dlpin

The cap for max deal purposes is lower than the actual cap: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q11 It uses a cap set based on 48% of BRI, not 51% like the actual cap. So if the cap is between 50 and 53 million (which is quite possible if its true revenues are down by 7% or more as claimed), a max salary using the Larry Bird exception will average between 18 (if the cap is about 50 mill) and 19 million dollars (if the cap is 53 mill) a year. A 5 to 10% difference between one contract and the other is "very close" And, what is more, if the salary cap is 53 million (which to me is very realistic), the max deal any other team any other team can offer will be almost exactly 17 million (other teams can only offer 5 years and 8% increases). If the cap is lower than 53 mill, the max deal any other team can offer to JJ is less than 17 mill a year. Either way, 17 million dollars a year in average is "very very close" to a max deal.

Considering the cap will not go up for the second season in a row, and that the new CBA will likely reduce players salaries, a contract that averages 17 mill a year right now is very close to the max, and will keep being very close, if now more than the max in the foreseeable future.

A max deal for someone of JJ's experience will be 35% of the cap. Cap is 57 mill now and will go down next season, which means 17 is really, really close to the max.

No one went to the red sox games in the 90s when they sucked? Funny, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rsoxatte.shtml Since 1967 there was only one season (1997) when the red sox were below the AL average in attendance. And even then it was just a little bit. Cavs, Heat and Mavs attendance? Better than the hawks in almost every year: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=ATL&lg=n http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=DAL&lg=n http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=CLE&lg=n http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=MIA&lg=n

Read this thread again. I never said anything about how good the celtics will be in 2 to 3 years. I said that the only way that the statement that the hawks will be better than either team in 2 to 3 years is true is if the hawks keep the core of the team together, and that will require spending into what right now would be luxury tax territory.

If Crawford walks, then the hawks will not be better than the celtics or cavs two to three years from now. I'm not saying they can't keep JJ and Horford without paying the tax. I'm saying that they cant keep both, avoid the tax AND still be better than the celtics and the cavs in 2 to 3 years. And if the rules change, the celtics and the cavs still will have more cap flexibility in the 2011 offseason if the hawks resign JJ.

Unless said back up PG and back up center play for free, everything.

Of course ticket revenues matter a lot. First, they indicate local interest in the team. You can bet that the teams selling out games are the same that have the top local tv deals. Second of all, there is the matter of ticket prices, and Atlanta is still one of the cheapest arenas: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12031628 Haves Index Net ticket revenue/game Lakers 214 $1.96 million Knicks 181 $1.66 million Celtics 147 $1.34 million Suns 144 $1.31 million Bulls 138 $1.26 million League avg. 100 $912,953 Have-nots Pacers 53 $484,105 Hawks 51 $466,794 Bucks 46 $415,450 Timberwolves 38 $350,118 Grizzlies 35 $322,105 The ticket revenue PER GAME of the hawks is almost one million dollars less than that of the celtics, and a million and a half less than of the lakers. There are 41 home games plus playoff games. The article doesn't list the blazers but they are over the million dollars a game mark. Do the math.

The hawks currently sell 85.6% of their seats in home games. The celtics have sold more than that every single season this past decade. Even in the 06-07 season with the celtics openly tanking to get Durant/Oden they still sold 90.4% of tickets.

Before you accuse others of problems with reading comprehension, why don't you go back and point out exactly which part of that long rant you addressed the actual salary situation? Saying that maybe in the new CBA there will be something that will make Horford's contract cheaper isn't a plan, its a hope. Saying that maybe they could dump Marvin's deal on someone else isn't a plan, its a hope. Saying that selling the thrashers will allow them to spend into the luxury tax doesn't even deny that they would have to spend into the luxury tax. Again, here are the numbers: for next season: 8 players signed for 47 million. If the luxury tax threshold goes down even by just a couple of million, which at this point seems like a virtual certainty, the hawks would have to go into the luxury tax just to offer a max offer to JJ. For 2011, as it currently stands, if they resign JJ they will have 45 million in the books for 5 players. Now, sure, there are ways to dump contracts and get cheaper. I never disputed that. But the whole topic was about creating a title contending team. Your "plan" to have the hawks actually get better as they shed payroll is more of a hope than a plan. Especially since your plan doesn't actually shed that much money. Dumping Marvin for cap relief reduces the payroll, but also makes the hawks worse. Trading Crawford's expiring deal for a better player would also involve taking back a longer term deal for about the same value, so once again you are back at the luxury tax.

How is it not true? It is quite possible that the hawks would have to go into the luxury tax to resign JJ alone, nevermind resigning JJ, Horford and Crawford in the next two offseasons. Unless the new CBA doesn't have a luxury tax, or unless the new CBA allows for the renegotiation of existing deals, it is quite probably that, even with reduced salaries, the hawks would have to go into the luxury tax to resign those 3 players. Luxury tax threshold next season should be between 65 and 70 million. The hawks have 47 on the books for 8 players already. Add cap holds and the guaranteed contract of a 1st round pick, and the fact that a max deal for someone of JJ's experience will be around 17 to 18 million, and the hawks are right there on the edge of the luxury tax. And if they resign JJ to anything close to the max (say, 15 a year), come 2011 and the hawks would have a little over 45 million in the books in 2011 for 5 players (plus at least a couple of million for the draft picks), needing to resign Horford AND Crawford.

