Has ferry made you regret the Johnson trade with the way the season is going?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Is your point that the Joe Johnson trade was a bad trade or that Ferry hasn't done a good job replacing him? I can agree with the latter, but in no way was the Joe trade a bad one.

So far, it was a bad trade.

The legacy of this trade will be made if Brooklyn somehow falls into the lottery next year ( this year looks to be out of the question ) . . . we get to swap picks . . . and we land in the top 3 of the 2015 lottery.

Otherwise, we've traded JJ for the trade exception which landed us Kyle Korver . . and a bunch of cap space that we haven't used to bring in a significant player.

[nathan2331]

So far, it was a bad trade. The legacy of this trade will be made if Brooklyn somehow falls into the lottery next year ( this year looks to be out of the question ) . . . we get to swap picks . . . and we land in the top 3 of the 2015 lottery. Otherwise, we've traded JJ for the trade exception which landed us Kyle Korver . . and a bunch of cap space that we haven't used to bring in a significant player.

Wait, so you think we should have kept him?! Do you realize that he's overpaid now and won't get any better while his salary increases? Yes, we've done nothing with the cap space I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean we should regret making the trade. Salaries considered (which this discussion essentially boils down to) I'd rather have DeMarre Carroll than Joe Johnson.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Wait, so you think we should have kept him?! Do you realize that he's overpaid now and won't get any better while his salary increases? Yes, we've done nothing with the cap space I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean we should regret making the trade. Salaries considered (which this discussion essentially boils down to) I'd rather have DeMarre Carroll than Joe Johnson.

My position has always been that JJ would be easier to move in Year's 5 and 6 of his deal, in which we may get some tangible players for him.

And JJ's deal has NEVER prevented us from getting people ( at least role players ). The ownership here has never gone all out and brought people in here . . specifically using the MLE to bring in people. The mistake they made, was giving people like Marvin, Zaza, and Bibby those extended contracts. At the time, they all looked like fair and reasonable deals. But in the grand scheme of things, we were simply securing our place in the East, and not elevating it.

The fact that none of those guys improved ( and even regressed ) was the killer for us. At least guys like JJ, Josh, and Al played at a high level on more nights than not. Those players receiving mid level contracts, were the real killer.

The fact that you'd rather have DeMarre over Joe, really isn't relevant, seeing that DeMarre has NEVER in his career been asked to be the #1 or #2 option in an offense. He's never faced a double or triple team to take the ball out of his hands. He's never been asked to be the main facilitator for an offense. That's why he gets paid small level contracts, and JJ got the big bucks.

DeMarre's role is more similar to the role Marvin had here.

My beef with the JJ trade, is that our GM just took the first deal he could get his hands on. A deal that was virtually a salary dump, with a draft pick.

Oh . . . and Bebe is the other "asset" from the JJ trade. I forgot about that.

Edited March 12, 2014 by TheNorthCydeRises

[Guest]

Ask Lebron if Pat Riley failed. This isn't holloywood, it's professional sports and you ONLY play to win. You don't win, you failed on that day. There's first place and everyone else. I certainly hope that Ferry doesn't share your idea of success and failure.

Then I guess every year all other teams fail because only one team wins the Championshipship. The Cavs were at least in the conversation for a potential championship run EVERY season making deep playoff runs.They may not have won it but at least they had a shot from the start.

[nathan2331]

My position has always been that JJ would be easier to move in Year's 5 and 6 of his deal, in which we may get some tangible players for him. And JJ's deal has NEVER prevented us from getting people ( at least role players ). The ownership here has never gone all out and brought people in here . . specifically using the MLE to bring in people. The mistake they made, was giving people like Marvin, Zaza, and Bibby those extended contracts. At the time, they all looked like fair and reasonable deals. But in the grand scheme of things, we were simply securing our place in the East, and not elevating it. The fact that none of those guys improved ( and even regressed ) was the killer for us. At least guys like JJ, Josh, and Al played at a high level on more nights than not. Those players receiving mid level contracts, were the real killer. The fact that you'd rather have DeMarre over Joe, really isn't relevant, seeing that DeMarre has NEVER in his career been asked to be the #1 or #2 option in an offense. He's never faced a double or triple team to take the ball out of his hands. He's never been asked to be the main facilitator for an offense. That's why he gets paid small level contracts, and JJ got the big bucks. DeMarre's role is more similar to the role Marvin had here. My beef with the JJ trade, is that our GM just took the first deal he could get his hands on. A deal that was virtually a salary dump, with a draft pick. Oh . . . and Bebe is the other "asset" from the JJ trade. I forgot about that.

