years and actually made a little progress in the 2nd round last year. Horford was gone for most of the year, only coming back for the final few games of the playoffs. We didn't have Zaza for the playoffs. If healthy, we're at least a 2nd round team, because we're not playing Boston in Round 1 . . we're playing Orlando, because we'd probably be the 3rd seed.

That was a 2nd round team. They just weren't healthy enough to get out the 1st round. And it didn't help that we were playing Boston.

If, if, if, if, if, if, if. What if Dwight and Orlando was healthy, what if Philadelphia didn't swoon, what if Rose was healthy, heck what if Boston themselves were healthy? You are the first person to actually complain about the regular season record. You are talking about last year....what about two years ago when the same squad was eliminated in the most lopsided playoff loss in history? Before that another sweep? I don't pick and choose the good times to fit my agenda, I weigh yearly averages and two 2nd round wins in 7 years isn't something worth rewarding. That was the absolute ceiling the team had reached and it was costing them 70 million to try and repeat it.

Was there an impact player available had JJ been making less money? Because the consensus around here was that if JJ were making a "mere 12 million a year", people wouldn't have that much of a problem with him on the team. But the Hawks would still be above the Salary Cap and couldn't add any "significant" player other than with the MLE or Bi-Annual exceptions. And they could do that anyway.

To say that JJ isn't the guy to build around is one thing. To say that JJ's contract prevented the Hawks from improving the team, is false.

What you don't get is that because JJ wasn't making a mere 12 million, the team goes from being a capped out team to a lux tax team. Because it's not your money you don't see how that has a negative affect on franchises and why that list of former high payroll and tax teams are all in forced rebuild. It's simply not sustainable, even by high revenue squads, especially not in this climate. You're talking about building on top and on top of a shaky foundation and looking to teams with the strongest foundations as your examples. It's not comparable, look at the actual contemporaries.

Funny thing is . . the guy that has been keeping the team "out of balance" is still on the team. And we're about to give him a JJ-like 2nd contract after this season is over. But some around here ( including yourself ) will be cool with that.

Oh, so you know this for fact, do ya? Danny Ferry gives you private interviews where he lets you in on his complete strategy. The ole fear mongering tactic is in effect, blame Josh and create the strawman that Joe was the root of all problems. FYI, Marvin was traded too. Might have been lost on you in the middle of your hysterics that all the bad contracts were cleared out but meh, North has the inside track on Ferry's plans......but can't see any of the logic behind them....figures.

Do I even have to pull up my multiple posts dating back years stating that maxing out Josh would be an even dumber mistake than maxing Joe? And Joe was a pretty dumb mistake.....as admitted 2 seasons after inking his deal that he was jettisoned for scraps.

No other team in the league would've done what the Hawks did with JJ, while that team was still at playoff level. They would've gotten SOMETHING for the dude, other than expiring contracts. But it is what it is.

Oh you mean like Portland last year trading away Wallace and Camby in the midst of another run to a 8th consecutive 1st round exit for a high salary team? Oh wait, they got the 6th pick from the pinnacle of dumb teams at least. What about Philly amnestying Brand? Hold on, I'll address another example later.

You need to calm down and keep this civil. If you can't debate this without the name-calling and cursing, then you don't need to be debating this. The Hawks were spending ( or investing ) in not only JJ, but in "the core" as a whole. If they aren't good enough to get it done, you trade them for other pieces that can possibly get it done. But teams worrying about putting their toes or feet into the Luxury Tax aren't normally going to be the ones that will contend for anything.