I wasn't referring to ways of getting a star, I was referring to your statement that the hawks will be better than the celtics or cavs in 2 or 3 years. Luxury tax this season is 69 million. With the declining cap, it could be as low as 65 million next season. The hawks already have 47 million in the books for next season, plus whatever cap holds necessary to reach a minimum roster. I doubt it will take less than 14 million to resign JJ. I also doubt that, when the time comes, it will take less than 10 million a year to resign Horford. So in order to keep a nucleus of JJ, Horford, Crawford and Smith together, the hawks will have to get into the luxury tax (if there is still one - if its a hard cap it will make things even harder) in 2011. If they are not willing to get into the luxury tax, then either JJ, Horford, or Crawford will walk, not because they want to, but because the hawks wont offer them anything. That was what I was referring to.

Only if the hawks are willing to spend into the luxury tax. If they don't want to pay the luxury tax, either JJ or Horford will walk.

If the ASG is not willing to spend into the luxury tax, they will either not resign JJ or not resign Horford, so the "window" to try something before breaking it up would be this season and next.

What the hawks should have done was use the MLE in the offseason. In this NBA it takes spending into the luxury tax to really contend.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/20058193

Grant was 4 times 2nd team, he never made it on the first team. Oakley did. And Grant played behind quite possibly the best defensive small forward of all time and the best defensive shooting guard of all time. And you will note that at no point I said that Jordan would win 6 titles in Portland. My point was simply that Jordan would still be Jordan in Portland, so the argument that he might not have been that great if the blazers picked him is nonsense. Here's what we know, as a fact, about that draft: The rockets GM had Olajuwon first, Jordan second in its board The Bulls GM had Olajuwon first, Jordan second, Sam Perkins third in its board. If the Blazers failed to resign Jim Paxson, they would have ranked Olajuwon first, Jordan second. Paxson resigned so they went with need over talent. In any case, this discussion is pointless. They might have not known at the time that Jordan was better than Bowie (though most did), but we do know that Durant is much, much better than Horford. The ceiling for Horford is occasional all star. The ceiling for Durant is multiple MVP awards.

You do know that that blazers team made two finals, don't you? Now, get those two finals teams, trade out Clyde Drexler for anyone, and then add Jordan to that team. And, again, in the bulls the difference was Pippen and Jordan entering his prime, not Horace Grant and his "wonderful" post play. Especially since you seem to forget that for his first 4 seasons MJ played alongside Charles Oakley, who was better than Grant in every respect.

The people you spoke to are wrong or remember it wrong. Bowie was never the consensus number 2 center, and Rod Thorn, the GM of the Bulls, at the time said that if he didnt get Jordan he would have taken Sam Perkins. The blazers had Drexler and drafted on need. Bowie spent two seasons sidelined because of injuries, while Michael Jordan was twice a consensus first team all america and collegiate player of the year according to pretty much every single award given that year. There is no disputing that Jordan was a superior player even at the time. His awards and his selection for the 84 olympic team prove that. If you look at the coverage at the time, I guarantee that no one said that Bowie would be a better player. Just that the Blazers needed a center more. And as proof of all this, Jordan received a larger contract coming out of college than Bowie did. As additional proof, if you ever go to a place with access to lexis nexis, go back and read some of the newspaper coverage in 1984, when they don't have the benefit of hindsight: Here's a washington post story on Olajuwon and Jordan potentially declaring for the draft: The Washington Post May 5, 1984, Saturday, Final Edition "Houston and Portland will flip a coin next week to determine who will get the first pick in the June 19 draft. Houston Coach Bill Fitch has said he would love to draft Olajuwon and move 7-4 Ralph Sampson, the NBA's rookie of the year, to forward. But Portland, which has to sign leading scorer Jim Paxson to a big-money free-agent contract, might opt for Jordan if it had the first pick. It would almost certainly go for him if it had the second pick and Olajuwon were taken." The New York Times June 17, 1984, Sunday, Late City Final Edition This is 3 days before the draft, "The pro scouts have tabbed Jordan, the college player of the year, ''a certainty to become a superstar.''" In any case, the point remains that drafting on talent is better than drafting on need. No sane person would pick Horford over Durant.

Playmaking ability is not measured by assists alone. And yes, Durant is on pace to being the next Lebron, though he scores more than he passes because of his play style and because he plays with a legitimate point guard, unlike lebron. And the idea that Jordan owes his titles to Horace Grant is nonsense. If anything, it was Pippen who helped him the most. When they lost to the magic, they did because Jordan was rusty, 2 months out of retirement. And none of that change the fact that Jordan would have been a far superior pick to Bowie, even if the blazers never won anything with him. Everyone knew Jordan was better than Bowie before the draft, but the blazers drafted based on "need" and "fit."

It's not happening, as Dallas will trade Josh Howard for Butler. There is still a possibility of the celtics acquiring Jamison, though some think that rumor is being intentionally spread in order to get the cavs to up its offer for jamison.

Didn't you say: ?

The only way the hawks would have a better team is if it resigned its key players before 2012, if it it does that, it won't have the cap space to sign Howard. And still do you really think a few minutes in an all star game would be all it took for him to leave the magic? That he'd be willing to move to a less visible franchise with stingier ownership, taking less money and moving away from Florida and it's lack of a state income tax? All this to play with a borderline all star who at best would be the second best player on a title contender? Because he might have played a couple of minutes with him in an all star game? He might opt out in 2012. He might even leave the Magic. But the notion that the driving factor behind that would be a few minutes played with a lesser star in an all star game is absurd.

Wow. This is the most out there thing I have ever read. Howard would opt out of his contract after playing with Josh Smith in one game? Never mind that Howard could only opt out of his contract in 2012, and never mind that unless everyone leaves the hawks would not have the cap space to sign him... do you really think a major star like Howard would opt out to play with Josh Smith?

Perkins was in foul trouble most of the games. Just to make it clear: Sheed's minutes played - Howard Points 34 - 9 32 - 5 26 - 19 19 - 16 Sure, Sheed brings A LOT of negatives. But defense against Howard is his one HUGE positive.