So do you think JJ is overpaid (if you say no, you're wrong)? The Nets were probably the only team desperate enough to get him without giving us back bad contacts to make the trade (ie. Kris Humphries) so I can't fault him for taking that trade when it appeared.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

So do you think JJ is overpaid (if you say no, you're wrong)? The Nets were probably the only team desperate enough to get him without giving us back bad contacts to make the trade (ie. Kris Humphries) so I can't fault him for taking that trade when it appeared.

Oh of course he's overpaid.

The Hawks did what they thought they had to do, to keep us relevant in the Eastern Conference. I think the Hawks could've gotten away with a 5 yr - 95 or 100 million deal ( which is still high ). But they chose not to take any chances and max him out for 6 years. Had we not kept him, he'd be a Knick or a Bull right now.

Just keep in mind that had we not retained JJ, we still wouldn't have had the cap space to replace him with a significant player.

As for the team that would call for JJ's services as the years progressed, I always thought it would be the LA Lakers. They're the type of franchise that normally doesn't get scared of taking on extra money and even going over the Luxury Tax, if they think that player will help them win a title. Or it may have been another big money team that could care less about the Luxury Tax. And that team just happened to be the Nets.

[Diesel]

Wait, so you think we should have kept him?! Do you realize that he's overpaid now and won't get any better while his salary increases? Yes, we've done nothing with the cap space I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean we should regret making the trade. Salaries considered (which this discussion essentially boils down to) I'd rather have DeMarre Carroll than Joe Johnson.

Why is this the only option? People always seem to go to the next extreme. I would suggest asking for more or getting Brooks. Or getting better than a swap of picks. The other course of action would have been to actually shop JJ to see what he could have fetched from other teams. Hawks fans look at the contract as being something that is a killer. The funny thing is that we've taken the savings and what did we get?? Old man Korver, Brand, Ayón, Cunningham, and Bebe. Sorry but we didn't get value for value and now we're in the lottery.

[Diesel]

My position has always been that JJ would be easier to move in Year's 5 and 6 of his deal, in which we may get some tangible players for him.

And JJ's deal has NEVER prevented us from getting people ( at least role players ). The ownership here has never gone all out and brought people in here . . specifically using the MLE to bring in people. The mistake they made, was giving people like Marvin, Zaza, and Bibby those extended contracts. At the time, they all looked like fair and reasonable deals. But in the grand scheme of things, we were simply securing our place in the East, and not elevating it.

The fact that none of those guys improved ( and even regressed ) was the killer for us. At least guys like JJ, Josh, and Al played at a high level on more nights than not. Those players receiving mid level contracts, were the real killer.

The fact that you'd rather have DeMarre over Joe, really isn't relevant, seeing that DeMarre has NEVER in his career been asked to be the #1 or #2 option in an offense. He's never faced a double or triple team to take the ball out of his hands. He's never been asked to be the main facilitator for an offense. That's why he gets paid small level contracts, and JJ got the big bucks.

DeMarre's role is more similar to the role Marvin had here.

My beef with the JJ trade, is that our GM just took the first deal he could get his hands on. A deal that was virtually a salary dump, with a draft pick.

Oh . . . and Bebe is the other "asset" from the JJ trade. I forgot about that.

One other thing, We had the capability to amnesty Joe's contract. His contract was one of the last of that type. So while Hawks fans are crying about JJ's future money, Ferry could have executed an Amnesty at any time. Like I have said before, Hawks fans would rather cry about what a guy makes than what he can do.

[MaceCase]

Uhm Diesel the sad truth is that he makes too much and does too little so your solution is to pay him his too much to do even less than he's doing. Smart strategy there, I see no issues the ASG might have paying someone more than they are their entire roster to go sit at home or wave a towel on Miami's bench.

