The Plan is _____________ ?

[Wretch]

PS...see the third definition (b) if you're not sure what using semantics means. Using it in a debate/argument is, by virtue of the strategy's nature, very juvenile and implies a weak mind.

[HawkItus]

Somebody is losing it lol. Josh Smith proved his value time and time again, by not being traded or even courted by most teams in the NBA. He was a FA twice with the Hawks. He was not actively pursued and had to wait for the secondary market to be signed both times. I think that as much as anything shows why he remained a Hawk so long. Nobody wanted him.

[Wretch]

Somebody is losing it lol. Josh Smith proved his value time and time again, by not being traded or even courted by most teams in the NBA. He was a FA twice with the Hawks. He was not actively pursued and had to wait for the secondary market to be signed both times. I think that as much as anything shows why he remained a Hawk so long. Nobody wanted him.

I'm not losing anything. You're just falling in with the personality that you are more agreeable to vs. the more sound and unbiased logic.

Josh was central to the success/failure of the team.

You can't argue that.

By keeping him, after you move Joe, you entrust the offense to him - he will take the most shots.

You can't argue that either.

We kept him because we wanted to compete.

That's pretty obvious.

What exactly is hard to understand there?

Had we dealt him with 2 years remaining on his contract, vs. the last year and before he made the comments about wanting a max, the offers would have been more substantial.

That's pretty likely.

However, Ferry and this ownership were adverse to missing the playoffs and kept him.

Perhaps that's a little subjective, but it's not unreasonable or illogical.

Josh has proved his value over the years by consistently being unique in his production across every stat in the game.

Pretty much fact.

Nobody's going to give you anything for a guy in the last year of his deal - even a coveted free agent like D12.

Pretty much a fact as well.

[Wretch]

You're also using bias and selective memory to imply Josh's worth during first free agency year...in which he was a restricted free agent that had ZERO chance of leaving Atlanta. But I'm not going to write a book for you if you don't know Hawks history.

[HawkItus]

I'm not losing anything. You're just falling in with the personality that you are more agreeable to vs. the more sound and unbiased logic.

Josh was central to the success/failure of the team.

You can't argue that.

By keeping him, after you move Joe, you entrust the offense to him - he will take the most shots.

You can't argue that either.

We kept him because we wanted to compete.

That's pretty obvious.

What exactly is hard to understand there?

Had we dealt him with 2 years remaining on his contract, vs. the last year and before he made the comments about wanting a max, the offers would have been more substantial.

That's pretty likely.

However, Ferry and this ownership were adverse to missing the playoffs and kept him.

Perhaps that's a little subjective, but it's not unreasonable or illogical.

Josh has proved his value over the years by consistently being unique in his production across every stat in the game.

Pretty much fact.

Nobody's going to give you anything for a guy in the last year of his deal - even a coveted free agent like D12.

Pretty much a fact as well.

June 25, 2012- Danny comes aboard

July 11 2012- JJ traded

July 11, 2012 - Marvin traded

Now what was significant about these two? Multi year deals. Who didn't get traded? Guys who were expiring Teague, Zaza and Smith etc. Follow me now? No? Ok here are some more bread crumbs. What did we take back? Expiring deals. Why? To clear cap space. Josh Smith was a cap number. That was it. If Ferry saw the opportunity to get something of value in that cap space prior to the offseason, Josh was gone. But, with Howard and Paul in play Ferry didn't want to lose that space from the expiring deal. Now, when Howard and Paul were no longer in play, guess what happened? You got Josh being abandoned. This was not a ploy to be competitive. DF would have traded Josh and Teague if it made the team better or put us in a more advantageous position for the future, like he did with Joe an Marvin. 1 + 1. Simple

Edited April 11, 2014 by sultanofatl

[MaceCase]

You're talking about labels and again propping up your opinion with semantics. You're using that to argue against simple math, but it doesn't agree with you. You can't shoot like that and at the same time not be the single biggest offensive factor (good or bad) on the court. In the NBA, this is the player you entrust the fate of the season with.

Either you're just trolling now or you fail at math and it's correlation to the basics of competition. If it were me, I'd just admit that I understand the point being made and leave the semantics out of it.

The one who went about applying labels is you and you are doing it on the basis of the simple amount of shot attempts taken by a player. The point is understood, feeble but still understood. The "semantics" are an attempt to understand how one can make such a broad assumption based on something so simple but alas, you've grown petulant over having to defend your position with words. Odd, considering your distaste for brevity.

...and you're wrong here too.