You need to not be so f***ing sensitive when you are "debating" nonsense. You whip out the grandmother of crazy comparisons and you expect people to not bust out in shock? How bout this for facts, 6 teams paid luxury tax last season: Lakers (12 million), Boston (7.4) Miami (6.1) Dallas (2.7) San Antonio (2.5) Atlanta (.7) over the lux tax. Underneath the North plan, the Hawks should have utilized all of their exceptions and out-spent every one of those teams but LA and Boston. Does the team have a better product on the court than those squads worth that investsment? Well, Let's look at each team's top "investments" and foundations:

Kobe http://www.basketbal.../bryanko01.html 25.24 million 2 years left on deal

Duncan http://www.basketbal.../duncati01.html 21.7 million last year of deal

Garnett http://www.basketbal.../garneke01.html 21.24 million last year of deal

Dirk http://www.basketbal.../nowitdi01.html 19.1 million 2 years left on deal

JJ http://www.basketbal.../johnsjo02.html 18 million 4 years left on deal

Bron/Bosh http://www.basketbal.../jamesle01.html http://www.basketbal...b/boshch01.html 16 million. 2 years plus 2 option years left on deal

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is being paid the same.

Those teams spent money on those players because they were very good players. Seeing that they couldn't obtain a top 5 player, they decided to invest in a group of "stars", and hope they would be good enough to get it done. That's the exact same thing the Hawks, and every other team that doesn't have a top 5 player in the league, has done.

And where do every one of those teams end up? Eventually searching for that top 5 player once they realize their folly of overspending on pretenders. So why are you shocked by all of this? Oh, because your favorite player was the one put out to pasture but lets create strawmen and lay all the doom and gloom on Josh and his fanbase. Yea, that should work. Prognosticate the future based on your particular bias but let's use that same bias to dismiss the lackluster results of nearly a full decade before.

Yep . . because Brooklyn didn't jump at the chance to add him to their team. They said . . "nope . .he costs too much. We don't want a 6-time All-Star like that on our team". Brookly fans aren't shedding one tear for the players they've lost, mainly because they know this is what they can get on occasion from the new addition.

And yet........the biggest holdup in the deal was that the Nets wouldn't offer Marshon Brooks....

Marshon.......

......Brooks

The Nets were so desperate to keep Deron that they went out to get Joe and his deal......but had sense enough to not include this guy.

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgNyv39EHjk

They jumped at Joe......except they didn't.

People think Ferry is a genius by trading JJ for expiring contracts. We'll see if that is the case. All I know is if the Hawks DON'T land a major free agent next summer, and the Nets and JJ go on to do big things in the coming years, that trade will be known as the worst trade in ATL franchise history . . with only the Nique for Manning trade being more blasphemous.

I always love this contention by Joe fans. Would the Hawks win a championship in the next 4 years of Joe's deal? No. Should they win one in the next 4 years if they trade him? OF COURSE!!!!! OTHERWISE IT WAS A HORRIBLE TRADE!!!!!!!!!!!

Those tax teams contstantly mold and remake their team. You're criticizing teams who actually try to make themselves better on a yearly basis? Those teams didn't make those moves because they didn't want to pay tax. Those teams made those moves to make themselves better.

Why would I criticize teams building around stars? That makes perfect sense. They have a Ferrari and they want to pay for premium petrol to make it run.......The Hawks have a Kia suped up with woodgrain, rims, strobe lights, the works......but underneath the hood they aren't in the same league.

Lamar was inititally traded in a deal to bring Chris Paul to LA. Then he got so hurt, that he ASKED to be traded. So the Lakers traded his crybaby butt for a trade exception. An exception that they were trying to use to still work the Chris Paul deal, before the Clippers got him

Dallas didn't let those guys go because of the Luxury Tax. They let those guys go because they wanted to make a play for one of the big name free agents. And it didn't help that they made a few decisions that were horrible ( Brendan Haywood ), which cost them Tyson Chandler.

Uhm, North. The initial trade was Lamar and Pau for Paul. LA was dumping Pau in Houston and Lamar in NOLA and only taking back Paul's contract.......that's a cost cutting move. In fact it was a big part of the outrage over the deal that the Lakers were not only getting the best player but doing so without taking back a single bad contract. That fell through.....yet they still went with a cost cutting move.