The sad truth is that the team would be exactly in this same position but instead with a 70 million dollar albatross having fans wonder "why can't Joe step up?" He's been Brooklyn's healthiest player, plays the most minutes, takes the most shots yet still struggles to 15ppg. No, clearly there has been no decline in the game of a guy that is still owed heavy money over the next 2 years. That 15, 3 and 3 is exactly what would have this team on the top of the conference knocking on the contender's door just like......the Nets are.

@TheNorthCydeRises yes, keep holding onto that delusion. What exactly did LA get for Pau's expiring again? The asking price was whatever rabble you can scrap up together and a pick yet teams quickly hung up the phone at the mention of a pick, why? Pau is still putting up nearly 18 and 10 and on the last year of his deal yet teams still balked at him and the Laker's modest asking price because even on an expiring that dollar amount is restrictive and the cost of a pick too high.

Yet here you think that Joe on a worse deal and with worse production will fetch you greater assets as time goes on.... Open your eyes, remember that article mentioning how teams are dying to get a Joe Johnson deal done? They were talking from the Hawks perspective.....not the Nets. Have you noticed that that is the last deal that has netted a team a 1st rounder for a non-valued asset? No, just hold onto the delusion instead rather than face the reality of the new NBA.

Keep criticizing Ferry rather than giving him his just due for being the first to recognizing and taking advantage of the changing NBA landscape and getting tangible assets in return for a non-valued player. Team's like the Sixers couldn't even get anything better than 2nd rounders after shopping Hawes and Turner all year and teams wouldn't offer Houston a 1st for Asik but we'll contend that somehow when Joe is making 23 and 25 million in the last two years of his deal that team's will offer a cornucopia of assets just because.

[Guest]

My position has always been that JJ would be easier to move in Year's 5 and 6 of his deal, in which we may get some tangible players for him.

The changing landscape of the new CBA is in effect, large expiring contracts no longer hold the same value. The Lakers are also trying to get out of the repeater luxury tax bracket - they were seeking value for Pau got nothing, seeking 2nd picks for Hill and Kaman,nothing. They are tax payers again this year because they couldn't trade any of those guys for squat, but guess what they can afford to take the hit because they are LAL but more importantly insurance will be covering most of Nash's and Kobe's contract.

What use would be a 34/35 year old Joe at 23/24 mil be to the Lakers, especially with Kobe at the same money.

We would be getting even less than the "nothing" we got from Brooklyn holding unto him until the last 1 or 2 years of his deal. This article goes along way at explaining the new CBA and it's impact.

We are living in a new NBA universe, where flexibility trumps talent, draft picks are treated like gold and fiscal prudence is the new virtue.Owners are recoiling from the luxury tax. General managers are ruled by spreadsheets. Trades are tougher than ever to consummate. And none of the old rules apply.

Large, expiring contracts—once an essential NBA currency, the lifeblood for blockbuster deals—are no longer effective trading chips. Second-round picks, which used to be sprinkled like powdered sugar, are now zealously protected. A general manager might part with a first-born child before he surrenders a first-round pick.

"The 2011 CBA kicked in a little bit," an Eastern Conference executive said Thursday afternoon, with a trace of disappointment in his voice.

The somber tones could be heard in front offices in every time zone.

The Los Angeles Lakers had hoped to parlay Pau Gasol and his $19.3 million expiring contract into something useful. They tried to offload the expiring deals of Jordan Hill and Chris Kaman, capable big men who surely could have helped a contender.

But there were no first-round picks available for Gasol, a four-time All-Star. Nor could the Lakers goad the Brooklyn Nets or any other team into swapping a single second-round pick for Hill.

Entire article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1968305-nba-trade-deadline-blame-the-cba-as-hamstrung-executives-play-it-safe

One other thing, We had the capability to amnesty Joe's contract. His contract was one of the last of that type. So while Hawks fans are crying about JJ's future money, Ferry could have executed an Amnesty at any time. Like I have said before, Hawks fans would rather cry about what a guy makes than what he can do.

We do that and we still get nothing in terms of assets/picks for him.

DF had the foresight to see where the CBA was headed and how difficult it would become to move that contract, an opportunity presented itself and he took it.

