Atlanta Hawks Mock Draft 1.0

[thecampster]

and here is your 76ers article  https://www.libertyballers.com/2015/2/25/8105597/the-sixers-have-passed-the-cap-floor-and-saved-millions

 

 

The Sixers angered people again, because businesses that expose loopholes and use them to their own advantages have that effect. This time, as was noted last night, the Sixers claimed longtime future Sixer Thomas Robinson off waivers from the Denver Nuggets before he could sign a free agent contract with the Brooklyn Nets. And as Woj first noted, the reason for the claim is mostly about money......

First, the entire salaries of traded players are included in the cap floor calculations as of season's end. So, when the Sixers acquired JaVale McGee and Oklahoma City's increasingly more appetizing first round pick, the Sixers acquired an $11.25M salary for their cap calculation. But the Sixers will only need to pay McGee the amount he is owed for the rest of the season....

 

Saving $7M in actual dollars just on player salaries is a major, major part of increasing margins. The team also took in $1.4M in trades during the year, which for other teams was the price of doing business.

At the same time, the strategy is so business-like, so ruthless, and so cold and calculated. It doesn't seem right that an organization can lose most of its games by design and come out with a profit. This is a major flaw the NBA has no choice but to address in the next CBA. Until then, the Sixers will hack the system until they get a superstar, and they'll make money doing it.

[thecampster]

But the Philly article shows you just one problem with hanging out below the minimum salary floor.  Philly had to engage in shenanigans to get above the floor.  The salary claim "showed" more salary then they actually paid and therefore screwed their own players out of salary they should have been paid (about $7 million of it). If you don't think that (cheating your players out of $7 million) didn't do bad things to Philly's reputation and didn't have repercussions, then I'm not sure there is anything I can say that would make you understand that water is wet, birds fly and that insanity is just a state of mind.

[thecampster]

There is no "requirement" that a team spend the NBA team salary minimum. Yes, a team can pay less and at the end of the year have to pay the difference to their  players in ratio to their team salary percent.  Its just a really stupid idea for a myriad of reasons.  The biggest of which is having incoming players being overpaid to meet that threshold (or having to do roster tricks like the one Philly did to save a buck).

[Buzzard]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

Quality vets don't play on non-guaranteed contracts.  So if the issue is guaranteed salary then you will have lesser talent than first round picks (with the exception of the 30th pick which won't generate superior talent in the aggregate than 2nd rounders but will have an advantage over undrafted players) by pushing for non-guaranteed players.

There is value in the mentoring aspect of having vets on the team for sure.  I don't see it so much in reputation, though.  Plumlee, Ilya, Moose and Belli did squat for Atlanta's reputation last season.  Because the team was losing so many games and lacked high ceiling young players, there was no collection of low paid vets that was going to swing the team's reputation with FAs.  For mentoring, I can get on board with that.

I'm 99% on board with the idea that the guy who ends up with the best player in a trade wins the trade so I'm good if we package and move up to take superior quality all day.  (Just don't trade up to take Tractor Traylor and pass on Dirk or trade up to get Fultz, etc.).

I guess you did not think much of Ersan or Marco; but they are exactly the type of vet I am talking about. Been around the league, been on good teams, know how to be professionals, signed one or two year deals, only one year guaranteed.

No one moves up to draft a bust but shit happens. All year long you have been a proponent of high picks are better than lower picks, so I expected you and I to agree on this.

 

[thecampster]

The biggest issue is in making trades later in the season.  If you have too many low salaried players and start taking back players in a salary dump (to get picks), you are limited in what you can do because too much salary can't be matched by players should you want to trade for enough to get you back over the cap.

IE...a team wants to trade you a $25 million dollar player and is willing to give up future firsts to dump the contract. The difference between the cap and the salary floor is about $10 million.  Being under the floor (lets say 2 million).  You'd need to trade back $13 million in salary to make the deal work. But because you have almost no players worth that much, it will require sending back 2 to 3 players. That complicates things and ties your hands.  The minimum salary is designed to facilitate future dealings. Going under it is actually a hamstring.

 

[Buzzard]

24 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I guess you did not think much of Ersan or Marco; but they are exactly the type of vet I am talking about. Been around the league, been on good teams, know how to be professionals, signed one or two year deals, only one year guaranteed.

No one moves up to draft a bust but shit happens. All year long you have been a proponent of high picks are better than lower picks, so I expected you and I to agree on this.

 

My bad on Bel, we traded for him and he had one year left of a three year deal. We signed Ersan to a one year 6 million dollar deal.

