spotatl

If you wanted to trade JJ then I think the Mavs would take him. But would people really want to trade him for Caron Butler and Deshawn Stevenson? Thats the kind of trade you do for a player when you think they are on an albatross contract...

Dejay- I'm pretty sure that "attendance" means tickets sold and not people actually attending.

if the Hawks were trying to win a championship this season they would have spent the MLE. The magic are spending 40 million dollars more on payroll than the Hawks this season- if you want to win a championship then the easiest way to advance to that goal is to sign players that would help you.

Its crazy to draft for need that late in the draft. Seriously... what player do you think they should have taken instead? Picks that late are like little lottery tickets and I think you are better off just taking the one you think has the best chance of someday becoming a useful player. Drafting for need is how the team botched the Teague and Law picks.

I still can't believe that people think Collins should be starting. Its just astounding to me.

Even if Joe agreed to a mutual contract termination, his salary as it currently is will still count towards the cap.

Actually thats not true- if a player agrees to a zero dollar buyout then their caphit would be completely wiped off. BUt this only happens in really extreme cicumstances. When a player wants to go back to europe and he can't unless his contract is bought out. Or when Derek Fisher wanted to be released from Utah so he could be in LA for his daughter's medical treatment.

The point is they didn't get 0 in return. They can spend upo to the cap then use the tpe to go over it.

Thats not true. Traded player exceptions count against the cap so you need to renounce them if you want to use caproom. Just as an example Denver wouldn't care about a TPE because they would be below the cap and would just renounce it since caproom is more valuable.

I haven't looked checked to make sure but every year the Bulls have a long road trip when the circus is in town and they will play fewer games in that stretch.

Do 20 people think Collins should start or Marvin should come off the bench?

Evidently 20 people think Collins should be starting as there are plenty of other ways to have marvin come off the bench if thats what they want. I can't believe how many people think that a crappy player is a good starter just because he is tall.

I can't believe there are 20 people who think that Collins should be a starter.

The ASG haven't skimped on the team- they ahve been willing to spend. What they ahven't been willing to do is to pay the luxury tax and I can't say that I blame them. I think it makes sense to pay the tax for a championship contender and this team is more than a MLE player away.

There are 15 spots on the roster with 12 active.

If you guys want this team to be a contender there's no way to avoid the tax

What the fans want and what the ASG want are entirely different things. I just don't think that the ASG will ever pay the luxury tax to be the third best team in the division. And thats really problematic when the Magic and the Heat are in the same division.

Jamal's contract in and of itself is sooo valuable to a team looking for cap space next summer.

Expiring contracts are only as valuable as the salary you are willing to take in return. The problem for the Hawks is that after giving big contracts to Joe, Josh, Al, and a MLE sized deal to Marvin the Hawks may not be in position to take on any salary for next season as it would put them into luxury tax. (though no one knows whether there will be a luxury tax or what the threshold would be...) I've thought for a while that the Hawks are not planning to bring Crawford back because of this, so even if they did trade Crawford it would be for someone who also has an expiring contract. The only way I think the ASG pays the luxury tax is if they consider it a player that would make them a contender. So I do think they would pay it to bring in Carmelo (if he were willing to resign...) but I don't think that they would pay it for someone like Billups.

Honestly... even if the Suns were to do Nash for Marvin/Crawford would that make the Hawks favorites to make the conference championships? I still don't know that that would make the Hawks favorites against Boston, Miami, or Orlando....

Yup. Like Teague or not, he is the only other bona fide PG on the team

Who says he is a bona fide PG?

you should probably stop arguing about this.

LOL. I'm definitely going to stop arguing this as its pretty clear the point will forever go over your head and you aren't interested in a legitimate conversation. I'll go back to talking to the adults. I am secure in my knowledge of statistics and economics and I couldn't care any less if the real world application conflicts with your Talk Radio version. Anyone who has read this thread knows how ridiculous you sound. I'm very content to let your words stand on their own.

Thats a change of -15% in attendance using the midpoint formula since you can get different results if you change the direction of calculation. This resulted after the Hawks increased ticket prices by 1.1%. Thats an elasticity of demand around -13.97

The question is how to acquire a player that the ASG would think makes it worth it to pay the luxury tax. I have little doubt they would pay the tax for Carmelo but I have seen no indication he would sign here. (though he would own this town... if you were ballsy enough to trade for him and the hawks had a nice playoff run you might be able to convince him to stay) Who else? I don't think they woudl for Billups. I don't think they will for Crawford.

I agree with you evilinkblot. I don't know how to make people care more about the Hawks in absence of them either having a superstar or them being considered championship contenders. (and those things of course tie into each other) People here didn't grow up with the Hawks to make them feel like they are missing out if they don't see them live as a matter of habit.

Yall are arguing that ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance

Keep making yourself look foolish. Just because I don't think that a 1% price difference doesn't make a meaningful difference on attendance either way is not the same as saying that "ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance". Keep on digging that hole. Its not worth trying to explain it to you. If you want to think that a 1% price increase as caused a 15% decrease in attendance then by all means do so.

t should also be noted that I have never claimed a 1% change in ticket prices leads to a 15% change in attendance.

I'll let your own words speak for you and then be done with this since you clearly aren't interested in a real discussion here.

Thats a change of -15% in attendance using the midpoint formula since you can get different results if you change the direction of calculation. This resulted after the Hawks increased ticket prices by 1.1%. Thats an elasticity of demand around -13.97

PER doesn't really include defense and thats sort of important when talking about Dwight Howard.

We can put it another way. If the Hawks increased prices by 1% and you think that it caused attendance to drop 15%, what do you think would have happened if the Hawks lowered prices by 1%? Personally I don't think that a 1% decrease in ticket prices would have increased attendance because the other factors involved would vary by FAR more than 1%. Do you really think that it flies in the face of economics for me to say that I don't think attendance would have increased this season even if prices went down 1%?

I do think its pretty smart for the Hawks to give away thrashers tickets to a season ticket holder. They know they have a rolodex of people with plenty of disposable income, I can see why its 100% in their favor to give season ticket holders a free look at the Thrashers hoping that they will fall in love with the experience (or the wives, kids, or clients will). I think thats pretty smart marketing.

I'm still waiting for the "overwhelming evidence" that increased tickets prices have caused a 15% drop in attendance. First you haven't even said what tickets you think have increased. (though that doesn't stop you from saying that people aren't showing up because of the increased prices... ridiculous) Second you know that the cheapest ticket prices didn't go down at all so everyone who did have their ticket price go up had the option to still go for a cheaper price. But of course you still over and over again have avoided saying why you think that with a 1% increase it caused people to NOT SHOW UP rather than just choosing a cheaper ticket. But once again- you clearly aren't interested in having a discussion about this and would rather just spew wildly to try and derail the conversation. You can just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper...

Sultan- do the braves run those shuttles or do the bars run those shuttles?

You had one link where without any context it said that prices had increased by 1%. You flat stated this caused a 15% decline in attendance. If you don't see where this is taking a correlation and taking it as causation then I don't know how else to explain it to you. There are a ton of different reasons to explain an attendance drop and for some reason you chose to say it was caused by a 1% price increase without any context for what tickets were actually raised in price. And of course you have many times avoided trying to explain why you think those people are staying home instead of just taking a cheaper ticket.

I have no interest in trying to explain to you how many ridiculous assumptions you are making as you clearly aren't here to have a rational discussion about this topic. Anyone who reads this thread will understand how ridiculous you sound. I even went back to reread the thread to see if I could pick up on what set you off like that- as far as I can tell its just because someone disagreed with you.