Edited March 12, 2014 by JayBirdHawk

[Sothron]

I just have to comment that while I wanted us to get Brooks or Green in the Joe trade let's don't beat around the bush here: there's no doubt Ferry called every team trying to find a deal for Joe and he took the best deal out there. We can argue that maybe he could have tried to hardball the Nets for longer but something tells me the Nets told him that was their best deal and if he didn't take it then they were going to move on and trade for someone else.

I don't see how you can blame Ferry for that trade. I loved Joe when he was here but you could already start to see the signs of his decline and the fact we're not paying full max money for his declining years is manna from heaven.

Northcyde is correct that if we had let Joe walk instead of giving him the max deal we still wouldn't have had enough cap room to go after someone and he's right that the A$G never made a MLE signing to help push that old core. But that doesn't change the fact that trading Joe when we did was by far the best move for the franchise Ferry could have made.

[macdaddy]

Well continuing to beat a dead horse that has no right answer. We can look at stats and points per game and all that but these are different regimes. Our defensive stats under Bud reflect Bud's philosophy as much as our defensive ability or inability. While we had some decent defensive teams stat-wise with Joe we had a total inability to beat the elite teams when it mattered. This was primarily because we could not score against them. Which is also why Jamal was such a boost even though I was never a fan. The current team does not have that problem which is why you've seen this Hawks team not only compete but win some games against elite teams vs. the routine blow out we'd gotten used to in the past.

It's this reason that my money would have been on this team.

[MaceCase]

Agree with pretty much all this (except the Brooks part). Trade had to be done. We have to remember we won't know the full compensation until after next year's draft really.

Brooks is on his 4th team in 2 seasons and had the 4th year of his rookie deal declined. He's clearly not someone that Ferry or anyone else for that matter felt was a deal breaker.

Ferry got a 1st, a 2nd, a TPE and cleared 70 million in salary, already that is a better return than most any player is getting these days so it doesn't matter if the picks are Austin Rivers bust level or the team never gets to swap for a better pick, the framework for the deal as it happened and in the present is solid through and through. Saying differently means that people are either delusional to Joe's value or ignorant of the NBA landscape because using hindsight will tell you that all the Grizzlies gave up for Otis Thorpe was Darko Milicic.

Brooklyn is the only team operating outside of the parameters that the current CBA has set. Chicago made a trade to cut salary, LAL made a trade to cut salary, LAC made a trade to cut salary, the Heat amnestied Mike Miller to cut salary at the beginning of the season and traded Mason Jr. to open up a roster spot to make any other addition cap neutral, the Spurs cut salary, and even the Pacers saved money by trading Granger away. Only the Nets and Warriors added salary at the deadline but only the Nets did so following an offseason where they had also added salary. Moving Joe when he did was fortuitous for Ferry because clearly the market would have dried up considerably afterwards.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The changing landscape of the new CBA is in effect, large expiring contracts no longer hold the same value. The Lakers are also trying to get out of the repeater luxury tax bracket - they were seeking value for Pau got nothing, seeking 2nd picks for Hill and Kaman,nothing. They are tax payers again this year because they couldn't trade any of those guys for squat, but guess what they can afford to take the hit because they are LAL but more importantly insurance will be covering most of Nash's and Kobe's contract.

What use would be a 34/35 year old Joe at 23/24 mil be to the Lakers, especially with Kobe at the same money.

We would be getting even less than the "nothing" we got from Brooklyn holding unto him until the last 1 or 2 years of his deal. This article goes along way at explaining the new CBA and it's impact.

We are living in a new NBA universe, where flexibility trumps talent, draft picks are treated like gold and fiscal prudence is the new virtue.Owners are recoiling from the luxury tax. General managers are ruled by spreadsheets. Trades are tougher than ever to consummate. And none of the old rules apply.

Large, expiring contracts—once an essential NBA currency, the lifeblood for blockbuster deals—are no longer effective trading chips. Second-round picks, which used to be sprinkled like powdered sugar, are now zealously protected. A general manager might part with a first-born child before he surrenders a first-round pick.

"The 2011 CBA kicked in a little bit," an Eastern Conference executive said Thursday afternoon, with a trace of disappointment in his voice.

