dlpin

OF COURSE money matters. If it wasn't, do you really think they would even consider Josh Smith for Chris Paul? Josh Smith is so far from being a player of Chris Paul's caliber it's not even funny. And how many players the hawks have in the top X in a certain statistic is irrelevant. Nevermind that this sort of argument is completely arbitrary. You can pick a statistic that can make any team look good. "San Antonio is the only team with 2 players in the top 12 PER." 'Lakers are the only team with 3 players in the top 25 PER." The idea that they would take Josh Smith and Jamal Crawford for CP3 and Okafor is pure homerism, especially when you remember that the hawks have no worthwhile draft picks. Jamal Crawford would have 0 value as a 30 year old player in a team that would be clearly trying to rebuild. His only value would be as an expiring contract. So Josh Smith + cap relief for CP3? I am willing to bet anything and give you whatever odds you want that that won't happen. They would dump CP3 because he makes 15 million a year only to take on Josh Smith, who makes 12? And whether or not Josh Smith is currently better than those players I listed is irrelevant. OKC's players, for example, are younger and cheaper. Just what a team that would be rebuilding and trying to save money would need. Orlando's players might not be better individually, but they would get 4 solid players who are relatively young and barely cost more, combined, than the 2 players they would get from the hawks. Same for Houston (who also has a lot of draft picks). If the Hornets want to dump salary, other teams have much larger expiring contracts. If the Hornets want young prospects, other teams have much better prospects and draft picks.

I can name several teams that could offer more for CP3 and would be at least as much of a contender. To get CP3 + Okafor, the hawks would have to offer Josh Smith plus either Bibby+Williams or Crawford. Orlando can offer a bigger expiring (Carter) or cheaper young players (Reddick, Nelson, Gortat and Bass). Denver can offer a bigger expiring (Kenyon Martin) plus JR Smith and Chris Andersen. Houston can offer Ariza, Battier (expiring), Aaron Brooks, and Kevin Martin. (plus NY picks) OKC can offer Westbrook, Green, Collison and Harden. (plus lots of 1st rounders) And these are all 2 team trades with contending teams. There are endless 3 team possibilities. The only way the hawks' offer would be better is if Horford AND Smith were included, and that would be just bad for the hawks. Because, again, a team that has been thinking of dumping a potential MVP candidate to save 30 million is not going to make a deal to take on almost 40 million dollars to a guy who is maybe a borderline all star.

So they would trade a top 5 player to save 30 million dollars, but take a "top 25" (highly debatable) player with a longer deal and more money on the books? And then go on to also take Bibby (who you couldn't give away right now) and Williams?

CP3 is not coming to the hawks, not matter what the hawks can offer. First, it wouldn't be worth it to the hawks as CP3 would likely leave in the end anyways. But even disregarding that, if the Hornets trade CP3 it would be a cost cutting measure. It would be about dumping CP3s and Okafor's contract. Why would they trade a guy who can be a MVP candidate making 30 mill over 2 years for a guy making almost 40 mill over 3 years (Smith)? Or 2 guys universally seen as overpaid (Bibby and Williams)?

the LRMR marketing agency this Carter runs is a joke. It is basically a write off so James can support his entourage. Just look at lrmr's website: amateurish, full of typos, as if done by high school kids pretending to be experts because they watched Jerry Maguire once...

Nevermind everything else, do you really think there is any chance, even the slightest, that Doc would come to the Hawks? Sure, he played here. But he is currently in a team with an ownership that is willing to pay him very much, with players that he really likes, and all that. And even with all that he still has a hard time staying for another year because he wants to be with his family in Orlando. Will Doc leave Boston? Probably, yes. I don't see him sticking around for the rebuilding process after the big 3 are done. Is there any chance at all that he coaches anywhere outside of Orlando or Miami? No. I mean, for the past 3 years he has had a top contending team, was paid very well, was very good friends with the players, etc. etc. and yet every single year he almost didn't come back because of his family in Orlando. Heck, yahoo sports already has rumors of Riley wanting him to coach the heat if Spoelstra fails this year.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that other teams are offering better contracts to players the heat are rumored to be going after just to screw the heat? None of those players have any sort of contractual obligations to either the other teams or the heat. Why wouldn't the lakers try to resign Fisher? Especially if the only other team interested in him can only offer the minimum? The heat will have to get whoever they sign next to accept a deal for less than they would be worth on the market, so why the surprise that other teams are willing to offer more than those sorts of deals to the same players?

