niremetal

I figured someone would bring that up, but the truth is that the Hawks posted atrocious attendance numbers during the Nique era as well. The Hawks never finished in the top third of the league in attendance during the Nique era. Even when they won 57 games in '86-87 (3rd best in the NBA), they only finished 8th in attendance. The next year, they finished 8th in attendance again despite winning 50 games (7th best in the NBA). It was all downhill from there - but even at the Hawks' peak with Nique, they still didn't crack the top third of the league in attendance, and teams that were as bad as or worse than the Hawks in both regular season and postseason play outdrew them. In 1992-93, the Hawks were dead last in attendance. That was Nique's last full year with the Hawks. The year before that, they were 25th of 27. So the idea that fans fled after the Nique trade again doesn't jive with reality. I think that a lot of Hawks fans just used the trade as a convenient excuse for why they didn't show up, despite the fact that they had stopped showing up well before he left.

I think #2 is the biggest reason.

Those years don't change anything, actually. I excluded them because posting them would have simply been "etc, etc." In fact, the 2001-2006 period provides the strongest evidence for my point of the "missing" years, which goes to show that you don't know how to talk out of any orifice but the rear one. Even when the Heat were at the worst, their fans showed up more than Hawks fans. The Hawks outdrew the Heat exactly once during the "missing" years. But since you insist: 1996-97 Heat: 61-21 (3rd in NBA), 25th in attendance = -22 Hawks: 56-26 (T-6th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -21 1997-98 (the only year with a significant gap in the Hawks' fans favor, largely thanks to the super-sellouts in the Dome when MJ came to town) Heat: 55-27 (8th in NBA), 24th in attendance = -16 Hawks: 50-32 (T-10th in NBA), 14th in attendance = -4 1999 Heat: 33-17 (T-5th in NBA), 23rd in attendance = -18 Hawks: 31-19 (T-7th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -20 1999-2000 Heat: 52-30 (7th in NBA), 12th in attendance = -5 Hawks: 28-54 (23rd in NBA), 25th in attendance = -2 2000-01 Heat: 52-30 (10th in NBA), 14th in attendance = -4 Hawks: 25-57 (24th in NBA), 28th in attendance = -4 01-02 Heat: 36-46 (T-20th in NBA), 19th in attendance = +1 Hawks: 33-49 (22nd in NBA), 27th in attendance = -5 02-03 Heat: 25-57 (26th in NBA), 22nd in attendance = +4 Hawks: 35-47 (22nd in NBA), 28th in attendance = -6 03-04 Heat: 42-40 (T-14th in NBA), 22nd in attendance = -8 Hawks: 28-54 (22nd in NBA), 29th in attendance (worst in league) = -7 04-05 Heat: 59-23 (T-3rd in NBA), 4th in attendance = -1 Hawks: 13-69 (30th/last in NBA), 28th in attendance = +2 05-06 Heat: 59-23 (5th in NBA), 4th in attendance = +1 Hawks: 13-69 (T-26th in NBA), 29th in attendance = -3 06-07 Heat: 44-38 (11th in NBA), 5th in attendance = +6 Hawks: 30-52 (26th in NBA), 26th in attendance = 0 In other words, the Heat have outdrawn the Hawks in every year but one since the team was founded. Their fans have been "better" than the Hawks in all but 3 years since the team was founded. Even when the Heat have been worse than the Hawks, they have outdrawn the Hawks. If you want to continue this conversation, stop talking out of your *ss.

No. Considering that we have a volume-shooting combo guard who doesn't know how to play off the ball and a volume shooting starting SG who Woody insists on playing on the ball, the last thing we need is a volume-shooting guard who doesn't know how to play off the ball.

Says who? You? You've been talking out of your rear iris this whole time, and you keep proving it. dlpin took care of the baseball, so I'll do the basketball. The Heat actually are ranked higher in average attendance right now (16th) than in the standings (18th). The Hawks are the opposite - they are 6th in the standings and 20th in attendance. That's the biggest such gap in the NBA. Throughout their 22-year existence, the Heat have sold more tickets than the Hawks, including throughout the 1990's when the Hawks consistently had a better record and made deeper playoff runs: 1988-89 Heat: 15-67 (27th in NBA), 12th in attendance = +15 Hawks: 52-30 (6th in NBA), 11th in attendance = -5 1989-90 Heat: 18-64 (26th in NBA), 14th in attendance = +12 Hawks: 41-41 (T-16th in NBA), 17th in attendance = -1 1990-91 Heat: 28-54 (26th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +11 Hawks: 52-30 (13th in NBA), 19th in attendance = -6 1991-92 Heat: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +2 Hawks: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -10 1992-93 Heat: 36-46 (T-20th in NBA), 17th in attendance = +3 Hawks: 43-39 (12th in NBA), 27th in attendance (worst in NBA) = -15 1993-94 Heat: 42-40 (T-16th in NBA), 16th in attendance = 0 Hawks: 57-25 (T-3rd in NBA), 21st in attendance = -18 1994-95 Heat: 32-50 (20th in NBA), 22nd in attendance = -2 Hawks: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 26th in attendance = -12 1995-96 Heat: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 25th in attendance = -11 Hawks: 46-36 (T-11th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -16 FAST FORWARD 12 YEARS (YOU CAN CHECK IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, BUT THE TREND WAS THE SAME WITH 1 EXCEPTION, THE 2004-2005 SEASON) 2007-08 Heat: 15-67 (worst in NBA - albeit 2 years after a title), 8th in attendance = +22 Hawks: 37-45 (19th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -1 2008-09 Heat: 43-39 (14th in NBA), 15th in attendance = -1 Hawks: 47-35 (12th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -6 This year to date Heat: 26-27 (18th in NBA), 16th in attendance = +2 Hawks: 33-18 (6th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -14 As I said, it's not isolated to the Hawks. The Braves and Falcons also do worse in attendance than they do in the standings. I know you're just going to keep talking out of your *ss, but there is no serious way to dispute that the gap between Atlanta teams' records and their attendance. They don't show up in the same numbers when the teams win, and they stop showing up much more quickly when the teams lose.

