dlpin

For the record, I actually believe that if Wade comes back healthy soon the Heat should actually overtake the raptors in the standings.

Blazers without Roy? Funny: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=300219022 Brandon Roy, SG 34 3-8 1-2 2-5 1 3 4 1 0 1 2 1 -17 9 Was he hurt? Sure, but so was Pierce. And last I checked the lakers were 4-1 without Kobe, and won all 4 games by double digits. And last I checked, the Heat lost to the celtics just a week before beating the hawks by 18. The hawks were without Crawford and Zaza, but the Celtics were without Pierce and Daniels. The "lot of bad teams" you mentioned had just 3 teams with losing records.

Boston should be worried, but the Hawks shouldn't? The celtics have 16 home games and 11 away games left, are finally playing better (4-1 since the all star break even though 4 were road games, 7-3 over past 10), and don't play the magic or the lakers again. the hawks have 14 home games and 13 away games (and the hawks are just .500 on the road), and have games against the lakers and orland (both the celtics and the hawks have 2 games against the cavs). Add to that that the celtics are one game ahead of the hawks and the hawks haven't been playing so well (2-3 over the past 5, 5-5 over the past 10), that the raptors still have a shot at having the tiebreaker over the hawks (2 head to head games left, similar conference records) but no shot at having the tie breaker over the celtics, and I don't see why the celtics should be worried, but not the hawks.

Oh, and why shouldn't Ray Allen be in if Reggie Miller has a tough time getting in? First, I don't think Reggie Miller will have a tough time getting in. Might not be a first ballot guy (hes eligible for the first time next year), but should be in. Second, Ray Allen has had a better career by every measure. Championships: Ray Allen: 1 Reggie Miller: 0 2nd Team All NBA selections: Ray Allen 1 Reggie MIller: 0 All Star Appearances: Ray Allen: 9 Reggie Miller:5 Career PPG: Ray Allen: 20.6 Reggie Miller: 18.2 And the two sites that have formulas to determine how likely a player is to make to the hall of fame: Basketball-reference Ray Allen Probability: 89.5% Reggie Miller Probability: 3.7% databasebasketball Ray Allen: 123 (but this one is cumulative, as opposed to probabilistic, so Ray Allen can improve) Reggie MIller: 130 That is, all it takes for Ray Allen to pass reggie miller in databasebasketball HOF watch is one more season with his current Approximate Value. Approximate value is added year by year, as opposed to player efficiency, that is a career average per game.

I don't think Woodson has a realistic shot, barring some sort of career surge, either. The only NBA coaches there without an NBA championship are Lenny WIlkens and Jerry Sloan, and both have way over 1000 wins. It is a lot easier to make it as a college coach than an NBA coach. Woodson has 188 career wins and will be turning 52 soon. Even if he coaches to be 70 years old, he'd need to average some 45 wins a year for the next 18 years to get to a 1000 wins. And even that is not a guarantee: Don Nelson has been eligible for the HOF for almost 10 years as a coach, and even though he has over 1300 wins he is not there. Bill Fitch has a championship, 944 wins, and is not there either.

Barring some sort of late surge in JJ's play where he suddenly becomes a viable mvp candidate, I doubt he will be in the hall of fame. All star appearances and career stats count, but the overwhelming determinants of who ends up in the HOF are MVP awards (both regular season and finals), championships, and NBA 1st team selections. Without any of these, he is a long shot. And to back up what Im saying: Mitch Richmond is not in the hall of fame (6 all star selections, 20497 career points) Bernard King is not in the hall of fame (3 all star selections, 19655 career points) Chris Mullin is not in it either (5 all star selections, 17911 career points) Rolando Blackman is not in (4 all stars, 17623 points) Artis Gilmore is not in(11 all stars - 5 in the ABA and 6 in the NBA, and 24491 combined points in both leagues)

Only players bought out before march 1st are eligible to be used in the playoffs. He can sign pretty much anytime he wants and still be allowed to play in the playoffs, but he has to be bought out before march 1st.

Unless they have actual evidence that there was a prearranged deal, the NBA will not be able to do anything about it. Im pretty sure the players union would fight them if they tried to block the signing, and would win.

Oops... yeah, so there, my argument is even stronger. And, just to add to it: conversely, the only MVPs in the history of the league to have never won a championship are Lebron, Nowitzki, Nash, Iverson, Malone and Barkley, and only Nash never made a finals.

Kenny was a member of that 95 rockets team that everyone thought was old and washed up, and didnt have a chance. That rockets team ended the season 47-35 and won it all, beating the 60 win jazz, the 59 win suns, the 62 win spurs and the 57 win magic. I'm not saying that that will happen with the celtics, but I understand a guy who lived through that thinking the same can happen again.