[AHF]

56 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

My bad on Bel, we traded for him and he had one year left of a three year deal. We signed Ersan to a one year 6 million dollar deal.

I think both of those guys are useful vets.  Perfect additions to a team like Philly who is ready to win now to bolster them for the playoffs.  

It isn't what I think of them that matters -- the discussion was around whether they change the perception of the team to free agents.  They don't.

[AHF]

3 hours ago, thecampster said:

Golden State’s entertaining style of play, their enthusiastic fans, and — most importantly — their success put them on the map. No longer would Golden State be a last resort for top free agents.

 

So you higlighted the fact that their teams were put together with D-League talent.  Making the point for me that talent is the issue.

Show me which of those seasons the guys failed to make the minimum payroll and paid the tax because that is the entire subject we have been talking about -- whether it matters if you make the minimum salary numbers.  I've already said that having low talent, big loss rosters means next to no interest from top free agents regardless of whether you are talking about a bloated Knicks payroll or a cost cutting Sixers payroll.  The causal factors are talent and wins and to a lesser extent market -- not payroll level.

So tie it back to payroll level for me.  Pointing out that the Warriors were a last resort when their talent sucked and then became the most desirable place in the game when their draft picks blossomed into top talent does nothing for your argument that it is about payroll moreso than talent.

For example, the Sixers and Hawks had almost identical payroll numbers this year.  One team is super talented and the other was talent starved.  FA interest in those teams will not be identical despite nearly identical payrolls and despite Philly having a recent history of being cheap and the Hawks having a recent history of competitive payrolls because free agents don't care about that and respond to the talent, market and ability to win on the roster.

You see it in other sports too.  The Cubs and Houston ruthlessly tanked and ran super low payrolls for several years.  Do FAs give a #$*& about that now?  Of course not.  They improved their talent and became two of the most desirable free agent destinations in the game.  Those teams didn't want to sign big free agents when they were losing - they wanted to lose and build talent.  When they started winning, free agents didn't give a #$* about the prior low ball salaries and signed up to join the burgeoning talent on those squads.  

[hazer]

 

[JayBirdHawk]

@Peoriabird

 

[Peoriabird]

6 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

@Peoriabird

 

You mean he isn't afraid of having cap flexibility???? What if the cap number become too low and we can't make a trade?  LOL!

[Buzzard]

9 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You mean he isn't afraid of having cap flexibility???? What is the cap number become too low and we can't make a trade?  LOL!

Our real problem right now is our gap in salaries. Prince is at 2.5 million, Plumlee is at 12.5 million. We have nothing in between to move to work out a deal. Moose will probably opt in at 5 million; but if Dedmon does not, we still need some more contracts in that middle area.

This is just my opinion; but I cannot see anyone wanting to do a salary dump plus send us a pick and we have to send them Plumlee to make it work. That is really a salary dump for us lmao. In other words the only decent size useful contract for a salary dump is Moose and that is only if he opts back in.

Unless of course they want our rookie contracts or a longer term one like Dennis, Baze, or Plumlee, But then as I am trying to get across, those contracts are guaranteed and not really salary dumps.

[Peoriabird]

5 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Our real problem right now is our gap in salaries. Prince is at 2.5 million, Plumlee is at 12.5 million. We have nothing in between to move to work out a deal. Moose will probably opt in at 5 million; but if Dedmon does not, we still need some more contracts in that middle area.

This is just my opinion; but I cannot see anyone wanting to do a salary dump plus send us a pick and we have to send them Plumlee to make it work. That is really a salary dump for us lmao. In other words the only decent size useful contract for a salary dump is Moose and that is only if he opts back in.

Unless of course they want our rookie contracts or a longer term one like Dennis, Baze, or Plumlee, But then as I am trying to get across, those contracts are guaranteed and not really salary dumps.

I guess we'll just have to sign someone to a 1 year deal like we did with Ilyasova last year.  We can also resign Dedmon to a 3 year deal if he opts out

[nathan2331]

 

 

Our real problem right now is our gap in salaries. Prince is at 2.5 million, Plumlee is at 12.5 million. We have nothing in between to move to work out a deal. Moose will probably opt in at 5 million; but if Dedmon does not, we still need some more contracts in that middle area.

This is just my opinion; but I cannot see anyone wanting to do a salary dump plus send us a pick and we have to send them Plumlee to make it work. That is really a salary dump for us lmao. In other words the only decent size useful contract for a salary dump is Moose and that is only if he opts back in.

Unless of course they want our rookie contracts or a longer term one like Dennis, Baze, or Plumlee, But then as I am trying to get across, those contracts are guaranteed and not really salary dumps.

