Simple Question: Will the Hawks Start the season OVER OR UNDER the Luxury Tax?

[Final_quest]

It's possible for two things to be true.  Ressler won't invest enough in the team because he only cares about profit and there was no way we were gonna put a contender together in a short amount of time after we signed everyone to big contracts and traded for Murray.

Even if Ressler goes all in and we trade Huerter for a guy like Josh Hart (which that is basically a fantasy move), that team has $200M committed in salary the next year and only 1 first round pick available to trade.  Your starters are still Trae, Murray, Hunter or Hart, Collins, and Capela.  What the heck do you do when the second apron is $182M?  Add another MLE player and have $212M in committed salary?  We were gonna cut Collins any way this went down, whether we traded Huerter for substance or not.  
    
There's only complete fantasy scenarios where a fully supported roster gets you on par with the other contenders.  The one thing that could have propelled us they tried to do, Siakam.  What I hear you guys saying that fully supported by the owner also looks like roster malpractice to an insane degree.  Everyone is in their feelings about losing talent, but that was an inevitability like the Titanic headed for an iceberg.  

What actually happened is a much better outcome than Ressler spending up to the first apron two years in a row.  We got a first for Huerter and because we were just bad enough we miraculously get the #1 overall pick.  Even with our cuts do you guys realize we have some of the most committed salary in the league?  That's STILL one of our main problems.  More spending in the past two years makes that a bigger problem.  

In the Ressler goes all in scenario we'd have about $175M in committed salary going into the offseason, no pick next year, a mid first rounder this year in a weak class, and two years straight of luxury spending headed towards the repeater penalties.  Meaning one more year of paying the tax and we would be in deep doo, severe restrictions.  

[AHF]

This all goes to emphasize how really, really dumb it is to overpay players when you aren't willing to have a high payroll.  So let's not get someone like Brandon Ingram and overpay them and set ourselves up to repeat this cycle.  Our ownership and GM need to get a plan and stick to it - not do moves that push us towards a bloated payroll on the one hand and then make cost cutting moves that slash salary and hurt the team on the other hand.  Don't give up a bunch of draft assets for a guy and then slash talent from the roster.  Don't lock in a high baseline of salary when your budget is to be in the bottom third of team salary.  These things run contrary to one another and show a lack of coherent vision.

The goal is to contend.  To contend you need to have sufficient talent to make and advance in the playoffs.  When you make moves that eliminate that as a possibility and don't put you on a path to getting there in the foreseeable future that is a problem.  So I have issues with overpaying JC and Hunter. I still have issues with the price we gave up for DJM.  I still have issues with the return we got on the trades for Huerter and JC.  I still have issues putting all our eggs in the Siakam basket and not trying to fill out the bottom half of the roster when we had a bunch of red flag injury risks among our top 8 (and I don't include Trae in that group despite his injury last year).

We've got a great chance to put ourselves on a different path this offseason between the #1 pick and our need to trade Trae or DJM.  As I said a month or so ago, this is arguably the most important offseason in the history of the team.  Fields needs to bring his A game and Ressler needs to let his basketball people make the decisions.  If we put ourselves right back in this position where we have to cut talent every year to keep from paying the tax, I have very little confidence we will do anything other than continue to dwell in mediocrity.  We either need a lower baseline in salary where we can add quality pieces in the offseason or we need to put ourselves in a position where pushing into the tax makes sense.  (To credit Fields, DJM and OO's contracts are both first good steps down this path, imo.)  

[Final_quest]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

We've got a great chance to put ourselves on a different path this offseason between the #1 pick and our need to trade Trae or DJM.  As I said a month or so ago, this is arguably the most important offseason in the history of the team.  Fields needs to bring his A game and Ressler needs to let his basketball people make the decisions.  If we put ourselves right back in this position where we have to cut talent every year to keep from paying the tax, I have very little confidence we will do anything other than continue to dwell in mediocrity.  We either need a lower baseline in salary where we can add quality pieces in the offseason or we need to put ourselves in a position where pushing into the tax makes sense.  (To credit Fields, DJM and OO's contracts are both first good steps down this path, imo.)  

We had to cut John Collins and there's a reason why we couldn't get anything back for him:

Would you be surprised to know that the Jazz perform worse in Collins minutes than any other player on the roster?

Would you be surprised to know Collins is dead last of all starters in the NBA in on/off net rating?

Would you be surprised to know that Collins -7.7 on court net rating is the worst of any player on a team even close to .500?

Would you be surprised to know the Jazz have a 124.4(!!!) defensive rating when Collins is on the floor? (The worst defensive rating for a team in history is 121)

Collins can be productive on the offensive-end, and can even pass the eye test. But do not get it twisted he has been really far from being really good.