Well, a large part of why Gilbert failed is that he tried too hard to please Lebron. Lebron was the one who pushed for the massive contracts for Varejao and Williams. Lebron was the one who pushed for Shaq. And, in what might be the worst thing he's done in this whole process, he pushed them to get Jamison over Amare. And then strung them along for maximum effect and to keep the drama for his announcement. I completely understand leaving Cleveland for Miami, and I would do the same. But I would not promise a ring to the city I grew up in if I didn't intend to stay. I wouldn't convince them to take on a massive long term deal like they did with Jamison. And I would tell them from the beginning. I wouldn't go around telling people Cleveland has the edge. The guy destroyed that franchise singlehandedly by pretending there was a chance he'd stay. They could be trying to resign Amare right now, but instead are stuck with Jamison. Oh, and now Miami will be doing a sign and trade for Lebron, something that will generate a 16 million dollar trade exception. With a 16 million dollar trade exception the Cavs could have been in the market for Amare, Raymond Felton, Boozer, Lee, etc.

No, they still have the MLE and LLE. A team doesn't lose the MLE or LLE by being under the cap. Only teams that are too much under the cap lose the MLE. And that is the thing: as Miami still hasn't renounced the rights to Haslem, etc. they are not officially under the cap anyways. What happens is that if a team signs a player for cap space, they can't use the MLE that season. But since Bosh and Lebron are sign and trades, they did not use their caps to sign them. More info here: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q20

First, Wade's injuries so far haven't been of the chronic, life long sort, so I don't see him getting injured that much in the future. Second, while Wade relies more on athleticism than JJ, there is also a minimum level of athleticism required to play as a guard in the NBA. Bibby never relied much on athleticism and yet see how far he has fallen in a short period of time. I mean, you can't seriously tell me that right now, assuming max contract for both, you wouldn't want to have Wade over JJ for the next 6 years. Even if the choice is between a 32 year old Wade over a 34 year old JJ.

That is why he said that his objective was to be a global icon? the first basketball billionaire? That is why he created his own marketing agency? that is why he calls himself the "King?" That is why he did a nationally televised interview during the finals? Why he wanted to do a free agent tour (but gave up because of the backlash?)? That is why he did a one hour special to announce his decision?

Well, one of the reasons people mention Wade's age less often is because minutes matter as much as age: Wade 17717 Johnson 25794 8000 minutes is a HUGE difference. So while Wade is just 1 year and a half younger than Joe Johnson, he has played the equivalent to more than three seasons LESS than Johnson.

Beasley was traded for a 2nd round pick to the wolves. Also, keep in mind that due to fewer years of experience by those three, their "max" was lower than JJ's max. I believe the max for those 3 was 30% of the cap.

I would have liked this letter a lot more if it didn't come from a person that would have done anything at all to resign him a few hours earlier.

The heat only had 2 rookies under contract. Now they will have to fill out their roster with veteran's minimum players.

Compare the years without him, then. Finley at 31 and 32. Better yet, find the SG who didn't decline significantly from 29 to 32 or 33. First, they are not JUST Hollinger's projections. Every stats geek I know has said the same. And while Reggie Miller stayed productive till very old, he had clearly declined by 33.

