Trueblood

Let's not forget that Atlanta will have enough cap space to sign TWO max free agents.CP3 wanted to come here when he was drafted and so did DH. They both want to play together.All DH has to do is look at how old Nash and Kobe are getting and that their respective games are falling off.Sterling has a reputation for screwing things up. CP knows that.I'm going to start a twitter campaign after the season but before free agency starts. It can't hurt. If nothing else, we can say we tried.

If I'm New Orleans, I either agree to a sign and trade deal where I get Phoenix's lotto bound 2013 pick in return or I let him walk and sign 2 or 3 decent players for what they're going to pay Gordon. If Gordon's base salary is over $14 million then I'm thinking that I can get Mayo for 6 to replace him at the 2 then resign Kaman for 6 and then get a good backup for 2 or something.

We have to pray on this. Assuming we have no shot at D12, we're stuck putting our faith in Otis Smith. Please oh please do the right thing and don't trade him to LA. Find a way to get the Brooklyn deal done so we don't have to watch another damn superteam.

FWIW, Jordan came back at the end of the '94-'95 season and was David Falk's top client during the mini lockout of '95. As was briefly touched on above, there was actually a deal prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Falk and Jeffrey Kessler didn't like the deal and said that they would decertify the union if they couldn't come up with something better. They went back to the bargaining table and negotiated a deal on August 8th. Falk and his boys still didn't like the deal but said that they would let the players vote on it. Their choice was to either decertify the union or not decertify the union. Not decertifying was the equivalent of accepting the deal that the union negotiated. They overwhelmingly voted to not decertify and the season started on time. The one problem was that the owners had a 3 year out clause so after Shaq and KG signed humongous deals, the owners decided to opt out and we were back to a lockout, only this time it would take up almost half the season. Jordan was actually not retired yet and he played a major role in the negotiating. There were times when the bargaining sessions consisted of just Stern and Jordan. The owners won, Jordan retired and the rest is history up until now.

I'm a little more optimistic this week then I was before. The talk of lawsuits is simmering down and now we are hearing about REAL bargaining sessions being held and not mud slinging contests. There is going to be a real effort to get things done. Not necessarily saying that I think there will be major progress but at least they are going to make an attempt. I too would like to see more parity but let's not forget that this past cba saw 5 champs in 6 seasons. 2006-Miami 2007-San Antonio 2008-Boston 2009-Lakers 2010-Lakers 2011-Dallas

That's under the assumption that he would make any team a contender and I agree that I would take Lebron if he were to indeed make the team a contender. However, my hypothetical was asking if the fans would rather have a 50 win plus team that got to 2nd round or further in the playoffs or take a team with Lebron where the supporting cast was so bad that he was getting bounced in the first round and only winning 45-50 games. In that scenario, which would you take?

That's just the thing. I DO like basketball and hockey. It's the people commenting on the AJC that clearly have an anti basketball based agenda and when looking at their bigoted commentary, it's easy for more reasonable posters and readers to dismiss their takes. When they refer to NBA players as "thugs" and what not, they lose credibility. They do the sport and the NHL a disservice.

I actually tried La Pizza Loca one night and sadly it's not much better than Little Caesar's. Still, people are looking for deals and getting a large pizza for $5 will sell just about anywhere.

Good to hear. I hope this guy is the real deal. FWIW, there are some *ss backwards idiots on the AJC comments section. It's clear from reading their comments that they watch hockey for one reason and one reason only. First they said that they would never watch a Hawks game as long as the ASG was the owner and now that they're gone, they're complaining about the ASG still having a minority stake. Give it up. You morons never had any intention of watching the Hawks in the first place.

Also, I wouldn't sell recent parity short. During this past collective bargaining agreement, we saw 5 champions in 6 years. 2006-Miami 2007-San Antonio 2008-Boston 2009-Lakers 2010-Lakers 2011-Dallas

Some thoughts.... Hard cap is too general a term. A lot depends on where the hard cap is set. A $45 million cap is a joke but if you get it to $70 million with layers below it meaning a mid level exception threshold at $60 million and a soft cap at $50 million, then you may have a deal... I say we keep the grandfather clause. That's what allows teams to sign their own stars for a number above the max salary. For instance, let's say the cap comes down to $50 million and 7-9 year vets can now only get 25% of the cap if they leave as opposed to the 30% that they get now. That means that Chris Paul could only sign for a base salary of 12.5 million (25% of 50) if he wanted to go to the Knicks but a grandfather clause could net him an extra 5% off the $16.5 million he makes now meaning that his base salary if he stays in New Orleans would be $17.3 million. An extra $2.5 million couldn't keep Lebron in Cleveland but an extra $4.8 million could very well keep the new batch of free agents from bolting.... The Hawks have new ownership. Whatever blunders they have made in the past shouldn't be held against them. Now that someone with his head on straight is making the calls, I don't see a hard cap or further contract restrictions having too much of a negative effect on the team. Hire the right people to make the decisions and that will have a much bigger impact than a favorable or unfavorable cba.