The somber tones could be heard in front offices in every time zone.

The Los Angeles Lakers had hoped to parlay Pau Gasol and his $19.3 million expiring contract into something useful. They tried to offload the expiring deals of Jordan Hill and Chris Kaman, capable big men who surely could have helped a contender.

But there were no first-round picks available for Gasol, a four-time All-Star. Nor could the Lakers goad the Brooklyn Nets or any other team into swapping a single second-round pick for Hill.

Entire article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1968305-nba-trade-deadline-blame-the-cba-as-hamstrung-executives-play-it-safe

We do that and we still get nothing in terms of assets/picks for him.

DF had the foresight to see where the CBA was headed and how difficult it would become to move that contract, an opportunity presented itself and he took it.

Miss JBH, we're going to see what this "new universe" starts to look like this summer, when some of these good young players start hitting the market.

We're going to see if a team like Golden State balks on re-signing Klay Thompson next summer to a big money deal, when all types of teams go after him.

We'll see what the Pacers do, when Lance Stephenson hits the free agent market this summer, especially if the Pacers go to the NBA Finals and he's a significant reason why they went to it.

We'll see if the Hawks blink when Paul Millsap comes up for free agency next summer, possibly commanding a 10 to 12+ million a year deal from somebody ( if he's still playing at All-Star level ).

The true issue is going to be this: Do you want to save your money and not pay the piper at times . . . or do you want to WIN?

Because it's been proven that if you want to WIN in this league, you better be an expert in the draft . . or you better spend money on high quality talent. And that's not going to change with this new CBA. Holding on to cheap 2nd round picks aren't going to get you to the promised land, if you don't already have a superstar ( or multiple superstars ) on the team that can do all of the heavy lifting.

The big market teams are only going to periodically dip below that Luxury Tax line for a year, only to go right back over it. Chicago will take their step back next year. The Lakers will do the same. But they are only doing it because they're not in title contention. Had they'd been battling for a title shot, they would be less concerned about the tax penalties.

Mark Cuban thought he was smarter than everyone, when he broke up a championship squad to make himself more "flexible" to go after the top free agents of 2013. He thought the entire league would follow his lead. But look what happened. He struck out on getting Deron, because Brooklyn said F-that . . we're not giving up a star player. He struck out on Howard because Houston was a better fit for him in Howard's eyes ( and he looks to be correct on that ).

In a world in which everyone is trying to be "flexible", being "flexible" isn't really the competitive advantage that people make it out to be. It may keep your finances in check, but it may not improve your product. If 7 teams have 14 million + in cap space, a 10 million dollar a year player gets to pick and choose where he goes. Each team could pay him what he is worth, so money isn't the issue. The issue will come down to which team is a better fit for that player's talents, and which team is more likely to be in the playoff mix.

[Guest]

Miss JBH, we're going to see what this "new universe" starts to look like this summer, when some of these good young players start hitting the market.

We're going to see if a team like Golden State balks on re-signing Klay Thompson next summer to a big money deal, when all types of teams go after him.

We'll see what the Pacers do, when Lance Stephenson hits the free agent market this summer, especially if the Pacers go to the NBA Finals and he's a significant reason why they went to it.

We'll see if the Hawks blink when Paul Millsap comes up for free agency next summer, possibly commanding a 10 to 12+ million a year deal from somebody ( if he's still playing at All-Star level ).

The true issue is going to be this: Do you want to save your money and not pay the piper at times . . . or do you want to WIN?

Because it's been proven that if you want to WIN in this league, you better be an expert in the draft . . or you better spend money on high quality talent. And that's not going to change with this new CBA. Holding on to cheap 2nd round picks aren't going to get you to the promised land, if you don't already have a superstar ( or multiple superstars ) on the team that can do all of the heavy lifting.

The big market teams are only going to periodically dip below that Luxury Tax line for a year, only to go right back over it. Chicago will take their step back next year. The Lakers will do the same. But they are only doing it because they're not in title contention. Had they'd been battling for a title shot, they would be less concerned about the tax penalties.