*********************************************************

I do agree that we have a really good opportunity to pivot this year.  I keep hoping to hear a good trade rumor for Murray or Capela.   JC TPE expires 7/8, but we pretty much have $175M on the books after landing the #1 pick.  What can you do with that TPE unless you cut some salary before then?  

 

[AHF]

13 hours ago, Final_quest said:

We had to cut John Collins and there's a reason why we couldn't get anything back for him:

Would you be surprised to know that the Jazz perform worse in Collins minutes than any other player on the roster?

Would you be surprised to know Collins is dead last of all starters in the NBA in on/off net rating?

Would you be surprised to know that Collins -7.7 on court net rating is the worst of any player on a team even close to .500?

Would you be surprised to know the Jazz have a 124.4(!!!) defensive rating when Collins is on the floor? (The worst defensive rating for a team in history is 121)

Collins can be productive on the offensive-end, and can even pass the eye test. But do not get it twisted he has been really far from being really good.

*********************************************************

I do agree that we have a really good opportunity to pivot this year.  I keep hoping to hear a good trade rumor for Murray or Capela.   JC TPE expires 7/8, but we pretty much have $175M on the books after landing the #1 pick.  What can you do with that TPE unless you cut some salary before then?  

 

Would you be surprised to know that we didn't have a PF on the roster when JJ got hurt last season?  Obviously we were worse without JC and having to play SFs in his spot.  When JJ was out last season, we were dramatically worse.  Same situation with Hunter.  You cut a wing and a PF from the team and replace them with nothing and you get a pretty terrible team when you lose your starter for any length of time.

But to answer your questions, no I am not surprised at that at all.  I posted when the Jazz acquired Collins that he and Lauri play the same position and somewhat the same role and so there was no natural fit for Collins.  Playing him at SF and C like the Jazz did for much of the year is putting him and the team in a position to fail.

Think about this.  The opening night lineup was:

Walker Kessler at Center

Lauri at PF 

and JC at SF

Who thinks that is going to work? 

That was most of the year for the Jazz.  I'm just randomly clicking on a few games here:

December 26:

Kelly O at C

Lauri at PF

JC at SF

January 15:

JC at C

Lauri at PF

Simon Fonteccio at SF

 

It doesn't take a basketball genius to know JC isn't going to excel in these positions and that the team will not be good while he is checking an opposing center or an opposing wing.  The case I made above was not that JC is a star or anything like that.  It is that when you take away a useful rotation player and replace them with nothing the team is both worse and more shallow.  Not sure how anyone could watch last season and not appreciate that fact.  You didn't need a star coming off the bench but you needed a viable substitute and we obviously didn't have anyone to fill that role.  (Which was an obvious need given JJ's injury track record.)  

[JayBirdHawk]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

It is that when you take away a useful rotation player and replace them with nothing the team is both worse and more shallow.  Not sure how anyone could watch last season and not appreciate that fact.  You didn't need a star coming off the bench but you needed a viable substitute and we obviously didn't have anyone to fill that role.  (Which was an obvious need given JJ's injury track record.)  

......can't be said enough.

[Final_quest]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

It is that when you take away a useful rotation player and replace them with nothing the team is both worse and more shallow.  Not sure how anyone could watch last season and not appreciate that fact.  

It's not like the Hawks weren't aware the roster was gonna suffer after they cut JC.  You guys are saying this like it's a big discovery no one thought about including the FO.  Dude.  We were aware.

Why do you think they tried so hard to get Siakam?  Once that failed it's clear they didn't like any option available to them, and essentially went into the season with Jalen, Bey, and Mo Gueye, plus Hunter who can play some 4.  All of those guys got injured for significant stretches.  It wasn't pretty, especially with the injuries.  

At the moment we struck out on Siakam we don't know what the options available were.  But I'm not gonna pretend one more backup 4, would have saved our season.  Would we have been a better team with another decent backup?  Sure, but the devil is in the details. 

Who was available and for how much?  What level of player is available for a one year deal after most of the prominent signings are done?  What would we have to trade, knowing we don't have much draft capital to get another option?  I'm guessing a lot of people wouldn't have liked the options if they knew what they were. 

Even if we did execute on a move, after all of our injuries, the level of backup we would have brought in would have lead to marginally better results.  That's not much to hang your hat on or spend a lot of time being upset over.  

 

[Jdawgflow]

I am way late in replying to this question. 
 

Sadly, my answer is No for now.  I need Tony to open up that pocket book or at least get a new mattress to sleep on that is not stuffed full of money.

I was shocked and surprised to find a picture of Tony.  I didn’t know he used a pseudonym.

[AHF]

24 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

It's not like the Hawks weren't aware the roster was gonna suffer after they cut JC.  You guys are saying this like it's a big discovery no one thought about including the FO.  Dude.  We were aware.

 

Remember how the front office went out and added a  minimum contract PF?  Me either.  Glad we had Wesley Matthews to pick up the slack.