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

Assuming there is an MLE of some sorts and the Bulls are in financial position to spend it beyond the flex cap amount, I would say the Bulls are his best bet if they don't get Jason Richardson.

I think the Kings are top 10 because of Casspi. Someone on a Sacramento board mentioned that a lot of teams have a jewish heritage night and they reserve it for Casspi coming to town. But yeah, in general, road attendance is based on individual star power. Never doubted that. But the majority of fans who buy season tickets and root for their home team are doing it for pride in their hometown and it's local team as opposed to just an individual star. When we see the Cavs attendance drop next year, it will have more to do with fans just not wanting to invest in a losing product as opposed to not being able to see Lebron. People forget, the team was winning over 50 games with it's most marketable stars being Price and Daugherty and they had no problem filling up the joint and if Irving and Thompson turn out to be the real deal, the fans will be back. At the end of the day, Lebron WON GAMES and gave the city hope that it could finally win a title. The Clips are the exception as they draw fans to see a losing team but have a very marketable superstar. Keep in mind that being a cheap and accesible NBA option with no NFL compeition to the Lakers has always allowed them to have an upper hand over other franchises in small markets with NFL competition.

The schedule definitely doesn't favor the Hawks this year but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's a conspiracy. It's going to happen. It's impossible for the league to even it out for everyone. With so many dates being locked due to other events going on, some teams just don't get the luck of the draw. Now, if this starts happening on a yearly basis then I may start questioning things but not until then. I'll give the schedule makers the benefit of the doubt.

I stand corrected on Al's defensive numbers although we have to keep in mind that the majority of his minutes have come at C so with a limited amount of minutes to work with, it's still tough to get a good read on what he would do over the course of 82 games and 36 minutes a night at the 4 spot. The numbers can change. Regardless, there is still the Smoove factor and like Randy says, unless Smoove gets dealt, the team is better off with him at the 4 then the 3. OTOH, if Smoove is gone then I could definitely see Horford at the 4 and Marvin getting full time minutes at the 3.

Good post Sturt. As for the genesis of the NBA being a star driven league, I blame the corporate partners more than I blame the league itself. Super Agent David Falk was the first agent to really get players involved in endorsements and what not. That created the big financial gap as well as marketability between the stars and non stars. Coming out of the lockout of '98, the league did what it could to market teams over superstars. It tried it's best to get it's sponsors on board and they made an attempt but when it came down to it, the sponsors said it wasn't working and that they would pull their money if they weren't allowed to market the way they saw fit and that was it for Stern trying to dictate things as far as marketing teams goes. Money talks.

Which is the exact argument that I give to all the right wing hard liners who want to get rid of guaranteed deals altogether. Much of them are in New Orleans and I always give the example of Chris Paul and that he was practically a 2 time MVP while still under the rookie salary scale but they never have a good comeback for that. Again, my deal is COMPROMISE oriented. I don't expect the owners to have to re-negotiate anybody's contract while under the rookie scale but I don't expect the owners to be able to get rid of players on a year to year basis either. My way works for the all sides including the players because getting rid of the Eddy Curry's of the world allows for an extra $11 million in cap space that the Knicks can spend on someone who otherwise would've been playing for the minimum or MLE. Ok, we can agree to disagree on that one but I'd prefer to see the Hawks win over 50 games without a superstar as opposed to be like the Clips with a superstar yet fall out of the playoffs time and time again. But that's just me. If most Hawks fans feel what you're saying then I guess I see differently than a lot of Hawks fans. This would actually make for an interesting poll. Would you prefer to see Lebron in a Hawks uni even if the team had no supporting cast and he kept getting tossed in the first round or would you prefer no star and go to the EC finals? Well Sund is wrong and everyone on this board knows he is. That was a lame comment and he knows it and it was well documented. However, I will agree to a certain extent on the monster that the owners created. What the NBA haters don't realize is that there is still a salary cap and if the owners don't create that cap space, the superstars can't move from team to team via free agency. When Chauncey Billups talks about how great it is that the players are taking control of their destiny, he is dead wrong and clearly doesn't realize that if the owners of the Heat don't get $50 million under, the players can't do jack diddly but stay with their own team. But I disagree wholeheartedly about the future loopholes. The league has learned it's mistake and little by little, from '95 to the big lockout of '98 to the new cba of 2005, have slowly but surely eliminated loopholes. They're digging in this time and we'll see a new league with EVERYBODY having a shot at competing due to hard cap restrictions and more revenue sharing. ANY Hawks fan has to be happy about that since they've been in the lower half of the league in revenue generated for well over a decade and maybe 2 now.