The Celtics in 2-3 years? Really? I don't see how anyone can pretend to know how that team will look in 1 year, much less 2 to 3. Same with the Cavs, really.

You just proved the point. Other cities have more fans that ARE willing to spend their hard-earned money to watch a team that is likely a second round exit (or even a first-round exit or even a non-playoff team), even if the team doesn't have a superstar. Every single Atlanta pro sports team has a history of finishing ranked lower in attendance than in the standings. The Braves couldn't sell out playoff games while the Indians - a team with an even worse track record of choking in the playoffs - had a multi-year streak where they sold out every single regular season AND playoff game. For the Hawks, they have ranked lower in attendance than in the standingsfor 29 of the past 30 years and 40 of the past 42 years - in other words, only twice in the entire history of the franchise have the Hawks finished higher in attendance than in the standings. Those two years were 1980-81 and 2004-2005, the latter of which was the year in which we had the league's worst record, but barely edged out Charlotte and New Orleans (ie the teams that were affected by the Hornets relocation fiasco) in attendance. In other words, other cities have more fans that are willing to pay to watch teams worse than ours.

Crawford's a free agent after next year. I could easily imagine the Hawks letting him walk or paying him well under the mid-level. If that happens, they can keep Horford and JJ without entering luxury tax land. Then again, who knows what the new salary rules will be in 2011. In all likelihood, Horford will become a free agent in a market with wildly different rules.

And last year, it would have been the Magic or Nuggets. You know, 2 of the 4 teams that made the Conference Finals.

Atlanta also has 4 pro teams which said sponsors can advertise with and said TV stations can bid on, not to mention the two ACC/SEC sports teams in the Atlanta TV market. Also, most people who live in Atlanta were not born and raised here. Thus many pro basketball fans in Atlanta were raised as Knicks, Celtics, or Lakers fans. Oh, and what is this, the 1930's? You think that only locally-HQed entities advertise? You don't think Coca-Cola and Delta advertise in the Pacific Northwest? You don't think the Aflac trivia question appears in Portland? And you don't think that Portland has utility and food service companies comparable to BellSouth, Georgia Pacific, and Waffle House? Oh, Portland also has Intel, Adidas America, and Columbia Sportswear, among many other big-name companies HQed there. But like most teams, most of the sponsorships come from national companies, not local ones. And what do you think this is, pre-consolidation baseball? Most TV revenues for the NBA come not from locally broadcast games, but from nationally broadcast games during both the regular season and playoffs. Those revenues are shared equally amongst all the teams. Gate receipts are by FAR teams' largest revenue source that does not come from the collective league revenue pot. In case you needed more proof, look at the Forbes data: Portland made $121M in revenue last year, compared to $103M for Atlanta. Portland had $38M in gate receipts compared to $23M for Atlanta. In other words, the difference in ticket revenues DOES account for most of the difference between the two teams' revenues. Yes, Atlanta has ~2.5x as many people as Portland, but the Blazers' TV ratings were almost 4 times higher than the Hawks'. The Blazers' revenue per metro area fan is $37, compared to $11 for the Hawks. Teams from cities where they are the only major pro sports team often are able to earn more money than teams from larger markets. It's why the Spurs, Jazz, and Blazers have consistently been among the most successful/valuable/profitable (or least-unprofitable) teams in the NBA despite coming from "small markets." Simplifying it to market size is absurd. If it were that simple, the Suns would have failed miserably instead of thriving during the first 30 years of their existence. Calling us idiots for suggesting it's way more complicated than that makes you look like a fool.

And I love how he mentions market size as if it were the determinant of profits/revenues. Portland is 4th in average attendance this year; we're 20th. It's been 20 years since we sold more seats in a season than them (and before those 3 years, it hadn't happened at all since the Blazers had come into existence). Portland is die hard about the Blazers, which is the only major professional sports team in town. Atlanta has 4 teams, and is (especially) indifferent about the Hawks. Throughout 4 Hawks ownership eras, it's held true. In the NBA, that trumps market size.