Josh wanted a trade....was he traded? Dwight wants a trade.....is he traded? Teams don't just up and move guys because they say they are depressed over almost being traded......unless the team actually wants to trade them.

You are going to see great irony with the Dallas comparison. They just won a championship but in two years proceeded to let Chandler, Butler, Kidd, Barea, Haywood, Mahinmi, Stevenson and Terry go for nothing.......for the chance at a top free agent.....does this sound familiar? Does this sound like that question you asked earlier of what playoff team lets their top players leave for nothing.......well throw Dallas into the mix as the granddaddy of them all. A championship team that let guys go for TPEs and air.

Now of course they whiffed on Deron but they managed to use that cap space to parlay it into Kaman, Brand, Mayo and Collison. Not a bad haul, all while preserving max cap space for the proceeding season. And oh yea, they still have Dirk.

Brooklyn has EASILY been the most active team this offseason

- traded their garbage for JJ

- re-signed Gerald Wallace

- re-signed Deron Williams ( killing the hopes of Dallas )

- did everything in their power to deal for Dwight

- then after they got tired on waiting on Dwight, they moved on with their life and filled out the rest of their team

LOL @ criticizing Brooklyn and what they're doing, when the biggest move the Hawks made this season, was trading their All-Star for the cap space to bring in a guy that doesn't even want to play in the city, and bringing in 2 guys that play the same position, which will threaten the psyche of the young PG we already have here.

Because you don't read too well, I'll let Cuban break down the implications of the new luxury tax system.

“The money is secondary to the team-building strategy,” Cuban said. “Once you get above the tax apron [the $70.307 million luxury tax plus $4 million], there are limitations in player movement that I think have a big impact on how to build a team.”

http://probasketball...e-restrictions/

This is why Brooklyn has been so active this season......it'll be the last time in 3+ seasons for them.....thanks in great part to Joe. They sign a guy to 5 million then say oh shit, we meant 3.5 because 5 would mean that they can't trade for Dwight this season. They sign Lopez to a max and forget that he can't be moved till January...not exactly geniuses running the Nets front office.....but they were cogent enough to exclude Marshon Brooks from the Joe deal. Figures. Yea, those moves look nice and glitsy but they just as easily could end up like the team the Nets are trying to emulate badly, the Knicks. And as far as Dwight......I'll ask again, do you have Danny Ferry's private number? Just because fans want Dwight that doesn't mean that that is Ferry's plan A through Z. In fact, he hasn't given any indication as to that being his endgame so why create this fantasy that that is the only conceivable outcome and failing to accomplish that will spell doom forever? Funny that such tight restrictions and time frames have to be added to the team now to succeed but had Joe remained they wouldn't even be concieved.

Chicago refused to overpay for their bench, and they'll be proven to be right. Their "core" is intact. All they do is add the correct pieces to their bench, which they've done the past 3 years. Chicago switching around their bench is nothing new. No way are they're coveting Omer Asik like we do Zaza. They know a role playing center like that is expendible.

This is interesting......because earlier you were bitching about the Hawks not doing enough to retain Jamal Crawford....a bench player. They replaced him and his production with the "correct" pieces, paid tax even.....but for the Hawks that's an indication of a loser's strategy. Even now the Hawks have replaced Joe with a medley of shooters, penetrators and scorers at the fraction of the cost while maintainining 2 pillars of our core....but for us that's a loser's strategy.

So that's twice now that your admiration for other teams has failed you. Yup, the Hawks strategy has been so unlike others and must pay off right away with immediate results in order to be considered viable.

All I have to say to you guys and your swirling logic is.

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DHIqUkmj-o

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You see..this is why Mace criticized your knowledge of the salary cap. This ridiculous post right here.

You put Harris and Gasol on the same team with Joe, Horford.

Let's assume for a brief second you got your wish. Marvin for Harris went down. Josh for Gasol went down. No other changes were made.

