supermariowest

I don't like the guaranteed money part either. Maybe he had another deal on the table and we had to sweeten ours to get him? I don't know. That being said, I don't think it's fair to say he has taken an awfully big step down. An understanding of probability will tell you that if you give a career 35% three point shooter 150 shots, he will probably make between 42 and 63 of them (28% to 42%). His numbers from last year (48/152, 32%) certainly fall in that window. Is it possible that he has taken a step down? Yes, but I don't think there is enough evidence to support that. We know he can play defense (former all-defensive second team), we need some wings, and he's a career 35% shooter from three. Despite the guaranteed money, it looks like a good move to me.

3P% the past three years: 0.437, 0.419, 0.316. Career 3P%: 0.348 Can't say I love it, but I'll wait until the roster picture is a bit clearer to judge this one.

Eh, this feels like a reaction to the Lou/Bebe trade. Here, you're saying: In the Lou/Bebe trade thread, you said: Unless the Hemingway reference was meant sarcastically, it seems like you're barking up two different trees. Whether or not we should move Al might be a discussion worth having, but I'd guess he would be moved by trade.

Sure, he's a chucker whose career TS% would have ranked in the top 15 of the NBA last year. Same goes for eFG%. I can't say that I've seen him play, but I'll give him a shot.

What I like about that 41 point game -- 17/17 from the line. I can get down with the pick.

Yes, it definitely matters. This sharade has been going on for years.

To any lurkers: This is not really news. He's misrepresenting his opinion as news.

This one is free. What? He didn't say that at all. Edit: Direct quote from the article: It makes no sense for him to leave Miami. Opting out is about leverage. The Heat were smoked by San Antonio in the finals, and James wants the organization to improve the cast around him.

Got to think it's either Miami or Cleveland for LeBron, but maybe getting completely handled by the Spurs in the finals changes the game.

Agree to disagree on this one. I want players who respect their teammates, their coaches, and their opponents. This description does not fit Lance. He may make the team better, but I pass and don't regret it.

Glad to see most of you guys are against bringing Lance in. The guy has talent and potential, sure, but it seems he knows little about professionalism and/or being an adult. I'll pass.

Some of those guys were picked in Atlanta's slot but didn't play here. Honorable mention: Acie Law.

I think we need somebody to update the "Hawks Salary Situation" thread before we have any meaningful discussions about free agency.

@AHF -- Just to be clear, I didn't mean you when I said that posters need to accept that we are not tanking. I think we just disagree on where this team might peak and that's ok. I don't think Ferry will articulate his plan either (as most GMs don't), but I imagine Bud wouldn't leave a sure thing in San Antonio unless he felt that he and Ferry could create something good here.

That's your opinion, not mine. Answering this question does me no good -- I'll get pegged as shortsighted, overly optimistic, one of the Disneys, a fan of mediocrity, a treadmiller, etc, but: I think this team (healthy) plays smarter, more competitive ball than any team we've had in the past decade. This seems to be a point of contention. The previous core clearly peaked, but we don't know what this team can do. I'm not guaranteeing this team will win the championship, I just want to see them get a few runs in the playoffs. So, making some noise? I don't know -- playing competitive ball and upsetting one of the top seeds. If some of you disagree, that's fine, but please accept the fact that we are not currently tanking and we probably won't be tanking next year.

With a healthy Horford, I think this team is capable of making some noise in the playoffs. It seems you disagree. We should be in a better position next year -- healthy Horford, Bud has playoff coaching experience, Scott/Schro/Antić have more playing experience, Bebe/Moose/the rookie might be getting some meaningful minutes too. I think that team will also be capable of making some noise in the playoffs. Listen, if the team was still Teague/Joe/Marvin/Josh/Al, then I would be all for blowing it up, taking some steps back, tanking if necessary. That team had clearly peaked. I don't think our current team has peaked, so I don't think taking steps back is necessary at this point.

Trying to establish serious interest on the GM side might be hard to do. My point is that too many posters assume that future free agency outcomes are dependent on past free agency outcomes. With no data to back this up, my opinion is that future free agency outcomes and past free agency outcomes are indepedent (with the caveat that a star player might be more likely to re-sign with a team than to sign elsewhere). Like you mentioned, signing a top talent in free agency at some point in the future might take some cap maneuvering. I can't deny this but it doesn't make signing a top talent impossible. Might tanking be a better option for the team? As the past few months on HS would illustrate, this is up for debate. But some posters (not talking about you) need to get over the fact that we aren't tanking this year and we probably won't tank while Horford is on the squad. Getting Coach Bud some playoff experience would be a good thing and we should be able to find a solid player around pick 15.

Selective listening? I implied that I agree with your point that a new GM wipes the slate clean as far as the draft goes. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm just rejecting this notion: A superstar free agent hasn't picked Atlanta in the past, so it will never happen.

I'm so tired of this notion that Atlanta can't entice free agents. All it takes is one. And you're right, I don't know who that one will be. But I can't get down with the idea that no superstar will ever come to Atlanta so the only way to success is to land a top pick.

So, we can't talk about previous draft failures because those GMs are no longer here. I dig it, but can't we make the same argument concerning free agency? If having a new GM wipes the slate clean as far as early draft picks go, then having a new GM should wipe the slate clean as far as free agency goes as well.

If by "Disneys" you mean the posters who throw tantrums when they don't get what they want, then yes, it is pointless to argue with them.

I think we'll end up between 7th and 9th. It seems the conference championship will run through Miami or Indiana the next few years, so I don't mind a first round series with either one of those teams. I wouldn't expect us to win, of course, but hopefully this would give Bud a chance to see what does and does not work in a playoff series against Miami or Indiana. This experience can only help a healthy/improved roster next year.

Challenging but certainly doable. If you can quantify a single player's talent (or perhaps performance is a better word than talent), then you can do the same for a team (as a team is just a collection of players).

I said quantify. What you have presented is an opinion. I want you to back this opinion up with numbers. I want to see numbers that show that our team (with Horford) has below average talent. I want to see numbers that show that our team has above average talent and I want to know why these numbers are less meaningful than the numbers that show we have below average talent. I want you to be unbiased and thoughtful. Is this too much to ask?

Please quantify this.