I doubt Wade leaves Miami. Warm weather + no income tax + enough cap space to sign a max player. I think Miami will keep Wade and land Bosh. If Lebron left the cavs, Bosh would follow him because they are friends, but with the latest trades I dont see Lebron leaving. So Bosh is going to end up having to decide going to a mediocre team in NY or what would be a very good team in Miami. Once that happens, JJ is one of the biggest names left.

But it is much easier to win a championship with an MVP than without one. The only teams in the past 30 years to win a championship without a player who was or had been an MVP at some point are the heat and the pistons.

Zaza+Durant>>>>>>>Horford+Marvin OKC is 3 games behind the hawks with Krstic as a starting center, and no one even close to JJ, Josh Smith and Crawford around him. And that is not even counting on a possible Marvin trade for a center.

All teams can offer the veteran's minimum. Teams with cap, mle, or the biannual exception can offer that. I think he will probably go back to cleveland, since they still have the biannual exception (also known as the LLE) to offer.

Considering how close the numbers on both sites are, I don't think it's worthless, and hoopshype has the advantage of actually ranking the teams. Being cheap isn't determined by how much you spend, but by how much you spend in relation to how much you make. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_NBA-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html Hawks are 21st in revenue, 21st in payroll. If anything, they spend just right. It spends about as much as indy, sacramento, charlotte and minny because they earn about that much. Philly and Golden State, on the other hand, are cheap. Both have revenues that were 10 million of more higher than the hawks last season, even though they either didnt go to the playoffs or were bounced in the first round.

Just to clarify two things: 1- hawks payroll is on the bottom third of the league, at 21 http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm 2- the problem with the luxury tax goes beyond paying an additional dollar for every dollar over it. The problem is that if you are even just a penny over the luxury tax you forfeit your share of the proceeds from the luxury tax. Last year, each team under the luxury tax received 3 million back. So if the hawks go even one dollar over the luxury tax, they might have to pay just one dollar extra, but they give up a few millions in income too. That said, I don't think the hawks ownership is cheap. Being 21st in payroll is actually pretty good when your team is also just 21st in revenues. Cheap ownership is being top ten in revenues and trying desperately to dump your top young player to get even farther down on the salary list, like the suns are doing.

Sheed was the best player on the floor tuesday night. The celtics aren't moving him for anything that isn't either an upgrade or a good young player. Hawks have neither to offer in the same position, and no one else will either.

JJ is being paid 15 mill this year and the hawks are still about 4 mill under the luxury tax. Barring a major contraction, the offer made to JJ would still put them under the luxury tax. It is that simple. If the hawks were willing to spend into the luxury tax, why did they hold on to the MLE? Fact remains that if JJ wants to win, he's better off following Lebron or Bosh to a team that will be able to sign 2 max players than staying in Atlanta.

If he wants to win, and he knows the hawks won't spend into the luxury tax, why would he stay here? When, in all likelihood, there will be several competitive teams with enough space for one, maybe two max players? Wouldn't he be better off following Lebron or Bosh wherever they go? Say, just as an example, a bulls team that would have a starting line up of Rose, JJ, Deng, Noah and Bosh?

Nate to the celtics has nothing to do with the Hawks. The celtics were about to get him the night before he scored 41 on the hawks, so the interest comes before they knew he could beat the hawks. The celtics want Nate because they need a PG that can score at the end of games, given how other teams have started doing the "hack a rondo" and eddie is a very poor ballhandler and passer.

How is it not about Hickson? Amare would get his spot in the starting rotation, as well as some minutes from big Z. Hickson and big Z are not exactly great defenders or rebounders.

Wow. I know Amare is overrated. But do you really think the cavs are better with JJ Hickson than him? As bad as Amare is on D he has a greater block % and a better rebounding % than Hickson. And against the hawks hickson averaged 5 points and 4 rebounds, vs Amare's 28 points and 14 rebounds.

Why are they reluctant to give up Wilson Chandler to get rid of Jared Jeffries, then? Also, note that the column isn't "who would you rather have right now" but "the trade value" column. That is, it looks at the value a player has for it's own team. It's whether the Bulls would prefer Marc Gasol over Jermaine Oneal or not. It's whether Memphis would trade Marc Gasol for Jermaine Oneal.

Yes, the 105 is the minimum, but you would see that that is actually very close to what I used there. Still, is your point really that 17 mill a year is not "very close" to a max? A deal that averages 19.8 (the Bird max) or a deal that average 18.2 (the free agent max) are not close to a 17 a year deal? I'm sorry, but if the negotiations started today, and JJ asked for 18.2 and the Hawks countered with 17, I'm pretty sure both sides would agree that they were very, very close to a deal.

Yes, I messed that up