Quote

Why do you think they tried so hard to get Siakam?  Once that failed it's clear they didn't like any option available to them, and essentially went into the season with Jalen, Bey, and Mo Gueye, plus Hunter who can play some 4.  All of those guys got injured for significant stretches.  It wasn't pretty, especially with the injuries.  

We could have signed a low profile guy on day 1 of free agency.  Would not have interfered in any way with a Siakam trade.  Would have given us someone to step in similar to how Bruno did when OO and CC were out.  Not a guy you are excited to have in the lineup necessarily but much better than asking your wing players to step into a big man spot.

You would be baking in a worse team this way but at least not one with gaping holes.

Quote

At the moment we struck out on Siakam we don't know what the options available were.  But I'm not gonna pretend one more backup 4, would have saved our season.  Would we have been a better team with another decent backup?  Sure, but the devil is in the details. 

Saved our season?  Sure.  This season had a number of factors working against it.  But we would have been better with a backup PF and a backup who could defend big wings.  Between trading Huerter and JC you would have liked to have gotten that.  With a massive TPE you would have liked to have gotten that.  With the MLE (which you aren't required to use all of on a single player) you would liked to have gotten that.  In FA you would have liked to have gotten that.  Lots of levers to pull.  Levers pulled?  Zero.

Quote

Even if we did execute on a move, after all of our injuries, the level of backup we would have brought in would have lead to marginally better results.  That's not much to hang your hat on or spend a lot of time being upset over.  

If I can't be upset over obviously stupid roster management, then I'm probably not going to spend a ton of time on a hardcore Hawks fan site.  Comes with the territory whether we are obsessing over coaching strategy, player development, front office activity (or inactivity), etc.

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

If I can't be upset over obviously stupid roster management, then I'm probably not going to spend a ton of time on a hardcore Hawks fan site.  

I take it back.  You can be upset about whatever you want.  A fringe roster guy like Frank Kaminsky instead of no one.  I’m sure everyone would have been way more content with the season if we did a move like that.  
 

(Actually I honestly think people would have said they had no intention of getting Siakam.  Instead we got Kaminsky.)

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

(Actually I honestly think people would have said they had no intention of getting Siakam.  Instead we got Kaminsky.)

we got Wes Matthews instead of Siakam didn't we?

[Final_quest]

2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

we got Wes Matthews instead of Siakam didn't we?

I’m saying if we got a PF instead of Matthews, it would be someone like Kaminsky.  Basically a low impact guy.  

[JeffS17]

There's an alternate universe where we filled out the most competitive roster possible for this past season, with better bench strength 11-15, paid an exorbitant tax bill, squeezed out an 8th seed, missed out on the lottery and the first pick, only to get bounced easily in the first round by Boston.

I cannot overstate how grateful I am with the FO strategic decision making that did not send us down that path.

[AHF]

12 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

There's an alternate universe where we filled out the most competitive roster possible for this past season, with better bench strength 11-15, paid an exorbitant tax bill, squeezed out an 8th seed, missed out on the lottery and the first pick, only to get bounced easily in the first round by Boston.

I cannot overstate how grateful I am with the FO strategic decision making that did not send us down that path.

So we could have been a playin team in this alternate reality?  Good to know.  Very keen decision making to only make us a playin team.

Seriously, we absolutely did not do anything to pay the tax.  So that didn’t happen.

Even within the constraints of not paying the tax and not adding future salary, we didn’t put ourselves in the best position to compete.

When it became clear this was a lost season we didn’t do like the Spurs and lean into the injuries and instead played DJM dangerously high minutes and so reduced our lottery odds.

Then when we made the play-in we soft tanked by keeping Vit off the roster to keep us in the lottery.

There was no goal we intelligently pursued whether that was competing, competing on a budget, or maximizing lottery odds.  The best thing we did was get lucky in the lottery.

[Final_quest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

There was no goal we intelligently pursued whether that was competing, competing on a budget, or maximizing lottery odds.  The best thing we did was get lucky in the lottery.

What they seemed to do was compete with the guys available. 

If I were to put what they did in a positive light, you could argue they wanted to prepare for next year as much as possible. playing the right way, trying to win without investing in or adding another player to the roster.  Therefore deciding not to full on tank.  Focus on developing positive chemistry with the players they had.  

I understand THEY DID NOTHING TO ADD TO THE ROSTER after cutting Collins.  We got it.  I'm less hung up on not bringing a low impact bench player than I am excited that they are spending more time and effort on guys like Siakam.  

I think the suttle, or not so suttle, implication is Ressler is so cheap he wouldn't even pay for a vet min PF to help our roster and possibly mandated NO MORE SPENDING OF ANY KIND.  Therefore we can't count on him to ever fully invest in the roster.  For me there are layers to that conversation that all have different answers: should we have traded Huerter for a pick, should we have cut JC, should we have been in the luxury tax the past two years, should we have signed Hunter, JC, etc.  