First, there is no need to restrict oneself to even that sample. I can't think of a single shooting guard that wasn't significantly worse at 33-34 when compared to 29. Point guards are different than SGs, and it is not uncommon for PGs to play well into their 30s. But SGs face a serious decline, and it is not just a coincidence. You can find several centers, point guards and even forwards who were just as good at 33 as they were at 29. But you won't find SGs. Now, that doesn't mean that JJ WILL decline. But statistics is not about stating things with certainty. It is about probabilities. And the probability that a SG will face a significant decline from 29 to 32-33 is overwhelming. Just as an example, in the history of the NBA, players over 32 years old averaged 21.3 points a game while playing at least 60 games in a season 71 times. The only SGs among those 71 times are Jordan, West, Iverson, Sam Jones and Mitch Richmond. The only ones to do that at 33 were Jordan, West, and Sam Jones. In other words, to remain as productive as he is, Joe Johnson would have to have a career like some of the all time greats. Second, all those players declined before they changed teams. At 29, Carter had 24.2 ppg and 5.8 rpg with a PER of 21.6 and 10.5 win shares At 32, Carter had 20.8 ppg and 5.1 rpg with a PER of 19.3 and 7.5 win shares. Both with the Nets At 29 Finley had 19.3 ppg anf 5.8 rpg, with a PER of 17.6 and 6.7 win shares at 31, still with Dallas, he had 15.7 and 4.1., with a PER of 14.3 and 5.5 win shares And with Stackhouse, you can compare him at 30 and 33, since both times he was with Dallas: from 14.9 ppg to 10.7ppg, from a PER of 15.9 to 13.3, from win shares or 3.5 to 2.3... and so on.

All hate for Hollinger aside, where is he wrong? Where is the shooting guard that didn't significantly decline after reaching 30? I am an outsider so I have no real dog in this fight, but here's the bottom line: - Will this JJ contract in any way hurt the acquisition of young talent to pair up with one of the youngest, if not the youngest, frontcourts in the league? It the hawks will still be picking up pieces, using the mle, and doing trades that net young players to play alongside Al Horford and Josh Smith, it won't be a problem. -If, however, they switch the mentality to one of "win now," bring in just a few old players to try to reach the conference finals and so on, then it will be a terrible addition. Because that will mean that the hawks will spend Horford's and Smith's prime rebuilding.

Because Wade is currently worth a lot more than the max. Joe Johnson is barely worth the max, if that, right now.

And who are these tradable players? The hawks currently have 8 players, period, under contract. And no one is trading for Marvin, Bibby, Zaza, Teague or Evans unless they are filler in a trade for Horford, Smith or Crawford.

I think this is just to re-do his deal to try to help keep the team together while ensuring a deal before the new CBA. He'll sign for a lower yearly amount, saving the celtics luxury tax money.

He jumped center, guarded Malone on D and played in the post on O. Sounds like playing center to me. It is false that no one wanted Artest. He had simply decided that he was going to go to the Lakers no matter what. He is a former defensive player of the year who is just 30. Gasol was traded for peanuts because the cheap Memphis owner wanted to get rid of his contract. He led a mediocre Memphis team to 50 wins and led them to the playoffs in 05. Odom is a career 15 and 9 guy who would be a starter in most teams. Bynum is one of the best young centers in the game, and you can see how his absence affected the lakers when he was hurt in the finals. And let's not forget that this lakers team played the blazers, the spurs, at the Jazz, the warrior and the celtics without Kobe, and the went 4-1, with all wins by double digits and a single loss by 1 point. Finally, let's but it this way: Jordan's average in the finals was 33.6 points per game. Kobe has only scored more than that in a finals game 4 times in his career. 7 finals appearances, 38 finals games and he only did better than MJ's AVERAGE 4 times. I mean, if he was singlehandedly carrying his team, he would have at least scored more than that, right? Kobe has had a bunch of 8 point, 11 points, 15 point finals performances. Jordan's never scored less than 20 in a finals game. I hated Jordan, and every time I wished he would lose he won.

Of course the ASG has a reason to misrepresent their bottom line. Since they are not publicly traded they can put this out there even as they give the potential investors the real numbers. By putting misleading information out there, they have all sorts of things to gain: justifying ticket increases, justifying not spending on the team, and so on.

First of all, I significantly distrust those numbers. Second, I doubt that is the net loss. One of the big things people don't talk about when it comes to losing money in sports is that there are all sorts of numbers games that shape things. For example, contracts can be depreciated. So a bad contract also provides tax relief. Third, even if those numbers were true. the increase in a franchise's value more than makes up for yearly losses. Heck, how can franchise values be going up, and the cap, which is based on basketball income, be going up, if every team claims a loss?

David Berri does this sort of stuff. You should check him out, as he is quite sophisticated. The problem with your approach is that it doesn't consider defense, and doesn't consider match ups. Check his wages of win blog and you will see what I mean.