spotatl

http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Josh+Smith

Its a really bad offer. The Nuggets wouldn't resign Crawford. You are offering them Marvin Williams (and they would likely view his contract as a negative) and a pick in the 20's for Carmelo Anthony. Thats a joke.

Jones has 2 years after this one.

You are joking right?

I'm pretty sure the Pacers would do Evans for Jones straight up if you really want him. I believe they would like out of his contract.

coachx- if the Hawks could acquire Nash for the same price they could get Billups then I'd be totally on baord with Nash. I just think it would take a whole lot more to get him even if he were made available. I really do think that Crawford and a protected first would get Billups. But that said- I don't think the ASG would pay the luxury tax for either player. To me the only time the ASG would pay the luxury tax is if they get a superstar that they think takes them to elite status.

Chauncey Billups is still the guy that I am hoping for. I do think that Crawford and a protected first would probably be enough. I think he would be perfect for this team.

To me its obviously a PG. The Hawks have a decent backup big in Zaza. They have a decent backup swingman in Evans- and if it turns out that Evans is injured then backup swingmen are easy to acquire in a trade. But Bibby shouldn't be a starter and Teague has shown me nothing to make me think he can even be a quality backup at this point. To me you trade Crawford for a starting PG and let bibby come off the bench.

I have been pretty surprised by how few people have overreacted to both the 6-0 start and the 0-3 lull. I think that most people are just trying to give the team some time to let this team show what they are about. Confirmation bias is always massive early in the season. (You focus on the things that confirm what you already believe and ignore things that don't support it) The people who thought that the team would immediately get better without woodson would take any evidence that the team has improved as PROOF. People who think that the team is flawed will take the Milwaukee game as PROOF. But really- there are always ebbs and flows to the season. Time will tell on what kind of team this is.

I am one of the biggest people you will ever meet as far as "basketball positions are made up... who cares what "position" someone plays. But to me you need to be able to put your guys in position to do well. And Josh's value on defense is close to the basket where he can easily help- when a team can drag him outside it really kills the team defense. (Orlando...) When you play him against a SF it makes it trivially easy to drag him outside. On offense he isn't an asset away from the basket. If the Hawks had an outside shooting center (even someone like Anthony Tolliver) then I would have far less problem with him playing SF. But to me when the Hawks have 3 players who are not at all threats from the 3 point line it just takes too much of the offense away. Then you compound it by making it even easier for teams to drag Smith away from the basket on defense and its just never made any sense at all to me why people would clamor for it. I literally would rather have Smith playing Center than Small Forward- at least then Smith would present a mismatch on offense that the team could try and exploit.

When you sell the first pick in the second round and then draft Pape Sy with the other one you aren't allowed to complain about lack of depth. Those are the moves of a team that thinks they have plenty of contributors. To me its more surprising that people here aren't killing Drew for trying to play Josh Smith at SF so much. We have all known for years that it would be a big mistake to play him at SF- he gets drawn too far outside on defense, he isn't a great defender out there, and it leaves the team with too little outside shooting. I'd easily rather see Joe slide over to SF- he easily has the size to play there.

Johnny- the team didn't decline his team option. They just didn't extend his contract. It would have been absolutely the same situation if the hawks and Horford hadn't reached an agreement before the deadline. It just means that Oden wouldn't sign for what the Blazers were offering. But Oden is still supposed to be a restricted free agent this coming offseason- not signing him to an extension doesn't at all mean that the team is moving on without him.

Early in the shotclock go under the screen and give up the long jumper. If teams want to play the low percentage game then go ahead and let them. Don't panic because someone hits a couple long jumpers, keep going under the screen. Late in the shotclock switch- then teams don't have time to reset the play and really exploit the mismatch.

Wretch- the Hawks had a great game on offense against the Grizzlies with Gasol and Randolph out. Other than that the offense hasn't been as productive as last season and they haven't faced a team that is going to come anywhere close to making the playoffs. The offense is encouraging but lets see how it holds up against a quality team before we start making judgement about what kind of team this is.

Woodson had to go. THe team quit on him and they needed a new voice. That said- every game so far as been against a team that is going to be playing for ping pong balls at some point this season. Until they play a playoff caliber team I'm going to reserve judgement on whether Drew is an upgrade over Woodson.

Last season Joe Johnson took more shots in the 16-23 range than he did from 3 point land. To me thats something that absolutely needs improvement.

And the alternative was.... ??

Its being reported that Horford is signing a flat 12 million per year contract which is definitely interesting. It increases the cap hit next season by 2 million dollars. Thats definitely not something a team would do if they intended to pay the luxury tax this coming season. That would mean that he would cost the team an extra 40% for no apparent reason.

niremetal... For second round Picks all you have to do is offer them a non-guaranteed contract in order to retain their rights. If they accept it then thats what you have them for. In practice teams will normally offer more guaranteed money in order to get them to agree to a team options for future seasons. In practice- overseas players hate the system because they aren't normally going to give up a guaranteed contract in Europe to come over for a 1 year non-guaranteed contract in the US. Agents really hate the system- all it takes is a non-guaranteed offer but it means that 1 team has the player over a barrel and the player has no leverage at all. If a US player is drafted in the second round and would rather take a guaranteed contract in Europe compared to a non-guaranteed contract here then you retain their rights. Thats what the Magic hoped would happen with Stanley Robinson. They didn't offer him any guaranteed money hoping that he would go to Europe instead and they would retain his rights. But Robinson was probably smart to at least try and make the roster, he was waived and now he is an unrestricted free agent and can sign anywhere he likes. If he goes to Europe now, he would be free to sign with any team if he decides to come back to the NBA.

Thats not true at all. For any second round pick you need to only offer them a non-guaranteed 1 year contract. And even at the end of that contract they would still be a RFA. If the player decides to sign overseas then you retain their rights as long as they stay over there- it doesn't matter where they were born or whether they played college.

Bye bye Jamal. Would anyone seriously trade Josh Smith for Jamal Crawford?

What are you talking about? No one has any idea what the new CBA will have. Its exceptionally unlikely that there will be a hard cap in the NBA. The owners will talk about a hard cap as a negotiating tactic but I don't think anyone thinks thats a realisitc outcome. The union would likely decertify before accepting a hard cap.

The problem is that the Hawks have no idea what the new CBA will have as far as the luxury tax or things like that. I don't see how the Hawks could sign Crawford to a contract knowing there is a possiblility that they would have to pay double or even triple the value of it depending on what happens with the CBA negotiation. Horford they can go out on a limb for because no matter what the CBA says they were pretty much locked into keeping him. Jamal Crawford is an expendable piece

I think that 5 years and 85 million would have been the max under the current system.

Will be interesting to see if there are any player options or what kind of incentives there are.