Mark Cuban thought he was smarter than everyone, when he broke up a championship squad to make himself more "flexible" to go after the top free agents of 2013. He thought the entire league would follow his lead. But look what happened. He struck out on getting Deron, because Brooklyn said F-that . . we're not giving up a star player. He struck out on Howard because Houston was a better fit for him in Howard's eyes ( and he looks to be correct on that ).

In a world in which everyone is trying to be "flexible", being "flexible" isn't really the competitive advantage that people make it out to be. It may keep your finances in check, but it may not improve your product. If 7 teams have 14 million + in cap space, a 10 million dollar a year player gets to pick and choose where he goes. Each team could pay him what he is worth, so money isn't the issue. The issue will come down to which team is a better fit for that player's talents, and which team is more likely to be in the playoff mix.

I guess we shall see - why do you think OKC did not retain Harden after signing Ibaka?

Larry Bird has said Indy cannot go over the tax simply because they cannot afford it.

Indy will have 57 million in commited salary if they renounce the rights to Evan Turner (8 mil - which they will probably do). That leaves them with 13 million for Lance (if you figure the LT at 70 mil)

Artcile: http://newsok.com/larry-bird-talks-luxury-tax-limitations-for-small-market-teams/article/3860300

GSW does not have to do anything with Klay next year, he will not be a RFA until 2015/2016 season.

[MaceCase]

I guess we shall see - why do you think OKC did not retain Harden after signing Ibaka?

Larry Bird has said Indy cannot go over the tax simply because they cannot afford it.

Indy will have 57 million in commited salary if they renounce the rights to Evan Turner (8 mil - which they will probably do). That leaves them with 13 million for Lance (if you figure the LT at 70 mil)

Artcile: http://newsok.com/larry-bird-talks-luxury-tax-limitations-for-small-market-teams/article/3860300

GSW does not have to do anything with Klay next year, he will not be a RFA until 2015/2016 season.

They have significantly less actually. Paul George's max extension is going to increase from 25% of the best cap projections (~16 mil) to 30% of the cap (~19 mil) due to the Rose provision if he (likely) makes another All-NBA team. If they renounce all their free agents excluding Lance then they are already at ~72 mil in payroll+empty roster charges which again by the best cap projection leaves them at only ~3 million below the tax. They can double that amount by waiving Scola but you are still looking at less than 7 million in space to resign Stephenson before they hit the tax...that is not enough wiggle room for a player that is likely going to be looking at what Tyreke Evans got ( 4yrs 45mil) for his next contract. Worse, they don't have RFA rights on him to match any deal he ends up with so with this you start to understand the shrewdness of the Evan Turner trade and its greater implication.

And with OKC you are absolutely correct, they weren't even 3 months removed from a Finals appearance before they traded Harden one year before any extension would kick in because they feared the tax that much. And NorthCyde doesn't realize that the repeater tax is based on paying the tax in any 3 out of 4 years, dipping below for a season only to go back up will not save you.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I guess we shall see - why do you think OKC did not retain Harden after signing Ibaka?

Larry Bird has said Indy cannot go over the tax simply because they cannot afford it.

Indy will have 57 million in commited salary if they renounce the rights to Evan Turner (8 mil - which they will probably do). That leaves them with 13 million for Lance (if you figure the LT at 70 mil)

Artcile: http://newsok.com/larry-bird-talks-luxury-tax-limitations-for-small-market-teams/article/3860300

GSW does not have to do anything with Klay next year, he will not be a RFA until 2015/2016 season.

Those are actually perfect examples to what I am talking about.

Look at OKC. They hit 3 home runs in Durant, Westbrook, and Harden . . and hit a double in Ibaka. You can't do much better than what they did in those 3 drafts.But when came time to secure their future with those 4, they played around with Harden, after locking up Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. So they let Harden go. They even got a lot in return in that trade. But what they'll get, are mainly role players.

Now look what they have created. They elevated a periodically mediocre team in Houston ( that had to pull a jack move to get Omer Asik and Jeremy Lin . . whom they were going to promote as the star of the team ), and just gave the a superstar talent in Harden. And that superstar talent was good enough to make them attractive enough to get the biggest free agent prize last year in Dwight Howard.

All to keep from paying just a little Luxury Tax money.

