When does Landry’s hot 🥵 seat 💺 start?

[Sothron]

Why would TR fire Landry when he's doing what Tony wants? He hasn't paid the tax and he hasn't traded Trae for a can of beans and someone's barely worn Danny Manning Hawks jersey *cough*. 

The owner wants to win without paying the tax. It is very hard to do that. Landry isn't a bad GM. We have the worst owner in the NBA. Blaming the FO when the owner gets 1/11000 of the fan criticism he deserves is just silly to me.

[Dejay]

Laundry's seat is as cold as Stacey Augmon's 3-point shooting chart. He's doing exactly what is being told to him by Mr. Ressling I and II so as long as they're within hailing range of a play-in spot and State Farm keeps selling out because of Trae's star power, everything is perfectly fine. At least to them, anyway.

And besides, if they were to let him go, who would they replace him with? No one worth his salt would bother picking up the phone, especially while knowing in advance that Mr. Ressling I is as allergic to the luxury tax as real men are to boy bands. So what, they'd toss him out to hire yet another newbie who was previously an intern's assistant's admin's secretary's student's trainee on another team? Wait a minute, that is exactly what they'd do.

Sigh...

[StonedDogs]

He should have never been in the frigging seat to start with. Him and Korver 

I look at Miami nail draft pick after draft pick with lower picks than the Hawks and see their WHOLE organization knows what's going on. Landry just beats on tables. 

[StonedDogs]

11 hours ago, Final_quest said:

It’s crazy how much I agree with your takes.  I would add he spent to accelerate our winning with Gallo and Bogi, (we could have slow played the early Trae years.) He also is paying Quin a top coach salary.  This will be 4/5 years of spending up to the tax. 

Teague was emphatically supportive of him.  Why should I listen to fans over a former player who interacted with him directly?  

Too engaged and passionate has more evidence than him not caring and only wanting money.   Would like to see him be patient and stick with a long term strategy.  

For the same reason you'd listen to Erik who didn't play Spolstra over Teague who is not a HOFer. 

[AHF]

7 hours ago, Sothron said:

Why would TR fire Landry when he's doing what Tony wants? He hasn't paid the tax and he hasn't traded Trae for a can of beans and someone's barely worn Danny Manning Hawks jersey *cough*. 

The owner wants to win without paying the tax. It is very hard to do that. Landry isn't a bad GM. We have the worst owner in the NBA. Blaming the FO when the owner gets 1/11000 of the fan criticism he deserves is just silly to me.

With regard to my criticism of the trade, I suppose when you view the other big asset as dumping salary to get under the tax it explains why we didn’t get better value.  That could indeed be a Ressler issue more than a Fields one.  (For example, perhaps we conceded to double pick protections if NO structured the deal to let us dodge the tax without needing to make other moves.)  I suppose since I don’t have visibility into the actual trade negotiations that my criticism of Fields should be read as Landry and/or Ressler.

[JeffS17]

9 hours ago, sturt said:

1. I'm not a fan of any of those other teams, so I'm not intimately acquainted with whether there is any substantive reason that, if they were on an upward trajectory, it would be more reasonable than not to presume any one of those ownership groups could represent a glass ceiling to their franchise getting over the hump.

 

2. I am a fan of the Hawks (... albeit on hiatus).

I am intimately acquainted with our ownership, and have shown... effectively so, if I may be so bold... why there is substantial reason to believe that the owner will be content with relevance. And as such, that APR will resist stepping up to provide resources for a championship run without, first, having gained whatever he would determine to be sufficient additional income arising from sufficient on-court success, mitigating his risk exposure ahead of making a big move for a major piece anticipating an assault on said title run. Relevance is sufficient... arguably even ideal to the more conservative, risk-adverse types as APR seems to be... when the paramount concern is black ink.

Pairing that together with his megalomania that results in additional constraints on the basketball ops leadership, mainly the GM, having latitude to do their jobs well...

Yes, it's a hard sell to suggest that there is any other team in the league that is more likely to be locked in a hamster wheel pattern for the rest of the time current ownership remains in power. That, for reasons we've covered in these posts tonight, and so, I feel no need to repeat myself.

Are there other teams that share the traits of this one? I'm unaware of any, but does it even matter?

This is about our team, and about our team's self-inflicted obstacles to summitting Everest. As long as there are fans who excuse the behavior, why would anyone ever think the owner wouldn't feel just fine about his posture? Of course he will. There is little, if any, hope for any change on this front in the next 15-20 years.

Highly suggest you start looking into other teams then, because what you will find is that how we are managing our cap situation is exceptionally normal.  Teams that are trying to contend generally stay just below the tax line until they have a core in place that they are confident moving forward with, and then they pay the tax once those players extensions kick in.  Or teams that are already contending continue paying the tax, as you mentioned in your example of teams paying the tax a few years before winning a chip.  Although what is constantly missed with these surface level analysis is the intimate detail of the teams situation.  No play-in level 7-10th seed launches into the tax without more than a single all-star level player.  Is there a single precedent for that or are you hoping that Ressler creates it?