Josh smith was in the last year of his contract. That is often the single biggest determining factor on a player's moveability (see D12). Morevoer, Josh made the strategic comment (here) about being worth a max deal - likely at the behest of his agent to gain leverage to stay. The combination of those two factors is what sunk his trade value.

We (stupidly) risked that in 2012 because Danny Ferry was not confident that he could unload JJ and Josh Smith and still make the playoffs. Which is of paramount importance to our GM and the ownership that hired him.

The single greatest value in an expiring contract is the ability to offer cap relief to another team in exchange for a player that they deem as overpaid or an obstacle to achieving another financial goal. This should be the most obvious fact to anyone considering that the team traded two longer toxic contracts for expirings thus demonstrating the exact use and function of an expiring.

More over, despite the rather obvious goal of being major players in free agency to the point that a member of the team's ticket sales department was fired over it and the two 1st round selections made by the GM were Euro stashes, somehow you still believe it more logical that Josh was kept simply because the team was more concerned about the playoffs.

The playoffs, really? Because there's a doubt that this team would have trouble making the playoffs without Josh Smith? Well without Josh or Al this team is currently in the playoffs as is. They were the 7th seed and 3 games under .500 at the trade deadline yet where exactly were the moves to ensure that the team was a lock for that which is of great paramount to the GM and ownership that hired him? Did they transform into Cool Hand Luke over summer? All of a sudden confident playoff revenue would not be in doubt?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

At the same time though Duncan isn't the same player he once was. I'm just suggesting that it's possible the "system" has outgrown Duncan. I watch the Spurs now and see a team that's greater than the sum of its parts. Not trying to make it sounds like we're on our way to a dynasty, but I've definitely been surprised by the growth of players like Scott and Carroll.

This is how good Tim Duncan STILL is

Per 36 minute numbers of random very good big men:

Cousins

25.1 ppg

13.0 rebs

3.2 asst

1.4 blks

1.7 stls

26.1 PER

.167 WS/48

107 Off Rtg

101 Def Rtg

Horford, before he got hurt

20.2 ppg

9.2 rebs

2.9 asst

1.7 blks

1.0 stls

22 PER

.140 WS/48

109 Off Rtg

104 Def Rtg

Griffin ( who is having a borderline MVP type of year )

24.2 ppg

9.6 rebs

3.8 asst

0.6 blks

1.1 stls

23.8 PER

.204 WS/48

114 Off Rtg

103 Def Rtg

Duncan

18.7 ppg

12.0 rebs

3.7 asst

2.4 blks

0.7 stls

21.4 PER

.167 WS/48

107 Off Rtg

97 Def Rtg

Howard

19.6 ppg

13.1 rebs

1.9 asst

1.9 blks

0.9 stls

21.4 PER

.162 WS/48

109 Off Rtg

101 Def Rtg

Jefferson

22.4 ppg

11.0 rebs

2.2 asst

1.1 blks

1.0 stls

22.5 PER

.143 WS/48

105 Off Rtg

100 Def Rtg

While Duncan isn't the scoring force that most of these guys are, he's BY FAR still the best defensive big man in the league . . . at 37 years old. The dude is STILL a borderline All-NBA level player and definitely an All-NBA 1st team All-Defensive player. The fact that he can still rebound and block shots at that rate and at his age, is incredible.

Make no mistake. Without this dude, the Spurs are a middle of the pack West team, if not more near the 8th seed. Duncan is usually the difference when they beat elite teams.

Edited April 11, 2014 by TheNorthCydeRises

[Wretch]

June 25, 2012- Danny comes aboard

July 11 2012- JJ traded

July 11, 2012 - Marvin traded

Now what was significant about these two? Multi year deals. Who didn't get traded? Guys who were expiring Teague, Zaza and Smith etc. Follow me now? No? Ok here are some more bread crumbs. What did we take back? Expiring deals. Why? To clear cap space. Josh Smith was a cap number. That was it. If Ferry saw the opportunity to get something of value in that cap space prior to the offseason, Josh was gone. But, with Howard and Paul in play Ferry didn't want to lose that space from the expiring deal. Now, when Howard and Paul were no longer in play, guess what happened? You got Josh being abandoned. This was not a ploy to be competitive. DF would have traded Josh and Teague if it made the team better or put us in a more advantageous position for the future, like he did with Joe an Marvin. 1 + 1. Simple

You say that like...I don't agree with you. I wasn't arguing that part of Ferry's work and I never have. I actually applauded him for the position he put is in and shared in the hope with you guys that we could pull off something incredible. Go back and check if you like, but we're not really at odds there.