2012/2013 salaries

Johnson - 19.75 million

Gasol - 19.0 million

Horford - 12 million

Harris - 8.5 million

Zaza -5.23 million

Teague - 2.4

6 players - 66.88 million. Can you do this? Sure you can Diesel. You can do this, but you are playing with monopoly money at this point. You need 7 more players, you are 7 million from the hard cap., 3.2 million from the luxury tax. You have mismatched parts. 2 fast guards, an iso SF, 2 F/C's of which only Horford isn't soft. Your 2 players you are counting on are 31 and 32 and have a lot of miles on them. You have no bench whatsoever. There is no Korver, no Lou Williams, no Morrow, no Stephenson. Your only remaining asset is a good backup center in Zaza Pachulia.

Your only players who can run are Horford and the 2 PG's. Your only good outside threat is JJ. You can't move JJ until the last year of his contract. Gasol is only signed 1 year longer than Smith and is 5 years older.

Summary: Your team is at the hard cap with rising salaries for 4 years. You can't keep Gasol after 2 seasons, can't afford to keep one of Harris, Teague, Horford. Won't be able to sign a free agent to replace them and have 2 aging stars who are pissed because they are in the lottery the following year. It's not monopoly money.

The one thing that team does is give us a legit shot to make a deep run in the playoffs for one year, which I believe fans would take in a heartbeat over "cap space" and "long term cap flexibility". Let me ask you this. Which would you rather have?

- Cap flexibility, but not have a team strong enough to compete with the big boys? . . or

- A real good team that could possibly get us to the EC Finals and beyond for one year?

Let's fill out the rest of that team:

Johnson ( G/F )- 19.75 million

Gasol ( F/C ) - 19.0 million

Horford ( F/C ) - 12 million

Harris ( G ) - 8.5 million

Zaza ( G ) -5.23 million

Teague ( G ) - 2.4

John Jenkins ( G ) - 1.2 million ( shooter )

Ivan Johnson ( F ) - 0.96 million ( rebounder-defender . . can run the floor )

Damien Wilkins ( G/F ) - 0.85 million ( perimeter defender )

Jordan Williams ( C ) - 0.76 million ( big body )

Brad Wanamaker ( G ) - 0.47 ( emergency PG )

Keith Benson ( C ) - 0.47 million ( high post shooter . . rebounder )

Mike Scott ( F ) - 0.47 million ( rebounder . . project player )

Total - 5.18 million + 66.88 million = 72.1 million ( 1.8 million over the L. Tax )

Depth chart

PG - Teague

G - Jenkins

F - Johnson

PF - Horford

C - Gasol

6th ( PG ) - Harris ( will play both guard spots )

7th ( C ) - Zaza

8th ( G/F ) - Wilkins ( will play more SF, spelling JJ )

9th ( F ) - Ivan

The one thing that this team gives us, is offensive balance in the half court. With Gasol on the team, and with Jenkins on the wing, you cannot double Joe Johnson, or that squad will make you PAY. Both Gasol and Horford are excellent mid-range shooters. Jenkins can knock down the outside open shot. Teague will be able to run the team. And JJ will still be the versatile All-Star player that he's always been.

People can throw around the "soft" label all they want about Gasol and Horford . . lol, like Josh Smith is some enforcer tough guy or something. But that is a very skilled frontline that would be highly efficient offensively, and solid defensively. Two All-Star level frontline guys.

We'd need major contribution out of Jenkins ( if Drew doesn't do anything to hamper his development ). Throw him into the fire right away, and let's see what kind of player he is.

No bench? I wouldn't say that. Harris - Zaza - Wilkins - Ivan is a decent bench. But I wouldn't be trying to play more than 9 guys on this team on a nightly basis.