 

I get your point, but as we found out this season, even players like Ilyasova and Bellinelli weren't valuable for salary dumps. I would've thought we could've traded those two to Philly for a pick swap at minimum (I don't know if they could've added protections) and we take on Bayless' contract but we ended up buying them out. I see your point, but I'm not concerned with stacking up rookie contracts. It's only going to be a problem if we have 4 or 5 guys who can't contribute in any significant way.

[thecampster]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

So you higlighted the fact that their teams were put together with D-League talent.  Making the point for me that talent is the issue.

Show me which of those seasons the guys failed to make the minimum payroll and paid the tax because that is the entire subject we have been talking about -- whether it matters if you make the minimum salary numbers.  I've already said that having low talent, big loss rosters means next to no interest from top free agents regardless of whether you are talking about a bloated Knicks payroll or a cost cutting Sixers payroll.  The causal factors are talent and wins and to a lesser extent market -- not payroll level.

So tie it back to payroll level for me.  Pointing out that the Warriors were a last resort when their talent sucked and then became the most desirable place in the game when their draft picks blossomed into top talent does nothing for your argument that it is about payroll moreso than talent.

For example, the Sixers and Hawks had almost identical payroll numbers this year.  One team is super talented and the other was talent starved.  FA interest in those teams will not be identical despite nearly identical payrolls and despite Philly having a recent history of being cheap and the Hawks having a recent history of competitive payrolls because free agents don't care about that and respond to the talent, market and ability to win on the roster.

You see it in other sports too.  The Cubs and Houston ruthlessly tanked and ran super low payrolls for several years.  Do FAs give a #$*& about that now?  Of course not.  They improved their talent and became two of the most desirable free agent destinations in the game.  Those teams didn't want to sign big free agents when they were losing - they wanted to lose and build talent.  When they started winning, free agents didn't give a #$* about the prior low ball salaries and signed up to join the burgeoning talent on those squads.  

Sorry...you are the one person I refuse to argue with on the board. For you no amount of proof is enough. For me this isn't even an argument. I refuse to try and find the magic unicorn number of articles and the magic player statement of "I won't sign there, they F'd their players". I presented you with 2 articles that show this already. That being cheap leads to a reputation. Its up to you to believe it or not. Your constant lawyer mentality of trying to destroy facts with imagination is maddening. Here's something to try. Go to a mirror and repeat this and see how it feels.  "Hmm, I hadn't considered that before...hmmm....yes there might be truth in that."  It'll open a whole new world for you.

Because it worked out for Chicago and Houston, doesn't mean that A) it worked for everyone and B) that it didn't mean years and years of player distrust and problems. This straw man argument is exactly the type of lawyer mentality I'm talking about.  How about Orlando? Do you see a line of free agents wanting to go to Orlando? How about Sacramento?  Lebron is just chomping at the bit to go to Sactown right?  See...its easy to do. Pick an outlier and use it to fit your insanity.  We can do it all day but sane people on this board don't want to tank endlessly for 10 years hoping for a playoff team. We don't want to be Philly. Philly was so bad for so long that they sniffed the playoffs and got to the second round this year and their fan base lost their damned minds. We started this process because the 2nd round was no longer palatable. Build it right or don't build it at all.  Another 3-5 years of losing will leave scars that no 2nd round playoff season will fix.

[thecampster]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/

 

 

In a way, there is a dark genius behind the tanking epidemic. In what other industry could you persuade your customers to root for the worst possible product? But tanking puzzles academics like David Berri, the author of the 2006 book The Wages of Wins and a widely read commentator on sports economics. “Tanking simply does not work,” he told me. Nearly 30 years of data tell a crystal-clear story: a truly awful team has never once metamorphosed into a championship squad through the draft. The last team to draft No. 1 and then win a championship (at any point thereafter) was the San Antonio Spurs, which lucked into the pick (Tim Duncan) back in 1997 when the team’s star center, David Robinson, missed all but six games the previous season because of injuries. The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

 

and yes...the players know this too!

[thecampster]

https://orlandomagicdaily.com/2017/09/27/orlando-magic-national-reputation-repair/

 

But we have found time and time again the best indicator of a franchise’s leaguewide perception – how players, agents and other general managers view an organization – is the opinion of fans and media members. Teams with a bad reputation among fans often have a bad reputation around the league too. And that matters.

Want to attract a quality free agent? Make a trade? The best way to get a good deal is to have a good reputation. Players, agents and executives should want to deal with your organization. Agents should view Orlando as a franchise that can help their clients shine. Players should see the Magic as a place they can develop and/or win. Executives should approach dealings with their counterparts with the expectation the negotiations will be in good faith, not that they’ll be able to fleece him.