Moreover, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can say Ferry cleared cap space and also say that he left players in place that would keep us competitive (this is exactly what he's done). I don't have a problem with the former and never have. My issue is with the latter.

The one who went about applying labels is you and you are doing it on the basis of the simple amount of shot attempts taken by a player. The point is understood, feeble but still understood. The "semantics" are an attempt to understand how one can make such a broad assumption based on something so simple but alas, you've grown petulant over having to defend your position with words. Odd, considering your distaste for brevity.

You're failing to understand that I'm not making an argument for a label or efficiency. If you want to compete and construct a team to do that in the short term - and you keep Josh Smith - then he inherits a hefty responsibility by default.

I don't have a distaste for brevity. I actually don't like talking or the spotlight. I just stand my ground when I believe in something and as a writer, I have a tendency to run off at the fingers.

The single greatest value in an expiring contract is the ability to offer cap relief to another team in exchange for a player that they deem as overpaid or an obstacle to achieving another financial goal. This should be the most obvious fact to anyone considering that the team traded two longer toxic contracts for expirings thus demonstrating the exact use and function of an expiring.

Meaning he is not difficult to dump. Which Ferry said he wasn't going to do (mid season). He wants to compete not rebuild.

More over, despite the rather obvious goal of being major players in free agency to the point that a member of the team's ticket sales department was fired over it and the two 1st round selections made by the GM were Euro stashes, somehow you still believe it more logical that Josh was kept simply because the team was more concerned about the playoffs.

And we were. Hence we did spend money on guys that would help us compete rather than scrap/rebuild.

Which is more the point and what I don't agree with in terms of the Ferry "competitive" plan.

The playoffs, really? Because there's a doubt that this team would have trouble making the playoffs without Josh Smith? Well without Josh or Al this team is currently in the playoffs as is.

Not really surprising when you supplant Josh with Millsap.

They were the 7th seed and 3 games under .500 at the trade deadline yet where exactly were the moves to ensure that the team was a lock for that which is of great paramount to the GM and ownership that hired him? Did they transform into Cool Hand Luke over summer? All of a sudden confident playoff revenue would not be in doubt?

This discussion has split the board for almost two seasons now and is the subject of the thread we're talking in.

The teams were...managed?...built?...pieced together?...for competitiveness and flexibility.

[Final_quest]

June 25, 2012- Danny comes aboard

July 11 2012- JJ traded

July 11, 2012 - Marvin traded

Now what was significant about these two? Multi year deals. Who didn't get traded? Guys who were expiring Teague, Zaza and Smith etc. Follow me now? No? Ok here are some more bread crumbs. What did we take back? Expiring deals. Why? To clear cap space. Josh Smith was a cap number. That was it. If Ferry saw the opportunity to get something of value in that cap space prior to the offseason, Josh was gone. But, with Howard and Paul in play Ferry didn't want to lose that space from the expiring deal. Now, when Howard and Paul were no longer in play, guess what happened? You got Josh being abandoned. This was not a ploy to be competitive. DF would have traded Josh and Teague if it made the team better or put us in a more advantageous position for the future, like he did with Joe an Marvin. 1 + 1. Simple

That pretty much nails it. Wretch, you are a great person, but way off on getting inside DF's head. The fact that he never saw a trade for Josh that he liked does not mean he tried to feature him, build the team around him, etc. To me year one for DF was much like year one of Billy Knight. He wanted to clear as much salary as possible. He didn't want Josh Smith to be our star anymore than he wanted Deshawn Stevenson to be a cornerstone of our bench. They both were expiring deals. Quit fooling yourself into thinking it was anything more than that.

[Wretch]

That pretty much nails it. Wretch, you are a great person, but way off on getting inside DF's head. The fact that he never saw a trade for Josh that he liked does not mean he tried to feature him, build the team around him, etc. To me year one for DF was much like year one of Billy Knight. He wanted to clear as much salary as possible. He didn't want Josh Smith to be our star anymore than he wanted Deshawn Stevenson to be a cornerstone of our bench. They both were expiring deals. Quit fooling yourself into thinking it was anything more than that.

I'm not disagreeing with what he was doing with salary and positioning us for the previous FA summer. Nor am I saying Josh Smith was going to be our "star."

[Guest]

DF also kept Josh around as a lure for D12.

Edited April 11, 2014 by JayBirdHawk

[Sothron]

DF also kept Josh around as a lure for D12.

Yep. Another reason why we brought Lou Williams here as well. If the Clips didn't bring in Doc and CP3 had become a FA then our team would be completely different. I do believe if he had come here that Dwight comes to play with Paul and we still have Horford.