Minutes and rotation

PG - Teague ( 34 ) - Harris ( 14 )

G - Jenkins ( 26 ) - Harris ( 14 ) - Johnson ( 8 )

F - Johnson ( 28 ) - Wilkins ( 14 ) - Ivan ( 6 )

PF - Horford ( 26 ) - Gasol ( 14 ) - Ivan ( 8 )

C - Gasol ( 20 ) - Zaza ( 20 ) - Horford ( 8 )

Johnson - 36

Horford - 34

Gasol - 34

Teague - 34

Harris - 28

Jenkins - 26

Zaza - 20

Wilkins - 14

Ivan - 14

The only question with this lineup, is can I get SF minutes out of Ivan Johnson? If I can't, I'm playing Damien at both the 2 and the 3. That forces JJ to exclusively play SF

PG - Teague ( 34 ) - Harris ( 14 )

G - Jenkins ( 28 ) - Harris ( 14 ) - Wilkins ( 6 )

F - Johnson ( 36 ) - Wilkins ( 12 )

PF - Horford ( 26 ) - Gasol ( 14 ) - Ivan ( 8 )

C - Gasol ( 20 ) - Zaza ( 20 ) - Horford ( 8 )

Johnson - 36

Horford - 34

Gasol - 34

Teague - 34

Jenkins - 28

Harris - 28

Zaza - 20

Wilkins - 18

Ivan - 8

That is hands down a better squad than what we're going to put out this season.

So after the season, who is left under contract?

Johnson - 21.47 million

Gasol - 19.29 million

Horford - 12 million

Jenkins - 1.26 million

Total - 54.02 amongst 4 players

At this point, many decisions have to be made.

- If that team went deep into the playoffs, do you keep our new core ( JJ - Horford - Gasol ) around for one more year? If they did . . YES

- Do you match any offer for Jeff Teague? . . He's at least getting an MLE level contract in my opinion after a year on that squad. I think he's worth that. If a team is offering 7 mill or more a year, you'd have to really evaluate that.

- Do you bring back Zaza? . . Jury is definitely out on that. Zaza isn't as vital to the Hawks if you have Horford and Gasol in the mix.

- If the team doesn't advance past Round 2, what do yo do with Gasol? . . you use that HUGE expiring contract, and get 2 or 3 decent players from a team looking to trim payroll. If Brooklyn wanted to give me Gerald Wallace + Kris Humphries for Gasol . . I'd take it.

- If the team doesn't advance past Round 2, what do you do with JJ? . . this is when you consider any and all offers. I'd still look to get a decent developmental young player and a draft pick for JJ though. I'd be against trading him for scraps, unless it was our last option.

Bottom line is that the "Diesel Option" is nowhere near as bad as you think. It does put us in Luxury Tax land, but it gives us a better squad to throw at teams and make a run to go deep into the playoffs. You'll disagree though . . lol. It's OK.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

without Horf... Team gets equivalent of 60 wins.

Just wanted to clarify this: Hawks went 40 - 26 this season ( .606 winning percentage ) In an 82 game season, that equals about 50 wins, not 60. But let's go a little further. The Hawks were 7 - 3 before Horford went down in that Indiana game. That means without Al, we were actually 33 - 23 ( .589 winning percentage ). So without Al, that really projected us to be around 48 wins ( in an 82 game season ) If the Hawks had continued to win 70% of their games with Horford on the squad, that projects us to 46 wins ( 57 wins in an 82 game season ) . . which would've placed us in a TIE with Miami for the Division title, but we'd lose the tie-breaker . . and would've been the #3 seed. Don't believe what people tell you, and say that the Hawks were better off without Horford. We were significantly better with Horford in the mix in those first 10 games. And he is an important player on this team. Hopefully, he'll emerge as the true leader of the Hawks this season. Edited July 28, 2012 by northcyde

[AHF]

Just wanted to clarify this: Hawks went 40 - 26 this season ( .606 winning percentage ) In an 82 game season, that equals about 50 wins, not 60. But let's go a little further. The Hawks were 7 - 3 before Horford went down in that Indiana game. That means without Al, we were actually 33 - 23 ( .589 winning percentage ). So without Al, that really projected us to be around 48 wins ( in an 82 game season ) If the Hawks had continued to win 70% of their games with Horford on the squad, that projects us to 46 wins ( 57 wins in an 82 game season ) . . which would've placed us in a TIE with Miami for the Division title, but we'd lose the tie-breaker . . and would've been the #3 seed. Don't believe what people tell you, and say that the Hawks were better off without Horford. We were significantly better with Horford in the mix in those first 10 games. And he is an important player on this team. Hopefully, he'll emerge as the true leader of the Hawks this season.

