sturt

I'm so not touching that with a ten foot pole.

I'm not a betting man, and I'm wrong quite often, but if someone's putting a gun to my head, I'm one of those who say no trades for any of the starters is forthcoming.

I've heard something like that proposed at some point. As said in the video, there's been about two dozen different options that have been brought up--I once sat down and listed them all. Here's my thing, @macdaddy ... as a former Astros fan, the alarms have went off now that the Commissioner "innocently" said what he said recently. That's because, similarly, Astros fans were told, in essence and from time to time over the course of Summer 2011 when Slim-y Jim Crane was buying the club, "there's never actually been a meeting yet where moving HOU to the American League has been proposed." And we know how that ended up. I wrote this to a friend who had e-mailed me personally after visiting the Unify Baseball page, and forgive me, but it seems appropriate to copy-and-paste as a response here, too... ==================================== ... AL fans are appeased on some regular basis, and NL fans are appeased on some regular basis. As you saw that I said in my public comment, I'm just utterly convinced at this point that the simplicity and familiarity aspects are fundamental to getting us to a place of some common ground. And we're clearly at a place right now where the new commish is floating that trial balloon--time is of the essence. Learning curves, implicit with almost every other compromise rule concept, are the enemy of achieving the desired goal. Having initiated and participated in so many of these discussions over the years (as you have as well), I'm also persuaded that once fans are exposed to some idea like a bodyguard, the conversation tends to go off in a variety of directions, and we never actually get to a consensus... and I've concluded that's because they're all seen as "unelectable" as the next one. Which brings me back to HMC. Can't claim that unelectable thing about something that has already been implemented in spring training... ie, just as the original DH rule itself was. And that means everything. People... perhaps us baseball fans maybe especially... will drop the "that's just unrealistic" tag on anything and everything seemingly out of sheer discomfort with change in any form. No one can dismiss HMC that way, though. It is entirely "electable." Just as it is entirely understandable. Just as there are no unintended consequences--it's either/or, not something new that introduces a whole other element. And, the clincher for me, it is entirely fair... everyone's preferred form of the game remains intact as-is for some portion of games--a portion dictated by the natural strategic motivations and forces already embedded in the game, *not* anecdotally imposed from the top down. ==================================== macdaddy, hope you'll give some serious thought to jumping in the pool with me and others.

Would love to have my Hawksquawk friends visit... read... react... and, optimally, if so inclined, sign-up with this and become one of the core who are promoting it... http://www.facebook.com/UnifyBaseball

...and play solid, or better, spectacular D. (And I'm actually starting to like this poster again... hehe)

As said on the big board... would be slightly amusing to see Ferry come to the Nets, having as a top priority the unloading of a contract that he was already responsible for unloading once. And as a side topic... I don't subscribe to quite so strict ideas of what is "Hawks related" and what isn't. There is a third category, which could be called "sorta Hawks related." I know some would like to scrub it all from memory, but yes, Danny Ferry is of more interest because he once was a Hawks GM than is, say, a Phil Jackson. And by virtue of both his Hawks tenure as well as the speculation he could be bought-out, Joe Johnson doesn't belong in this space the same way that, say, a Deron Williams might have when he was the topic of buy-out speculation. Conclusion, I for one, would be more inclined to see and participate in a thread about a DF or a JJ, and actually prefer seeing anything potentially perceived as Hawks-related to some degree in one forum. But that's just my opinion.

Hey... he was able to find a taker for Joe once... maybe they'd figure he could do it again... hehe...

Danny Ferry were to emerge as a GM candidate, eh? Just thinking out loud... hehe...

Stein refers to whom when he says "contrary to recent suggestions?" Us? I wasn't aware anyone else was speculating. Regardless, no harm in speculating.

Said this in another thread moments ago, so pardon the repeat... but I see Joe as potentially occupying a similar role on our roster to what Paul Pierce did for Washington... and at that, maybe even fewer minutes. I think Joe can give us a veteran presence that isn't otherwise on our roster now that Brand is gone, and moreover, I think he can quite possibly still tap into his productive self when he's not "the" guy, but "a" guy, and not expected to pull anything like the weight he's been asked to pull in Brooklyn. But, then, yeah... I revel in being among the optimists on the board. Sue me. :D

Unless I'm missing something, the most that Joe can get from CLE is about $750,000 at this point. That is, they can only give him the vet minimum, and at that, Coon says minimum salary contracts are different from all other contracts in that they're pro-rated depending on when they're signed during the season. We're approaching the halfway point, and the most a 10+ year player can get is $1,500,000 at the beginning of the season. We can pay $2.8 m. I know that doesn't convince anyone, and I'm not sure it should, but it's just good to have the facts where there are facts to be had.

