supermariowest

If this was three years ago, i would be like... Aight... bet.  However, this is this year and he seems to have taken an awfully big step down.  I would have rather seen a second or third year TO.  Right now, he's bench fodder behind DMC and he's guaranteed money and not as good as Brand was last year.

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.

Eh, this feels like a reaction to the Lou/Bebe trade. Here, you're saying:

 

The point isn't to replace Al, it's to create a boatload more of cap space to go after 2 big time players this summer. If we trade Al then we're not opening up that cap space... unless it's for the superstar that we're signing. 

In the Lou/Bebe trade thread, you said:

 

1996. That's the last time that a marquee free agent wanted to come to an up and coming Atlanta team as a free agent.  Almost 20 years ago. 

 

I don't think the old man in the sea even cast his line that many times trying to catch the big fish.

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.

Payne isn't anti-Josh. He is a big man outside chucker who does not rebound on the level of Josh. Who does not block shots on the level of Josh. He does nothing other than shoot outside shots. Read around the web. He has already been called out by some for trying to be the next stretch four because it is currently sexy in the NBA. He really is not typical of a Michigan State Izzo blue collar guy. I watched him play several times including when they lost in the tournament. The reason they lost in the tournament was because guys like him could not control the paint. He was too caught up in trying to be a soft stretch big

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.

Does it really matter? He is more likely speaking the truth about Lebron. I don't think the Hawks are on his radar.

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.

I refuse to pay for ajc...so can you fill me in with what Schultz said?

This one is free.

He basically says he thinks Bron is using the Hawks as a ploy and ... Lebron just wants more money.

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.

Most of the people against Lance are some of the people that were against Al Jefferson last summer. The fan base may want to focus on the talent a guy can bring to a team, and see if his talent outweigh his potential negatives.

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.

What is the definition of "making some noise"?

Making the second round, apparently.

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.

Yup lets get more "solid" players to keep us in the middle of the pack. For God's sake can we get off the treadmill and just go somewhere? Forward or backward, either would be welcomed. Sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward but this team(and some fans apparently) just seem completely fine with just being one of the 16 teams that makes the playoffs like that is somehow a big deal. At least a bad year gives you hope that you land a great talent and can start building an actual future. What exactly does this team get by staying this mediocre course? Another "solid" player? Great...

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.

Let's use this as a criteria. Has there been someone who was First or Second team All-NBA who signed with the Hawks or even seriously talked with them? I would normally put some limits on this like (in the last 20 years or that was 1st/2nd All-NBA in the prior 3 years) but let's just say ever in the 40 year history in Atlanta and simply note that the player has to have already been 1st or 2nd team All-NBA and still be in contention to be a top 10 player.

Let's try to put a list together of everyone who has done this. All who Atlanta has signed and all who they have seriously flirted with but failed to sign.

The only one who comes to my mind by virtue of this very generous definition of a superstar is a washing up Moses Malone who Atlanta signed at the very end of his All-Star relevance and who was never even 3rd team All-NBA with the Hawks. (He was tied for 13th in MVP voting one year in Atlanta with Mark Eaton and Larry Nance so I'll give him being in 'contention' for top 10 even if he clearly wasn't top 10.)

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.

You're practicing selective listening. Also, yes the slate can be wiped clean on drafting with the hiring of a new GM while FA cannot be. Not only for the reasons already stated by @Sothron and @AHF but also due to the fact that draftees don't have a say in where they end up, free agents do.

No matter what city you're in, no matter what crappy ownership situation you have, no matter what your rep is around the league you can draft whoever is available and the likelihood of said draftee not joining your team (a la John Elway to the Colts) is slim to none. A GM's (and staff's) ability to spot and project talent is the chief determining factor in whether or not your team drafts well, thus every time you change GM's your draft abilities change with him. Make sense?

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.

If the primary factors leading to superstars passing over the Hawks as free agents changed, then we should wipe the slate clean. Atlanta doesn't entice free agents and that hasn't changed. More importantly, we still lack a star who can attract other free agents so that hasn't changed. Our coach doesn't have the cache to recruit superstars so that hasn't changed. Our GM doesn't have the cache to recruit superstars on his own (this isn't a big name HOFer like Pat Riley or Phil Jackson where you could make that argument) so that hasn't changed.

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.

Again, as most anti-tank opinions do, we select a finite period during which it appears a point can be made all while ignoring the fact that the GMs who made those picks aren't here anymore which pretty much renders the entire analysis moot at best.

Can we try something productive and offer some real alternatives to getting championship level talent on the roster. None of us want to be bad. We just recognize the need to infuse talent onto the roster and FA isn't an option for us.

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.

It is what it is man. Pointless to argue with the Disneys.Lets hope it is 15 or 16 deep.

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.

I don't know how one can 'quantify' talent objectively. The best you can do is to look at salary (exceptions taken for rookie talent) for which the Hawks are 5th least in the East.

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).

Easy, they aren't that talented. It's nothing exceptionial. They win because of the system, coaching, and work ethic. Look at other teams in the East. Most generally have more talent.

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?

We have below average overall talent with Horford on the squad.

Please quantify this.