I agree with everything in this post. Nicely put.

[Sothron]

I seriously can not believe this thread has lasted this long. There's no one on this site that is more of a Joe fan than I am and even I thought at the time of the trade and still think that trading Joe to get out of his contract was the best decision. The net worth of having flexibility under the cap coupled with an ownership that refuses to spend the luxury tax (and don't tell me about this season where injuries forced them to do it) as well as the fact Joe in four years will be nowhere near that kind of money is worth more than the net loss of what Joe brought to the the court.

[EazyRoc]

The idea that a Pau, Joe, and Horford core would have made a deep run or even had a chance is pure speculation. Pau does not want to be "the man". He's probably the most skilled big in the league right now. However, he mentally checks out of games sometimes.

[thecampster]

I didn't bother quoting the post. Northcyde..you made 2 posts. One I'm shaking my head at. One made perfect sense. You can't put Jenkins on the floor in significant minutes without benching either Teague or Harris. 30 minutes a game you have Teague, Harris, Joe, Horford, Gasol. Suspect outside shooting. You have 4 players that play completely different styles. Teague, Harris want to penetrate. Harris can/will play pick and roll. Joe wants to go one on one, Al wants to pick n pop, pick and roll. Gasol wants to post and pass and shoot jumpers when ever he can. This team completely doesn't fit. Who in that offense rebounds and outlets? Horf? But Horf needs to run the floor because JJ and Gasol don't. It is just a literal mess.

[benhillboy]

I seriously can not believe this thread has lasted this long.

I know, right? I wonder what Joe would think after reading all this. Just laugh and count some stacks.

[Diesel]

Just wanted to clarify this: Hawks went 40 - 26 this season ( .606 winning percentage ) In an 82 game season, that equals about 50 wins, not 60. But let's go a little further. The Hawks were 7 - 3 before Horford went down in that Indiana game. That means without Al, we were actually 33 - 23 ( .589 winning percentage ). So without Al, that really projected us to be around 48 wins ( in an 82 game season ) If the Hawks had continued to win 70% of their games with Horford on the squad, that projects us to 46 wins ( 57 wins in an 82 game season ) . . which would've placed us in a TIE with Miami for the Division title, but we'd lose the tie-breaker . . and would've been the #3 seed. Don't believe what people tell you, and say that the Hawks were better off without Horford. We were significantly better with Horford in the mix in those first 10 games. And he is an important player on this team. Hopefully, he'll emerge as the true leader of the Hawks this season.

I mixed 60% and 60 wins. But Without Horford we was not as bad as some people predicted. Some said we would fall off the side of the earth because Horf was "our best player". That's not the case. Neither is Smoove. They are both good players but unfortunately, the play the same position skillwise.

[Diesel]

I seriously can not believe this thread has lasted this long. There's no one on this site that is more of a Joe fan than I am and even I thought at the time of the trade and still think that trading Joe to get out of his contract was the best decision. The net worth of having flexibility under the cap coupled with an ownership that refuses to spend the luxury tax (and don't tell me about this season where injuries forced them to do it) as well as the fact Joe in four years will be nowhere near that kind of money is worth more than the net loss of what Joe brought to the the court.

The only way you think this trade timing is good is if you are the owners. Joe could have been amnestied next year or the year after. All we done is save ASG a ton of money and put ourselves back in contention to do this whole thing over. No FA wants to come to Atlanta without us overpaying. So Joe's not your man. I can't wait to see how many of you praise us for Signing Harden next year for 90 Million dollars. Or better yet, do that and max out Smoove.