And for another team in the league that is more locked in to being a hamster wheel, take one look at Chicago.  Their situation is much more dire and their ownership only values making the playoffs/play-ins.  They're stuck in purgatory until their front office/ownership commits to a strategic vision that isn't focused just the next seasons playoff push.

All that said, I know that you are wholy convinced Ressler will not pay the tax-- many here share that sentiment, some with caveats, some without.  But until there is a reasonably clear situation to go into the tax, I personally will take his word for it because I actually do believe he will pay it when it comes time.  And if you think retaining Kevin Heurter to be a third string shooting guard is the situation that warrants paying the tax, we simply disagree.  All of the sabre rattling around paying the tax has failed to present a single transaction or scenario where it would actually make sense to pay it.  

[theheroatl]

 

[macdaddy]

25 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

No play-in level 7-10th seed launches into the tax without more than a single all-star level player.  Is there a single precedent for that or are you hoping that Ressler creates it?

That's a weird combination of conditions but just a cursory look.  Miami, Dallas, Phx, Utah, Philly have all been in the tax in the last few years.   I guess you'd make the case that Miami and Utah had 2 all stars?  The others maybe finished outside of the 7-10?

but this seems like chicken and the egg stuff.  

[RedDawg#8]

33 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

 

It’s been 3 full seasons since we had any capspace to spend on Free Agents.

This is the result of spending above the salary cap. You have less flexibility to spend, yet everyone wants us to jump in to the Tax where our flexibility is even worse.

[theheroatl]

1 minute ago, RedDawg#8 said:

It’s been 3 full seasons since we had any capspace to spend on Free Agents.

This is the result of spending above the salary cap. You have less flexibility to spend, yet everyone wants us to jump in to the Tax where our flexibility is even worse.

You don’t need capspace for free agents. Capspace is great but a majority of teams sign via the MLE and SNT

 

Edited July 8 by theheroatl

[RedDawg#8]

40 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

All of the sabre rattling around paying the tax has failed to present a single transaction or scenario where it would actually make sense to pay it.  

Last season, when we had no depth at forward and we shipped off JC for a TPE that we didn’t use all season long.

We could have used JC, or we could have used help when we had (1) or no healthy Power Forwards on the roster.

We punted a lot of winnable games on the backs of not having playable size on the roster. AND we could have still ducked the tax later in the season if we felt that the roster wasn’t working.

[JeffS17]

17 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

That's a weird combination of conditions but just a cursory look.  Miami, Dallas, Phx, Utah, Philly have all been in the tax in the last few years.   I guess you'd make the case that Miami and Utah had 2 all stars?  The others maybe finished outside of the 7-10?

but this seems like chicken and the egg stuff.  

Definitely a little bit chicken and the egg... also a massive piece we are missing are financial statements for these orgs for who can actually sustain a cash flow positive business while staying above the apron.  Teams like the Lakers are surely raking in way more than a team like the Grizzlies.  I suspect Atlanta is pretty middle of the pack.

I might compile some detailed data points on tax paying teams by year later to see what it looks like-- something like prior year seed, number of all-stars, age of all-stars, etc.  I welcome any feedback on relevant data points.  I could be surprised by the data and change my opinion

[Final_quest]

15 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Highly suggest you start looking into other teams then, because what you will find is that how we are managing our cap situation is exceptionally normal.  Teams that are trying to contend generally stay just below the tax line until they have a core in place that they are confident moving forward with, and then they pay the tax once those players extensions kick in.  Or teams that are already contending continue paying the tax, as you mentioned in your example of teams paying the tax a few years before winning a chip.  Although what is constantly missed with these surface level analysis is the intimate detail of the teams situation.  No play-in level 7-10th seed launches into the tax without more than a single all-star level player.  Is there a single precedent for that or are you hoping that Ressler creates it?

And for another team in the league that is more locked in to being a hamster wheel, take one look at Chicago.  Their situation is much more dire and their ownership only values making the playoffs/play-ins.  They're stuck in purgatory until their front office/ownership commits to a strategic vision that isn't focused just the next seasons playoff push.

All that said, I know that you are wholy convinced Ressler will not pay the tax-- many here share that sentiment, some with caveats, some without.  But until there is a reasonably clear situation to go into the tax, I personally will take his word for it because I actually do believe he will pay it when it comes time.  And if you think retaining Kevin Heurter to be a third string shooting guard is the situation that warrants paying the tax, we simply disagree.  All of the sabre rattling around paying the tax has failed to present a single transaction or scenario where it would actually make sense to pay it.  

Name the other team that hasn’t won more than 43 games that decided to go into the tax.  Exactly the problem.  Our fans are out of touch.  
They wanted to go into the tax after bringing in Murray acting like we just created a super team like Milwaukee adding Jrue to Giannis and Middleton.  

 

[macdaddy]

19 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Definitely a little bit chicken and the egg... also a massive piece we are missing are financial statements for these orgs for who can actually sustain a cash flow positive business while staying above the apron.  Teams like the Lakers are surely raking in way more than a team like the Grizzlies.  I suspect Atlanta is pretty middle of the pack.

