spotatl

Thats ridiculous. Bringing in Shaq would have cost around 12 million dollars for just this season once you factor in the luxury tax. If the Hawks also paid Childress what he got from the suns then the hawks would have paid 25 million just this season for the 2 of them. I don't blame the ownership for not wanting to pay the luxury tax for the third best team in the division.

This is what I don't get. You really think that the Hawks were a 63 win team with a different approach?

I think that the offense is going to take a big step back this season because they are going to have a ton more turnovers asking guys to do things that they aren't good at. And I do think thats going to cost them 5 games in the standings. Put it this way... What do you think the odds are that the Hawks lose 7 more games than last season? Because thats what the over/under is in vegas right now for the team. (46.5) If you are confident that the Hawks won't take a step back you should go ahead and bet and make some serious money.

Oh- I agree. I don't want any part of Elton Brand. But thats the only kind of "star" that you could get for Bibby and Marvin.

The hawks might be able to get Elton brand for Bibby and Marvin.

You are putting WAAAY too much stock in the predictive value of a couple preseason games.

You won't be seeing a bring Woody Back thread out of me- but "be careful what you wish for" is a definite possibility. I have always found it amazing that Woodson got absolutely no credit for how much production he was able to get out of these players. People thought he was the worst coach in the league and that anyone would be able to do better. Time will tell.

The people fighting for a roster spot or for playtime are giving 100% as you would expect. These games don't matter at all to the veterans- I don't see why anyone would expect them to put the same effort in a meaningless preseason game as they would in a regular season game.

Jeff Teague wasn't taken high- at that point in the draft if you end up with a quality backup then you did a good job drafting. Guys taken in the top 10 sure- if you don't end up with a starter with a top 10 pick then you probably messed up. But at #19 its simply not reasonable to expect a starter out of that position. Bibby is the only guy who I think can consistently knock down shots from the outside at this point so thats who I would start. I prefer Jamal Crawford playing with the second unit where he can dominate the ball. I can't understand how anyone saw enough from Teague last season to think that he should be starting. And I say this as a guy who is convinced that Bibby has been in serious decline for several seasons now and managed to reverse the trend only in his contract year. So if I'm the coach I start the game With Bibby, pick my spots where I think Teague can be successful, and finish the game with Crawford.

Bibby is owed 5.7 million this season and 6.4 million next season.

Of course they picked up his option... why on earth would you not believe that?

macdaddy- the Hawks won't offer that because the Hawks would be petrified that he would accept. Even under the current rules that would cost the ASG 30 million or so once you take into account luxury tax charges. And when you realize that no one knows what the new rules woudl be, why lock yourselves into a contract you aren't sure you want to bring back at all?

"I want to be here" == "I want a long term contract with lots of guaranteed money"

I think the offense is going to take a big step back actually. I think the Hawks offense is going to be mediocre and the turnovers are going to go way up this season. I think there is a better chance the team misses the playoffs than they make it past the second round.

Well we are on the same page now- I also doubt that they will get rid of restricted free agency because I think its good for the league overall and the fans like to see their team have the ability to retain good draftpicks for a few more seasons. Personally I think that the odds of there being a franchise player type rule that leads to a form of Restricted Free Agency for veterans is more likely than getting rid of RFA for guys in Horford's situation. Really all I am pointing out is that we don't know what the new rules will be and we can't COUNT on Horford being a restricted free agent. But I do think that there is a very good chance that the players decertify the union this time. Even with a strong luxury tax (dollar for dollar...) and salary cap rules the owners are still throwing out piles of money at players. SO the owners are using the CBA to protect against their own decisions. Without a union there isn't a CBA and so there isn't a salary cap. And when I do think the owners are looking to "break" the players- in the end I think the players will see they are better off decertifying the union than to lock themselves into a bad deal for several seasons. So what would happen to Al Horford if the union decertified? I don't think that anyone really knows. And with the NFL players looking very likely to at least give their negotiators the authority to decertify the union I do think there is a good chance that the NBA players do the same. And even if the union doesn't decertify but there is a lockout then Horford would be eligible to go play in Europe while the labor dispute is going on. With Jamal Crawford there is little risk in waiting until the new CBA is in effect. With Horford the equation is just riskier.

Niremetal- I'm not sure how long you have been an NBA fan. But this is exactly how Shaq was allowed to go to the Lakers. Shaq's was supposed to be a restricted free agent, but the CBA did away with restricted free agency and shaq was reclassified as an unrestricted free agent.

You couldn't be any more wrong about this. The rules of restricted free agency are written into the CBA. You also couldn't be more wrong that the new CBA cannot change the terms of existing contracts. Look at the NHL where the players agreed to an across the board rollback of all existing contracts. The new rules will be what are agreed to by the parties involved. IF the NBA got rid of restricted free agency then Al Horford could be made an unrestricted free agent. Are you really under the impression that the NBA is certain to have restricted Free Agency in its current form for all players who were drafted in the first round this past offseason? So even 4 years from now even if the CBA completely changed that we would still be dealing with the same rules for those players?

niremetal- who knows what the rules of restricted free agency will be? For all the Hawks know there will be no Restricted Free Agency anymore and Horford could be made an unrestricted free agent. Or there could be a hard cap with existing contracts grandfathered in- but the Hawks wouldn't have bird rights to sign Horford. I don't think that any of these scenarios are likely- but remember that Horford is only a RFA under the old rules and no one knows what the new rules will be. With someone like Jamal Crawford that doesn't matter nearly as much- letting him go isn't the end of the world. But counting on the new rules being in the Hawks favor is definitely a gamble.

Why not go with 12 captains since they all bring something different to the table?

I get it from his perspective. He came in and exceeded all expectations. He did everything he could have possibly been asked to do and more. I fully get why he is severely disappointed that the Hawks aren't even discussing an extension with him. That said it would be really stupid for the Hawks to extend him. He is almost certainly not going to repeat his year from last year. THe Hawks will almost certainly be able to sign him for less next offseason than this one under the new CBA. IN face the Hawks are pretty likely to just let him walk away depending on how the new CBA deals with the luxury tax.

There must have been a typo because the Hawks are now projected third in the Division. BTW- for people who want insider access the easiest way is to get a subscription to ESPN the magazine which automatically gives you Insider Access. I think I pay about $4 a year for ESPN the magazine and just throw it away when it comes in the mail.

The "fluke rule" isn't specific to the Hawks- thats basically saying that when veteran players have a big jump in productivity that they have never matched in their career then its almost always an aberration and the player will regress to the mean the next season. I do think it has a lot of merit actually. I certainly don't expect the same amount of production from Jamal Crawford this season as they got last season.

Crawford and a first round pick for Billups. (With Billups on board the pick would not likely be particularly high) Chauncey would be a spectacular fit next to Joe and is the kind of player that the ASG might be willing to pay some luxury tax to keep next season. Adding an all star PG to the team would be the kind of move that could take the team to the next level. And With the Nuggets trading melo and breaking it up I'd think they would be open to adding some more scoring to the team and turning the team over the Lawson.

The only thing that puts denver into a tailspin is Carmelo leaving- but the guy said that it was justifiable for Carmelo to leave BECAUSE denver was in a tailspin which makes no sense. I still think that Carmelo will end up resigning with Denver- there is too much money at stake for him if the Nuggets call his bluff.

Huh? What about denver puts them into "free-fall meltdown mode"? They won the same number of games as the hawks last season and they have an ownership willing to pay the luxury tax.