So instead of OKC keeping Harden, and going into battle with a superstar, and 2 bonafide all-stars, and a defensive star for the next 4 5 years . . they've immediately elevated a conference rival to their level ( and arguably above them ), and put them in position to block OKC from even reaching the WC Finals, forget about the NBA Finals.

Same goes with Indiana. If they feel that they can't afford to go into the Luxury Tax to maintain a championship level team, they simply deserve what may happen to them in the future. They will simply open the door for big market teams like Chicago, LA, or even the Knicks to improve their teams.

The rest of the NBA aren't going to play by the same rules of cap restraint, just because you have teams that refuse to go into the Luxury Tax to win a title.

[tbhawksfan]

Those are actually perfect examples to what I am talking about.

Look at OKC. They hit 3 home runs in Durant, Westbrook, and Harden . . and hit a double in Ibaka. You can't do much better than what they did in those 3 drafts.But when came time to secure their future with those 4, they played around with Harden, after locking up Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. So they let Harden go. They even got a lot in return in that trade. But what they'll get, are mainly role players.

Now look what they have created. They elevated a periodically mediocre team in Houston ( that had to pull a jack move to get Omer Asik and Jeremy Lin . . whom they were going to promote as the star of the team ), and just gave the a superstar talent in Harden. And that superstar talent was good enough to make them attractive enough to get the biggest free agent prize last year in Dwight Howard.

All to keep from paying just a little Luxury Tax money.

So instead of OKC keeping Harden, and going into battle with a superstar, and 2 bonafide all-stars, and a defensive star for the next 4 5 years . . they've immediately elevated a conference rival to their level ( and arguably above them ), and put them in position to block OKC from even reaching the WC Finals, forget about the NBA Finals.

Same goes with Indiana. If they feel that they can't afford to go into the Luxury Tax to maintain a championship level team, they simply deserve what may happen to them in the future. They will simply open the door for big market teams like Chicago, LA, or even the Knicks to improve their teams.

The rest of the NBA aren't going to play by the same rules of cap restraint, just because you have teams that refuse to go into the Luxury Tax to win a title.

Very nice analysis. OKC got back a fairly decent return but the move had me scratching my head at the time because they were/are a win now team and they let a VERY good Harden go at a position of need. They have the talent and the GM to win, but the ownership needs to open the purse wide to get to the very top in the NBA

[Admin]

One other thing, We had the capability to amnesty Joe's contract. His contract was one of the last of that type. So while Hawks fans are crying about JJ's future money, Ferry could have executed an Amnesty at any time. Like I have said before, Hawks fans would rather cry about what a guy makes than what he can do.

Yes that would have been brilliant. We amnesty Joe owing him $100 million and you know what could have easily happened? One of the teams under the cap could have put in a cheap bid on him and WE would have owed him the remaining balance. So we'd not have Joe and we'd still have to pay a large portion of his salary through 2016. Unless you just assume that not a single team would have placed a bid on him for a partial waiver claim. Or you assume someone would have put in a full waiver claim to pay him the full amount, which I highly doubt.

BTW it's not like we got nothing out of him. Assuming that these guys pan out, we were able to get Muscala and Bebe from the pick we got from the Nets (by trading Shane Larkin). Those guys may never amount to anything, but we did get some good young talent and still have the right to swap picks this year and next plus have a 2nd in 2017 owed to us.

[tbhawksfan]

Yes that would have been brilliant. We amnesty Joe owing him $100 million and you know what could have easily happened? One of the teams under the cap could have put in a cheap bid on him and WE would have owed him the remaining balance. So we'd not have Joe and we'd still have to pay a large portion of his salary through 2016. Unless you just assume that not a single team would have placed a bid on him for a partial waiver claim. Or you assume someone would have put in a full waiver claim to pay him the full amount, which I highly doubt.

BTW it's not like we got nothing out of him. Assuming that these guys pan out, we were able to get Muscala and Bebe from the pick we got from the Nets (by trading Shane Larkin). Those guys may never amount to anything, but we did get some good young talent and still have the right to swap picks this year and next plus have a 2nd in 2017 owed to us.

Brooklyn has the russian connection owner that should guarantee that we don't see their first and the second is nothing to get excited about.