I might compile some detailed data points on tax paying teams by year later to see what it looks like-- something like prior year seed, number of all-stars, age of all-stars, etc.  I welcome any feedback on relevant data points.  I could be surprised by the data and change my opinion

Here's our owner's net worth by year.  Not i realize this doesn't mean that the Hawks are super profitable but it certainly means they are super valuable.  He bought the Hawks in 2015.   But also I'm far from an expert because i just learned that his name is Antony not Anthony.  LOL.

[macdaddy]

15 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Name the other team that hasn’t won more than 43 games that decided to go into the tax.  Exactly the problem.  Our fans are out of touch.  
They wanted to go into the tax after bringing in Murray acting like we just created a super team like Milwaukee adding Jrue to Giannis and Middleton.  

 

Dallas Mavericks.   too easy. 

[JeffS17]

4 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Here's our owner's net worth by year.  Not i realize this doesn't mean that the Hawks are super profitable but it certainly means they are super valuable.  He bought the Hawks in 2015.   But also I'm far from an expert because i just learned that his name is Antony not Anthony.  LOL.

This discussion could go down a huge rabbit hole, but Tony only owns 50.1% of the Hawks.  So if the team is running at a cash flow loss and requires more capital, everyone has to contribute.  So if operations are losing $100M a year, Tony would put in ~$50M and the rest of the ownership group would put in the rest of the $50M based on their ownership %s.  So while it might be fine for Tony to run the franchise in a cash flow deficit every year, it might not be tenable for the rest of the ownership group.  They all probably have their own thresholds of what they're comfortable with.  I don't work in sports, so I don't know the appetite is or the standard for sports franchises operating at losses every year, so I can't really comment on that.  But I do think it's important to understand that it's not just Tony funding the team, there are other players involved (I don't think that list is public) that net worth charts likely do not look like that.

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

This discussion could go down a huge rabbit hole, but Tony only owns 50.1% of the Hawks.  So if the team is running at a cash flow loss and requires more capital, everyone has to contribute.  So if operations are losing $100M a year, Tony would put in ~$50M and the rest of the ownership group would put in the rest of the $50M based on their ownership %s.  So while it might be fine for Tony to run the franchise in a cash flow deficit every year, it might not be tenable for the rest of the ownership group.  They all probably have their own thresholds of what they're comfortable with.  I don't work in sports, so I don't know the appetite is or the standard for sports franchises operating at losses every year, so I can't really comment on that.  But I do think it's important to understand that it's not just Tony funding the team, there are other players involved (I don't think that list is public) that net worth charts likely do not look like that.

Hmm.  thanks.   So are these things true.  does Tony only own 50.1% because i thought it was more?  

And are you just surmising they are operating at a loss?  because i'd be surprised.  

In any case we all know this is mainly a real estate play for Tony and his brother so he's just running out the clock until Centennial Yards is finished and hoping Trae pulls another miracle out of his pocket. 

[Atlantaholic]

21 hours ago, Hawkmoor said:

Landry's seat is ice cold.  He is doing exactly what he has been instructed to do.

 

Quite irrelevent imo. This could be Ressler pulling the strings but if we finish outside of the top 10 again, which is entirely possible by the looks of our roster vs the rest of the conference, Landry is going to start seeing heat, either rightfully or as a scapegoat.

[JeffS17]

11 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Hmm.  thanks.   So are these things true.  does Tony only own 50.1% because i thought it was more?  

And are you just surmising they are operating at a loss?  because i'd be surprised.  

In any case we all know this is mainly a real estate play for Tony and his brother so he's just running out the clock until Centennial Yards is finished and hoping Trae pulls another miracle out of his pocket. 

Yeah, pretty sure he owns 50.1%.  I have no idea what we're operating at -- that was just a hypothetical.  It's logical though that the teams with bigger market shares can likely eat the tax much easier than smaller teams.  Not sure how much easier though.  None of us can really opine on that.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

All that said, I know that you are wholy convinced Ressler will not pay the tax-- many here share that sentiment, some with caveats, some without.  But until there is a reasonably clear situation to go into the tax, I personally will take his word for it because I actually do believe he will pay it when it comes time.  And if you think retaining Kevin Heurter to be a third string shooting guard is the situation that warrants paying the tax, we simply disagree.  All of the sabre rattling around paying the tax has failed to present a single transaction or scenario where it would actually make sense to pay it.  

Bear in mind that starting the season with Huerter doesn't mean paying the tax.  You determine the tax at the end of the year.  You pushed a massive pile of chips when you traded for DJM but then you partially fold by dealing Huerter before the season starts when Bogi is known to be out for months with no clear return date.  It is mixed messaging.  You can always dump salary in season.  Whether the trade value increases or decreases depends on performance and the needs of other teams (as it turned out Huerter put together his career best performance before the trade deadline that season).  We've discussed this before so I'm not doing another deep dive on this.  You liked the timing of the trade, I did not.  But both scenarios (start the season with Kevin, trade him to ensure we are under the tax before the season starts) leave open the option to dodge the tax before the actual deadline, but only one scenario leaves open the possibility that with more talent we could actually contend.