Found this over on the espn boards

[tmac13]

So consider the source..

"An NBA insider was quoted by Chad Ford as saying "The Atlanta Hawks are about to run into a string of luck like no one has seen in recent years." This insider who has ties to numerous sources around the league told media sources Monday that the Hawks are about to pull off three moves that will immediatley change the face of this franchise for the next decade. First, it has been reported that Joe Johson is all but a lock to play for the Hawks next season. Johnson, who is looking for more money out of Pheonix, has reported that moving on to Atlanta is not only an option he has considered but one he sees as likely. Second, sources close to the New York Knicks report that Stephon Marbury is on the block and is in heavy discussions with the Hawks about villing their PG void in a trade that would send Marbury and players to be named later to the Hawks for Al Harrington, Tony Delk, and Ty Lue. Last, ties close to The Bulls have stated that Eddy Curry wants as far away from the windy city as possible and is considering anyone that will match his desired pricetag. With the acquisitions of Joe Johnson, Marbury, and Curry, added to Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and newly acquired stud Marvin Williams the Hawks have playoffs written all over them."

[chillzatl]

I won't take it at face value unless I see something solid. But if it's true, wow, that's huge. I do think we would make the playoffs next year. Maybe as only an 8th seed, but who knows.

[KB21]

Yeah.

I have a hard time believing the Stephon Marbury stuff. I just can't see BK taking on that kind of contract.

It is interesting to say the least though.

[Packfill]

That cannot be true. If it did the contracts of Marbury, Johnson and Curry would effectively preclude the Hawks from giving extensions to at least one, if not two, of Smoove, Chill and Marvin.

And, it still remains a fundamentally flawed team because of the absence of interior defense.

[Paul2Smoove]

That would be huge

Marbury

JJ

Chill

Smoove

Curry

sixth man: Marvin Williams

[jezmund]

I'd love to have Joe Johnson (although it will be costly) and I wouldn't mind Eddy Curry but the Stephon Marbury move would baffle me and I'm a huge GT fan. How about the 'and players to be named later'? Are they going to try and dump off more contracts on us? No thanks.

[Yeti]

I've never heard a Chad Ford article I liked. Johnson - OK but costly. Curry - only if he's cheap. Marbury - NO THANKS. I'll take Robinson over Marbury and it looks like the Knicks came to the same conclusion. What are we the Knicks hazardous waste dump site?

[Paul2Smoove]

ill take Trevor Ariza along with Starbury

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

I'd love to have Joe Johnson (although it will be costly) and I wouldn't mind Eddy Curry but the Stephon Marbury move would baffle me and I'm a huge GT fan. How about the 'and players to be named later'? Are they going to try and dump off more contracts on us? No thanks.

---

My feelings entirely. But I would be exstatic if we got JJ and Curry. We would be looking great for the future. I'll believe it when I see it though. At this point, Curry is the only one I can really see getting here, with an outside shot at JJ.

[sick_five]

I wouldn't be disappointed with J.J. and Curry, but I'dtake Chandler and Watson/Jaric/Daniels...

BK has seemed patient up to this point and I don't think that he just blows all of the cap room and makes this is a one-year rebuilding process.

[gohawks11]

we are really looking good for next year and the years to come.

[Admin]

now that someone mentioned earlier the new CBA rule where you can cut a player. When it comes time to sign our youngsters in 3 years, we can either cut him, extend him with a much smaller annual salary, or trade him. We dont need to sign a major FA the next 2 years if we add these 3 guys to our other 3 stars.

I can see this as very possible......I am more worried about the Curry and Johnson rumors though because we have to depend on their teams not matching.

Man that would be crazy though with Marbury at the point, Johnson at the 2, Childress at the 3, Smoove at the 4, Curry at the 5, and Marvin backing up the 3,4. That makes us 6 deep with very talented players which IMO makes us as good as the Bulls last season.

[jezmund]

Makes us better than the Bulls IMO. Gordon/Duhon wish they were Joe Johnson and Hinrich is no Marbury based on talent. I'm a bigger fan of Childress than Deng. I like Josh Smith/Marvin Williams over Nocioni/Chandler in the long term although I think Nocioni/Chandler are very solid right now.

[TheRedStripes]

If the Hawks got JJ, Marbury, and Curry...I would be so happy i wouldn't know what to do with myself, if BK pulls that off then he is a total genius. I know most of the people on this board don't want Marbury, but if he comes here you guys will change your minds very fast.

[Plainview1981]

Steven Tyler says.... DREAM ON!

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

now that someone mentioned earlier the new CBA rule where you can cut a player. When it comes time to sign our youngsters in 3 years, we can either cut him, extend him with a much smaller annual salary, or trade him. We dont need to sign a major FA the next 2 years if we add these 3 guys to our other 3 stars.

---

I think people keep misunderstanding this rule. Again, you'd still pay his salary, it'd still count against the cap. The owners would just save a little luxury tax for not having him play here. It's really only worth it for teams who have a useless, aging, overpaid player like Houston.

[Yeti]

or Marbury.

[Lascar78]

Well Marbury isn't nearly as useless as Houston. It would be alot harder to pay him 20 mill to not play for you, to see him putting up huge stats elsewhere. When all you get out of it is cap room.

I would really prefer not to get Marbury in here, given his salary

Also, to clarify, I made a mistake in the last post. You pay the salary, but it doesn't count against your cap

[AHF]

Quote:

---

You pay the salary, but it doesn't count against your cap

---

It does count against the salary cap. It just doesn't count for purporses of calculating the luxury tax.

[Lascar78]

Ok, that's what I thought originally, but I thought I read otherwise last night. I'm probably wrong on this.