Well, while it's not likely any of this is going down, let's do see the whole of the picture, though. Joe can take a buy-out that saves Brooklyn an amount equal up to the Room exception, anticipating that a team would give him that much in new salary that would make up for it--Brooklyn saves about 10%, Joe get all of his money, and moreover, Joe gets to link up with a contender. Is it worth it to the Nets? Certainly, they don't want to give another EC rival a higher first round pick than they have to. Then again, how much is Joe's presence actually going to matter to where they finish? And is there another younger SG out there who could be acquired--maybe D-league, or maybe they swing a Lopez trade. They know this much--Joe is not in their future, regardless.

I'm biased because there is something romantic about the whole idea of the former franchise icon returning to occupy a viable role, though not the central one that he once did, in Atlanta's (the city, not the franchise, of course) ascension to its first Finals berth. The narrative is a beautiful one to think about. I'd love to see him return and with that result. In our heart of hearts, I think we all would. Are there reasons he probably won't? Plenty. Are there reasons he might? Some. Not a lot. But some.

Was there incentive to let go of Deron? I'm asking. I didn't follow it closely, so I don't know, and I figure one of youseguys can answer.

@JayBirdHawk (and others)... you'll like this blogger's analysis of Sixer trade assets, I bet... more than making up for the grilled cheese deception... http://hoop76.com/

Good to know our Fansided friends are reading the Squawk for some of their material... hehe.

If you'd asked anytime before this season started, Covington was regarded as a core piece as well, ie based on his carrying the team's offense to the degree he did last season. Today, yeah, that appears to be much more of a question given that Sampson is getting as much PT as he is. Is that a temporary thing, or have they seriously soured on Covington... dunno and probably no one has a good handle on that. I do think this, though... they're likely going to want a scorer asset back in trade for Covington, because of the offensive potential he represents to them. You perhaps might be able to swing a deal straight-up for Hardaway assuming he continues to get PT and show some production. Sampson might be the easier (least costly) deal to make, though, and he's also the better-regarded defender of the two.

hehe... well... from the standpoint of his first 3 years specifically...

Been a Grant fan for awhile, but as you read up on Philly, and especially their coach's comments concerning him, you get a lot of sense that they see him as a Josh Smith type of developing player--ie, someone with a big upside and who has been steadily making progress, but even better, has the right attitude that Smoove may have had only sporadically. So, that said, I get the impression that he's one of the least available players on the team, and I gave up on that prospect. Of course, his -30 +/- last night is pretty lousy, but evidently, that's an aberration... it's been said more than once that he's been a bright spot for them this season among all the doom and gloom. I'd love to see it happen though. I think that that's the kind of guy we need to be targeting ultimately to have in our toolbox for the playoffs.

Just making conversation... I know the answer... :)

If you hadn't heard yet, this might make a difference in how you answer that question... http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/06/raptors-f-carroll-undergoes-arthroscopic-knee-surgery

I would modify that slightly @macdaddy... it's who Joe believes he can (a) contribute something to, that (b) has a role awaiting him, and that (c) he also thinks can compete for the finals. We could venture down that same worn path, @pimp, that everyone did immediately after we lost (what was the explanation for losing, and losing that badly), but I'm on the side that says a much different result would have occurred were our first five guys not having to play through injuries--Teague's ankle, Kyle's elbow, Carroll's knee, Millsap's shoulder, Horf's pinky finger on his shooting hand. We can agree that we needed all hands on deck to compete with CLE, but where we disagree is that I believe our full strength was better than their full strength. We'll never know, unfortunately, but there's certainly evidence from the season that supports that, just as I know you'll point to evidence that says it wouldn't have been... again, we'll never know. As for boo-ing him... I don't think many athletes these days are quite so shallow. Maybe some. Most understand it's a game, and that the fans side with their home team and even to the point of being obnoxious about it. That's a given. Now if there was some concern that he would be boo-ed upon returning... Josh for instance might have that concern... then I might abandon the idea. But the vast majority, imo, would feel some appreciation for a guy like him wanting to return to ATL to be part of a push before he hangs it up. And so, yeah, I don't predict this will happen, but as said at the top, none of the "ifs" are too much to believe.

@pimp, you're presuming something I'm not willing to concede... ie, that we're a fluke 2014-15 team that can't possibly compete for the Finals in 2015-16. It's just January. There's a LOT of basketball yet to be played.

hehe... my turn... Don't get me wrong (!). I'm NOT asserting ANYTHING about whether he's the next Salim Stoudamire or the next Mark Aguirre. I'm SIMPLY asserting that his college numbers are pretty CONSISTENT with what his pro numbers have been thus far, excluding the current incomplete data set called 2015-16... and that that's somewhat reassuring.

If anyone was going to upset that theory, it would seem to be someone who was the franchise icon. And, too, someone can correct me on this (I'm too lazy to go look it up), but I'm pretty sure we can offer a full room exception, whereas the Cavs can only do a minimum veteran contract at this point.