The Lakers, Suns, Heat, and Clippers all acquired stars and went into the tax to push for a title.  Minnesota is headed that direction.  Does it really need to be explained why acquiring Dejounte Murray isn't on par with those situations?    

People mad because Tony doesn't pay the tax have a big problem explaining how and when we were in a similar position as the Lakers, Suns, Heat, and Clippers, etc.  When I see Lakers added Lebron and AD, Suns bring in KD, Clippers get PG and Kawhi, it doesn't ring remotely the same as Hawks bring in Dejounte Murray.  The Knicks didn't go into the tax after bringing in Brunson.  The Cavs didn't after bringing in Donovan Mitchell.  Why should we put Murray in the same category as KD, Lebron, and Kawhi when other teams who brought in much better players didn't go into the tax either? 

[AHF]

Bear in mind he didn't need to settle for a minimum salary PF.  We could have avoided the tax and avoided adding future salary and either traded for a $12M player with an expiring contract or offered a FA that much on an expiring deal instead of filling the roster spot with Matthews when we already had Bogi, Hunter, AJ, JJ, Vit, and Bey capable of playing minutes at the 3.  

Re: Murray we didn't know whether he was on par or not at the time we cut salary and talent.  He hadn't played a minute for us at that point and had an All-NBA Defense and All-Star selection under his belt.  Assuming he would fail is one approach but it kind of seems like you are betting on him raising the performance of the team when you trade for him.  And that was two years of making the playoffs including an ECF appearance and a season where the frontcourt was in shambles and the team got beaten up by an eventual ECF Game 7 team.  In actuality, the team was worse with him but I can't imagine that was what they were counting on when the deal was done.  If you take a team that already is making the playoffs and has had playoff success and raise the bar from there that should be a pretty good team.  Perhaps a team good enough to get back to where they were only a season before.

For this offseason, there was no conflict between adding talent and avoiding the tax.  Of course, adding some talent would require paying the tax if not offset with cost cutting but I'm keeping things simple and looking at use of the levers we had to pull.  There was room for both adding quality talent and avoiding both the tax and future payroll.  We did the bare minimum when we had 8 figures to play with.

[Final_quest]

12 minutes ago, AHF said:

Re: Murray we didn't know whether he was on par or not at the time we cut salary and talent.  He hadn't played a minute for us at that point and had an All-NBA Defense and All-Star selection under his belt.  Assuming he would fail is one approach but it kind of seems like you are betting on him raising the performance of the team when you trade for him. 

Not going into the tax is assuming failure?  That's pretty dramatic.  Murray and Young were like 25 years old.  I get Phoenix going all in.  Hawks acquire Murray after a .500 season and they are now contenders?  No one even projected anything like that.  No one. Kevin Huerter would not have changed the team projection one bit nor would he have changed the outcome much in real life either.   

We didn't know Murray wasn't on the level of KD, Kawhi, or Lebron?  That's pretty close to a lie.  We should have thought of him like that and spent $200M on payroll?  You can't be serious.  

[JayBirdHawk]

48 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

 

If I were to put what they did in a positive light, you could argue they wanted to prepare for next year as much as possible. playing the right way, trying to win without investing in or adding another player to the roster.  Therefore deciding not to full on tank.  Focus on developing positive chemistry with the players they had.  

Naaaaa....not when the whole 'avoid the play-in" was a talking point, particularly Messey Ressey.

[Final_quest]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Naaaaa....not when the whole 'avoid the play-in" was a talking point, particularly Messey Ressey.

I was just giving another plausible scenario on the question, "What were we trying to do?".  Besides the goal changed as injuries mounted.

But just to help you out on reading front office language... All the teams that don't have much chance of getting into the play-in say their goal is to make the play-in.  Teams that are play-in level say their goal is to avoid the play-in.  Teams that are top 6 say their goal is to win the championship.  Your stated goal at the start of the season is what's called a stretch goal.  

[JayBirdHawk]

20 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Hawks acquire Murray after a .500 season and they are now contenders? 

Contenders? No one knows. 

But I would have at least liked to start a season with more talent than not. Going into the season with more talent vs less, the projections would anticipate more wins.

Example 

Last season Minny: 42-40

Last season Hawks: 41-41

This season both teams going in opposite directions.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

I was just giving another plausible scenario on the question, "What were we trying to do?".  Besides the goal changed as injuries mounted.
 

We are at an impasse.

All I want is to start a season so that when I look at the roster I can say 'this could be a top 4 seed and not a trying to avoid the playin team.'

All I'm asking is for a good faith effort to add real NBA talent and have it not be a situation where all roads lead to 'avoid the Luxury Tax'