I would rather have Tayshaun Kirilenko than Rip. Again, you need guys who work well off the ball. Kirilenko does that, and he is one of the few guys in recent NBA history who can defend all 5 positions effectively (only other that comes to mind from the past decade is KG in his prime); Tayshaun can guard 4 positions. AK's price tag is steep, but it expires next year. If we trade Marvin, it needs to be for someone who does what he does but better. Tayshaun and Kirilenko fit that bill. Rip is a volume scorer whose efficiency fell off cliff when Billups left. I love his game, but he's not what we need.

Devin Harris wouldn't make us legit.

Unless the Hawks figure out a way to make the traffic disappear, no. And do it in a way that doesn't involve expanding the highways every 6 weeks. As I said on another thread, I won't consider moving back to Atlanta until the city ramps up its public transit. The factors that make Atlanta sports teams have attendance that consistently ranks below their position in the standings are due to factors beyond the control of said sports teams.

Mo and Teague for Jared Dudley and Earl Clark? That's your "move to not give up on the season"??? I don't even think that will help us (we would have zero PGs on the roster besides Bibby). It sure as hell doesn't do a thing to dispel what everyone's been saying about there not being viable trades that would improve us more than marginally. That trade proposal doesn't even do enough to rise to the level of tinkering.

Not on the Hawks. Like Marvin, he wouldn't get the touches. You do realize that there is only one ball, right? Thornton is better off the dribble than Marvin. Marvin is a better outside shooter and a better free throw shooter. They are about even in the post and from mid-range. How does that translate to "much better"? And Marvin being a better rebounder and a better + more versatile defender is pretty much beyond dispute. Or at least serious dispute. But given your opinion on Marvin's offense, I can't say I'm surprised that you think it's "maybe debatable."

Sad but true. The Hawks have the 5th best record in the NBA but are 20th in average attendance. That's by far the biggest gap in the NBA. And the Hawks' attendance has ALWAYS lagged well behind the team's record. The only time in the past 25 years (yes, 25 years) that the Hawks' rank in attendance was better than their position standings was 2004-2005, when the Hawks had the NBA's worst record and finished 28th in attendance (a full 25 fans per game better than 29th-place Charlotte and 236 fans per game better than last-place New Orleans - ie the two cities involved in the Hornets relocation fiasco that had gone down a few months before). Atlanta is not a pro basketball town and, even more importantly, is a city where most of the adult population was born and raised elsewhere. There simply isn't deep loyalty to any Atlanta sports team, and most of the people who are Atlanta-bred prefer football (both college and pro and probably even high school) and baseball to basketball (though even the Braves have always had worse attendance than their record warranted). Hopefully the situation will be better in 10 years. Then again, I'm not moving back to Atlanta unless they build a public transit system that's worth a damn, so maybe not...

I stand corrected!

Btw - Bibby's still popular around Phoenix from his Zona days, but Suns fans would hang Sarver and Kerr if the Suns traded Nash. I can't imagine that a firesale will include him.

You were right about one thing, though - Bibby does play better D than Nash. Bibby at least has some defensive savvy. Nash is both slow and perpetually lost on defense...I've never seen a PG who gets caught out of position on help D as often as Nash does. He constantly gives double teams that leave him in a spot where he's neither providing actual help nor in a position to get back to his man on time on a kick-out. It's incredible that he still hasn't figured it out after 14 years in the league, especially considering that he's one of the league's smartest players on offense.

No, Zaza's haters and John Hollinger think that. He wasn't born in China or a small village in Mozambique. He was born in the Soviet Union, and for all their flaws, keeping tabs on their citizens was not one of them. There are no serious doubts about his age.

Tough to do that when LeBron and Wade bring the ball up and never pass. Not that anything different should have been expected from two guys who've never worked off the ball since middle school.

Please name a feasible trade that will do more than upgrade the end of our bench. Other than Josh-for-Bosh (a risky trade that won't happen anyway), I haven't seen a single proposal that will do jack, unless you completely ignore salary cap rules. We don't have any non-minimum expiring contracts besides JJ's. So the "it's on you Sund" doesn't jive with reality. It's also why you don't hear any rumblings involving Orlando, Denver, or New Orleans looking to make a move (except to dump salary, which would make the teams less competitive).

What happens in 2011 based on current cap/tax rules and numbers is a useless discussion. The current CBA is going to expire in a year and it's a safe bet that the new CBA will bear no resemblance to the current one. That being said, even if the current cap/tax rules stayed in place, the Hawks would not have to go into the tax to keep Horford and JJ at the prices they'll command, as long as they let Crawford walk after his current contract expires (or re-sign him at well under the mid-level). JJ: ~$16.5M (second year of a 5-year contract starting just under the max, with max pay raises) Josh: $12.4M Horford: $11M (first year of a 5-year extension with max pay raises) Marvin: $7.5M Bibby: $6.2M Zaza: $4.75M Teague: $1.6M --------------------- TOTAL: $60M (~$8M under what the tax threshold likely would be) And of course, Bibby's expiring deal would provide a Speedy-like trade chip. In any case, as I said - everything above will likely be meaningless under the new CBA.

I actually do contribute substantively most of the time. Just not to your really bad trade proposals.