Once we saw that was not going to happen we should have went into true rebuilding mode and let Bud mold young guys that fit a system. Not hope we have enough scraps of talent to slide into the last spot in the playoffs in an entire conference of mediocrity.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If you clean house, you clean it. You don't want Josh, you get rid of him. You don't need half a season to evaluate him. The whole league has evaluated him for years. You know what he brings. You know what he's doing to the offense (which sucks if you really want to "compete"). You also know you can't pay him the money he's asks for. You don't let him walk for nothing and you don't wait midseason. You deal him.

Ferry kept him and in doing so it became his team, or a team built around him, or a team featuring him, or a team that he is headlining, by default. Whatever you want to call it... Saying otherwise is the same as suggesting that it's not Horford's team right now. That's a bit of selective logic considering people cling to the idea that we'd be able to topple the Heat or Pacers had he not been injured.

What you are implying though, is that Ferry has no clue as to what direction he's going in. He's not rebuilding. He's not looking to contend with THIS roster. He's trying to compete, but he is doing so without considering the skillset of any specific player or regard for any sort of "core/cornerstone."

Ultimately, you just have your point of view centered on "building around player X" and what that is supposed to mean to you. From my point of view, Danny is doing exactly what he said he would do - bring in quality guys, maintain cap flexibility, and compete (I.e. - make the playoffs). I don't think you can compete, or even think about it, without have a core to build a gameplan around. Two seasons ago, that was Smith/Horford/Teague. This season, it is Horford/Millsap/Teague. It will continue as the question over Horford's head becomes more visible...and it will likely "feature" or be "built around" or "take into consideration" a CORE of Millsap and more journeymen.

And it will spell an early exit. Not sure that there's much more conversation to be had with you homie. Like I've been saying for the past two seasons...we will see.

To add to this, people routinely forget that it was the GM who offered Josh Smith a 3 yr - 45 million extension before the start of the 2012 - 13 season.

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/2013/4/14/4223096/josh-smith-nba-free-agency-atlanta-hawks

He tried to sign Josh to an Al Jefferson like contract, except with Jefferson, he has the ability to opt out after Year 2. The GM was giving him a straight 3 year deal at 15 million per.

There is no doubt that he wouldn't have mind rolling with Josh, if he could get him on a 3 year deal.

So as you said, not only did he not try to sell Josh off, he tried to re-sign him. The GM definitely saw the Josh/Horford duo as the one to build around, until he saw for himself how Josh plays on offense.

[HawkItus]

To add to this, people routinely forget that it was the GM who offered Josh Smith a 3 yr - 45 million extension before the start of the 2012 - 13 season.

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/2013/4/14/4223096/josh-smith-nba-free-agency-atlanta-hawks

He tried to sign Josh to an Al Jefferson like contract, except with Jefferson, he has the ability to opt out after Year 2. The GM was giving him a straight 3 year deal at 15 million per.

There is no doubt that he wouldn't have mind rolling with Josh, if he could get him on a 3 year deal.

So as you said, not only did he not try to sell Josh off, he tried to re-sign him. The GM definitely saw the Josh/Horford duo as the one to build around, until he saw for himself how Josh plays on offense.

First of all that is a report that is not verified by either party. Second look at what happened after the season. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/eve-return-atlanta-josh-smith-confirms-hawks-never-174249831--nba.html

Third $45 million for 3 and ends up signing for million more with the Pistons does that look like a deal that says you are our star? That looks like a contract made to move, should we get a shot at a star or down the road to create more space. I'm sorry the rumors prove nothing except Josh made a bad decision.

[MaceCase]

Meaning he is not difficult to dump. Which Ferry said he wasn't going to do (mid season). He wants to compete not rebuild.

Dump for what is the key point I and now others are trying to enlighten you on. His deal was difficult to dump if the intention of the GM was to preserve as much cap space as possible for the summer of 2013 rather than just get rid of a player. Taking back 17 million worth of salary in 2013/14 kind of puts a big crimp in that plan no matter what direction Ferry decides to go in.

And @TheNorthCydeRises rather odd position you're taking now considering that you yourself said that Josh would be a fool to accept a deal like that especially when he not so far later declared that he was a Max free agent.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Dump for what is the key point I and now others are trying to enlighten you on. His deal was difficult to dump if the intention of the GM was to preserve as much cap space as possible for the summer of 2013 rather than just get rid of a player. Taking back 17 million worth of salary in 2013/14 kind of puts a big crimp in that plan no matter what direction Ferry decides to go in.