My idea of giving the owners ONE contract to opt out of every 5 years is in the best interest of compromise. We have posters that will side with players and others who side with the owners but want what's not only best for us fans but what both sides will realistically agree to. The opt out one guy per 5 years plan allows for owners to get out from mistakes that are impossible to see coming but at the same time saves the remainder of the roster from getting cut.

This is true. Players come and go but our overall devotion is to the organization and the city it represents. Something Lebron didn't get when he talked about "Lebron fans" will continue to be Lebron fans, not realizing that sports fans base their loyalties on team over individual. I checked your link and that's some good, out of the box thinking. Idealistically, it's a good plan but the union will never go for it. Unfortunately, it's a non starter for them. They want to have some sort of idea of what they'll be making so they can finance accordingly. If they are an all star in year 1 and get the 25% that you laid out, that will make them happy but if they get hurt in year 2 and drop to the 2% level or whatever, they won't be too happy and it will make for a non starter at negotiations. With the 2 or 3 year out rule, it gives them 2 or 3 years worth or money to figure out how to finance things but at the same time, it's just short enough to force them to have incentive to play hard and within the team structure that you pointed out, so that they get another deal and then hopefully another deal on top of that.

The only problem with linking contracts to performance is that there is too much grey area and what not. If you base it on scoring average, you'll have players, guys will take the last 10 games of the season off if they've hit their number at game 72. On the flip side, if the coaches have their way, they'll listen to ownership orders demanding that players sit the end of games to help avoid them getting to the scoring peak. By giving the owners the ability to opt out of any deal after 2 or 3 years, you are more or less basing it on performance. After all, if a player is carrying his weight, the owner will have no reason to get rid of him when he has the option to get rid of someone who isn't. Also, I don't have as big a problem with guarantees because when you get down to it, the owner is the one who is doling out the money. If he has a problem with giving out guaranteed years, he should just give out one year deals. The problem is that someone else will want the player and offer a larger deal of maybe 2 or 3 years so in essence, the players have earned those guarantees based on market value. Someone is always willing to tack on an extra year or 2 due to the value of the player so it's always the owner who winds up dictating market value based on what they offer.

I've thought the same thing. He may be slightly better offensively at PF but with the stretch 4 seeming to be the new trend in the NBA, he's going to be wearing himself out on the defensive end a lot as he'll be chasing guys out to the 3 pt. line and what not. If Smoove doesn't get dealt, the team is better off with Al at 5 and Smoove at 4 as opposed to 4 and 3.

I will say this. With an extra 41 open dates due to having no NHL team, future Hawk schedules should be more favorable.

Still, I believe that a compromise is pretty easy to come about when it comes to guaranteed contracts. Owners should be able to terminate one guaranteed deal for the first 5 years of the new cba and then have the right to terminate one more during the final 5 years. My thinking is that if you look at the history of NBA payrolls, it's usually never more than one deal that sticks out as overbearing and forces an owner into red ink. Having the right to get rid of one deal probably is all they really need. Also, no player knows who is going to get cut so every player now has incentive to go out and play hard and not be a jake. I disagree with the owners and Joe Public who think players get fat and lazy when they sign a big deal. Some do but not all. Despite that, there is public and ownership pressure to at least be able to get rid of some bad deals so allowing for 2 over the course of the cba should be good enough. I'd even add a stipulation that says that players should at least be guaranteed to get 2 or 3 years on their deal so even if they start sucking in year one or get hurt, they are protected for another year or 2 as a form of compromise. Maybe just put an out clause in every NBA contract that exceeds 3 years but say that the owners can only exercise the out on just one per 5 years which is the equivalent to terminating one every five years assuming the player has already completed 2 or 3 years on the deal. For the players, it should be looked at as a good thing as well. If I'm a free agent and I want to play somewhere but can't because some goon is making $15 million and hogging up the cap at the end of the bench then I look at that as a bad thing. Get rid of that jake and now I'm in position to sign a deal that will pay me $6 million per year and I'm now satisfied. Owner, hard working players and fans win. Overpaid jake loses. I don't see how that doesn't work.