Do I need to go on?

[AHF]

You keep telling me that it is low payrolls that are the causal factor towards bad reputations and then pointing me to things other than payroll.

You literally just pointed me to:

1 - Golden State whose reputation went hand in hand with their record.  When they were floundering in the lottery they couldn't land a free agent.  When their talent blossomed and they won big they signed a FA MVP who didn't give two #$*&s about their prior history of low payrolls.

2 - An article saying talent and wins are the key and not mentioning salary -- the Atlantic article points out that teams at the top of the lottery -- i.e., who just lost the most games in the league -- and whose talent is so depleted as to render them likely to fail to make the playoffs in the upcoming years have a bad reputation.  Yep.  You see me nodding along with that.  Exactly what I have said.

3 - An article on Orlando arguing that perception of fans and the media are the key (not team salary).  It then goes on to argue that fans and the media look to what...low salaries?  Nope.  Actually says the opposite that salary wouldn't help.  So let's look at the what the article points to as the causal factors:

   a - The team's run of losing seasons.  (I.e., the wins I mentioned)

Quote

The Magic are now five years removed from their last winning season. The team is in the midst of a franchise-long Playoff drought [i.e., lack of wins] and All-Star [i.e., lack of talent] drought. This is an undoubtedly a low point for the franchise.  This lack of recent success has only pushed them further to the league’s fringes. 

   b - The team's inability to draft a star.  (i.e., the talent I mentioned)

Quote

Arguably the biggest reason [for the lack of respect] is the post-Dwight Howard rebuild has failed to net the team a player who has shown he can contribute to winning, much less a star [i.e., lack of talent]. The team’s lottery picks have landed them just out of reach of each draft’s marquee names.

Notably the article doesn't argue that low salaries is a causal for the bad reputation.  In fact, it argues the opposite saying that high payrolls would not have helped their reputation:

Quote

If the Magic had spent a lot of money, they would have been criticized for doubling down on a mediocre roster and not learning from last year’s mistakes.

If you have changed your argument to say that winning teams with talent generally have very good reputations and losing teams without talent generally don't have good reputations then I am now fully aligned with you.  If you are trying to say these articles are somehow supporting the idea that it is low payrolls that are the key moreso than wins and talent then I would suggest you read them again.

[Peoriabird]

24 minutes ago, AHF said:

If you have changed your argument to say that winning teams with talent generally have very good reputations and losing teams without talent generally don't have good reputations then I am now fully aligned with you.  If you are trying to say these articles are somehow supporting the idea that it is low payrolls that are the key moreso than wins and talent then I would suggest you read them again.

I'm glad someone has the patients to respond to nonsense.  Kudos to you AHF!

[thecampster]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

You keep telling me that it is low payrolls that are the causal factor towards bad reputations and then pointing me to things other than payroll.

You literally just pointed me to:

1 - Golden State whose reputation went hand in hand with their record.  When they were floundering in the lottery they couldn't land a free agent.  When their talent blossomed and they won big they signed a FA MVP who didn't give two #$*&s about their prior history of low payrolls.

2 - An article saying talent and wins are the key and not mentioning salary -- the Atlantic article points out that teams at the top of the lottery -- i.e., who just lost the most games in the league -- and whose talent is so depleted as to render them likely to fail to make the playoffs in the upcoming years have a bad reputation.  Yep.  You see me nodding along with that.  Exactly what I have said.

3 - An article on Orlando arguing that perception of fans and the media are the key (not team salary).  It then goes on to argue that fans and the media look to what...low salaries?  Nope.  Actually says the opposite that salary wouldn't help.  So let's look at the what the article points to as the causal factors:

   a - The team's run of losing seasons.  (I.e., the wins I mentioned)

   b - The team's inability to draft a star.  (i.e., the talent I mentioned)

Notably the article doesn't argue that low salaries is a causal for the bad reputation.  In fact, it argues the opposite saying that high payrolls would not have helped their reputation:

If you have changed your argument to say that winning teams with talent generally have very good reputations and losing teams without talent generally don't have good reputations then I am now fully aligned with you.  If you are trying to say these articles are somehow supporting the idea that it is low payrolls that are the key moreso than wins and talent then I would suggest you read them again.

OMG ever one of those articles highlights different ways teams are being cheap and that is the source of the reputation. That they aren't willing to pay players. All done arguing with you. Each one of those articles addresses the cheap angle in part or full. There are no magic unicorn direct quotes where a player comes out and says "Team X is cheap so I won't sign with them"....Oh wait...there is.... Al Horford. Stop it!