And @TheNorthCydeRises rather odd position you're taking now considering that you yourself said that Josh would be a fool to accept a deal like that especially when he not so far later declared that he was a Max free agent.

Of course he'd be a fool for accepting that, if he thought he could get more. The 3 year deal that the GM offered him, was the most he could be offered under the new CBA. It was similar to the 4 year - 60 million deal that JJ turned down.

That still doesn't change the fact that the GM DID offer this to Josh Smith, to try to keep him here. No way you can change history on that.

So the question is . . if he didn't want to build around Josh, why even offer him that extension?

Edited April 11, 2014 by TheNorthCydeRises

[TheNorthCydeRises]

First of all that is a report that is not verified by either party. Second look at what happened after the season. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/eve-return-atlanta-josh-smith-confirms-hawks-never-174249831--nba.html

Third $45 million for 3 and ends up signing for million more with the Pistons does that look like a deal that says you are our star? That looks like a contract made to move, should we get a shot at a star or down the road to create more space. I'm sorry the rumors prove nothing except Josh made a bad decision.

First . . . that extension offer did happen, but the dollar amount wasn't announced when it initially came down. Josh had told them that he wouldn't accept it and that he wanted to explore his options in free agency. LOL . . the report was not verified by either party huh? It wasn't denied by either party either.

So I guess Chad Ford just made up an erroneous story about a Josh Smith extension right before the playoffs last year, and neither the Hawks nor Josh came out to deny it?

Second . . that link is for what happened AFTER the 2012 - 13 season, when Josh was let go for nothing. The GM got his "good look" at Josh, and decided that he didn't want him anymore.

Third . . Josh signed for 4 yrs - 54 million in Detroit ( which is the Al Jefferson deal + 1 more year, with no team or player options ). That's less per year that the 3 yr - 45 mill extension was for, but 9 million more in total money. If he'd had signed the Atlanta extension, he'd be making 15 million a year. And yes sir . . that is STAR MONEY. Josh Smith at 15 mill a year would NOT take a back seat to any player on this team. He would see himself as the STAR, even if the coach and the franchise didn't.

LOL . . you guys will defend the GM to the death I see. That dude is a bad used car salesman, who will sell anything to the public. He gets no props from me until his moves see this team progressing toward where we were 4 years ago. Signing DeMarre Carroll to a great deal, despite DeMarre just being your average SF, does not make him some great GM.

[Wretch]

I'm really at a loss to put into words how you guys have warped this conversation - to include taking something I've never argued against, doesn't preclude the point I've been making, and is in fact Ferry's mantra: be competitive/maintain flexibility. It's also crazy how you avoid putting a label on what Ferry is actually doing....and refuse to recognize it for what it is (which has split the Squawk).

You're also using some serious hindsight logic...but I understand where you're coming from. Josh Smith was never evaluated. He was just an expiring. We never entertained the thought of an extension and we certainly didn't think about his appeal to Dwight Howard. Never intended to help us compete and despite what he did on the court, wasn't expected to have a substantial impact on our overall record - which we were not concerned with because playoffs was not the goal.

Gotcha.

I'm out, homeslice. But I do want to add one thing for you though. I have 4000 posts over 10 years. That's literally...one post a day. Take into account the early years (2004-2006) of merry go rounds like this...and you can stop with the "Wretch likes to talk!" thing. It's catchy, but it's really not me.

[Wretch]

Second . . that link is for what happened AFTER the 2012 - 13 season, when Josh was let go for nothing. The GM got his "good look" at Josh, and decided that he didn't want him anymore.

Hence the hindsight nonsense going on.

[MaceCase]

Of course he'd be a fool for accepting that, if he thought he could get more. The 3 year deal that the GM offered him, was the most he could be offered under the new CBA. It was similar to the 4 year - 60 million deal that JJ turned down.

That still doesn't change the fact that the GM DID offer this to Josh Smith, to try to keep him here. No way you can change history on that.

So the question is . . if he didn't want to build around Josh, why even offer him that extension?

Because it's a token gesture. A low risk offer that a GM knows no player will sign underneath the new CBA but at least conveys good faith and an open line of negotiation thus attempting to avoid any bad blood that may arise in the absence of such. You can imagine why a GM would want to be on good terms with a malcontent such as Josh both to preserve the team morale and his trade value. The offer is undeniable but the intent behind it as much else in this thread has been grossly over-exaggerated, Josh would have set a historical precedent as a player who turned down both more years of security and total money (something that he still got). Somehow I doubt Ferry would have placed much odds on that happening but hey I guess that only makes me look like a blind defender rather than anything rational.