[EazyRoc]

The only way you think this trade timing is good is if you are the owners. Joe could have been amnestied next year or the year after. All we done is save ASG a ton of money and put ourselves back in contention to do this whole thing over. No FA wants to come to Atlanta without us overpaying. So Joe's not your man. I can't wait to see how many of you praise us for Signing Harden next year for 90 Million dollars. Or better yet, do that and max out Smoove.

Amnesty Joe and we aren't overpaying for anyone. We probably rebuild until the remaining portion of his contract is paid off. That kind of money would hamstring a team already struggling to generate profit. We did the right thing. Barring injuries, we are a playoff team with the flexibility to attract a superstar to put us over the top. In recent history, we were a terrible team the only time we had an opportunity to sign a max guy. This time around its different.

[Sothron]

The only way you think this trade timing is good is if you are the owners. Joe could have been amnestied next year or the year after. All we done is save ASG a ton of money and put ourselves back in contention to do this whole thing over. No FA wants to come to Atlanta without us overpaying. So Joe's not your man. I can't wait to see how many of you praise us for Signing Harden next year for 90 Million dollars. Or better yet, do that and max out Smoove.

I don't think the A$G would ever, ever, ever amnesty Joe and then also use that cap space to sign another player. I think they gave him the max deal because they thought the team would be sold to that Pizza Guy and they wouldn't have to worry about the contract. They just wanted to keep a competitive team together for Pizza Guy. Once that deal fell through they didn't have a reason to keep Joe and Ferry found a way out for them. As for other free agents I certainly don't want either Smoove or Harden at max money and frankly I don't want Smoove at all unless he brings in Dwight Howard.

[Diesel]

Amnesty Joe and we aren't overpaying for anyone. We probably rebuild until the remaining portion of his contract is paid off. That kind of money would hamstring a team already struggling to generate profit. We did the right thing. Barring injuries, we are a playoff team with the flexibility to attract a superstar to put us over the top. In recent history, we were a terrible team the only time we had an opportunity to sign a max guy. This time around its different.

That's the difference between winners and losers. Losers look at how much profit they generate. Winners know that if you win, you will generate more profit. Haven't you noticed the Nationally televised games: Miami, OKC, NY = 32 games. Chicago, Boston = 26 games. Brooklyn = 17 games. Atlanta = 3 games.

[Diesel]

I don't think the A$G would ever, ever, ever amnesty Joe and then also use that cap space to sign another player. I think they gave him the max deal because they thought the team would be sold to that Pizza Guy and they wouldn't have to worry about the contract. They just wanted to keep a competitive team together for Pizza Guy. Once that deal fell through they didn't have a reason to keep Joe and Ferry found a way out for them. As for other free agents I certainly don't want either Smoove or Harden at max money and frankly I don't want Smoove at all unless he brings in Dwight Howard.

Just watch, we're creatures of habit. All this was done to get out of financial peril. We have no plan for the future.

[EazyRoc]

That's the difference between winners and losers. Losers look at how much profit they generate. Winners know that if you win, you will generate more profit. Haven't you noticed the Nationally televised games: Miami, OKC, NY = 32 games. Chicago, Boston = 26 games. Brooklyn = 17 games. Atlanta = 3 games.

I bet the "If you win you'll generate more profit" spiel sounded good in your head, but if you were really being genuine about what's going on, you'll see that we have been winning since 2008 and still are one of the worst teams for attendance. You know this as well as I do, so why be intellectually dishonest to prove an argument that makes no sense ?

[Admin]

I bet the "If you win you'll generate more profit" spiel sounded good in your head, but if you were really being genuine about what's going on, you'll see that we have been winning since 2008 and still are one of the worst teams for attendance. You know this as well as I do, so why be intellectually dishonest to prove an argument that makes no sense ?

It musta been a homer cause Diesel just said "doh!"