REHawksFan

So that's 9 guys that are under contract for next season in the "High End Backups" or better category. Six guys at "Solid Starters" or better. That's depth.

Gotta admit the skillset of Boogie intrigues me a lot as a backup center. But yeah, not feeling the headcase part. Seems like this team has a great chemistry to them, don't want to mess with that too much.

Not sure why you are getting angry. No one said anything about you or made anything personal. Just don't think the proposed trade is good value for Gallo. I didn't realize we weren't supposed to comment on the trade you put out there. My bad.

Hard pass for me. Don't think he's got anything left AND he's a diva. Stay away from my team.

I'm not trying to crap on you or anything. But you said, "an Atlanta/Minny trade would look something like this..." and I'm just saying that looks like crap for Atlanta. I get the cap savings, but the Hawks don't have to take scraps just to save money this early in the game. I'll just sit back and hope the first iteration of this trade is not the one that sticks. I understand they will eventually trade Gallo. That's the business with the position the Hawks are in. But, imo, he's more valuable than a Rubio/Okogie or Culver return.

Gallo was - at times - the 2nd or 3rd best option during the playoffs. I just can't see trading him this off season for marginal returns. As part of a bigger deal for a legit starter? OK. But not for someone of Rubios or Culver's level. That would be taking 2 steps back.

Including Hunter is a non-starter to me. I think he's going to be a legit 2way star once he reaches his prime. I'm not selling him early. I wouldn't mind KAT, but I'm just not interested in trading away Hunter.

One game to win it all and I'm taking Durant no question. Dude is really really good and the moment never seems to big for him, imo. I picked Giannis, but honestly, KD might just be the right answer.

I picked Giannis but I'm intrigued by your wording of "acquire" one superstar. That implies we are giving stuff up to get him which obviously has an impact. But regardless, Giannis is the best player, imo, at the weakest Hawks position, imo.

I don't see how that works. 25% of 112M is 28M so that would be the starting not the avg salary

I don't think JC is a scrub. I'd value him at $22M. That's not a scrub at all. But a $22M player on a $28M and rising contract is not a good deal, no matter how shrewd your GM is. And that's precisely why TS offered 90M imo. He knows JC isn't worth the max (which was the subject of this thread btw).

Thank you. If it's 25% flat then my numbers are off a little. I was using 25.5% which I calculated from this article. Not sure the actual rule though. https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2020/11/nba-maximum-salaries-for-202021.html EDIT: So here is where I tuck my tail and realize I calculated the % wrong (fat fingers apparently). It's 25%. The argument stays the same but the numbers are slightly lower.

And now we've come full circle back to my first post in this thread. A simple acknowledgement that trading JC when trying to make room for Cam or Hunter is not as easy as you seem to think it will be. IF JC is on a contract that is considered "bad" by the NBA, you don't just dump it on another team without attaching assets. All that can be avoided by signing JC to a reasonable contract or being willing to explore a sign and trade.

That's true when you figure in young, talented players playing ahead of aging vets that make more. But not so much when you are equating young players on max deals vs other young players that are more deserving of a max deal. I know you aren't suggesting that next year with JC on a max contract we put him on the bench and play Hunter over him. That would be insane. So while I completely agree with the Gallo example (and did last year as well), this is a different deal. The bottom line is, you can't pay Trae, JC, Cam, and Hunter the max. It just isn't possible. And to me, at this point in time, the 3 that are most likely to play worthy of a max deal, are Trae, Hunter, and Cam. So I'm extremely leery of paying JC ahead of the others.

Just to clarify my numbers (I'm not a cap expert but from what I can find): 4-Year Deal Year 1: $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of $112,000,000 CAP Year 2: $29,988,000 which is 5% raise Year 3: $31,487,400 which is 5% raise Year 4: $33,061,770 which is 5% raise Add it all up and you get $123,097,170 or $30,774,293 per year. That's where those numbers come from. To be clear and to reiterate: JC's max is the same as any other player with 6 years of service time or less. The max contract is not incentive based. As @marco102 said, there is such a thing as the Super Max which is what Luka will be paid on and what John Wall and other have been on. That is based on additional % of the CAP resulting from all nba selections. That's not what we are talking about. Tatum is on a regular max deal. So is Adebayo I believe. So is Mitchell. They are in that same tier as the above numbers. JC as a player is not worth that, imo. Now, in regards to your above note, I still don't follow. Are you suggesting that because JC is the best PF on the team he should get the max? That makes no sense. You can't max all your starters. As a GM, you have to figure out who the best players are and pay them accordingly. If you actually believe JC is 2nd best on the team, fine. Pay him the max. But if not and you believe Cam or Hunter or OO will be better in the long term, you can't blow your max spot on JC. If we operate under the reasonable assumption that a title team will only have at most 3 max players, JC has to be one of your 3 best players to warrant max money. My preference is to resign him at $20M to $22M per year for 4-5 years. I doubt he accepts that though.

That's the crux of the issue. If the team thinks JC is actually going to be the 2nd best player on a title contending team (with Trae 1st), then absolutely you pay him the max and wait for the rings. But personally, I think there's a very good chance that Hunter and Cam both push JC down to the 4th best player on the team. In that regard, it's not really a good team business decision to give him a max. I tend to disagree that giving JC the max won't hurt the Hawks in signing the young players. There's only so much money to go around and for every $1M that goes to JC is one less that could go to Hunter or Cam. They are more of a priority to me.

You are arguing a point that was never made. I don't know how else to say it. No one is saying teams would trade for Trae if they need a PF. WTH does that even mean??? The point is, in a salary cap sport, teams have to be mindful of how their money is allocated. It's not good business to pay your 4th best player overall the 2nd most money because the 2nd and 3rd best players are going to eventually want their money and you won't have enough. That's the point. It's about roster and salary construction. I have no idea what you are even talking about with all this trade nonsense. The only reason I've brought up trades is because IF JC is thought to be on a bad contract, trading him won't be easy. If he's on a max deal and isn't a max player, then yes, it will be harder to trade him down the road should the team decide to do that. You say, if Cam and Hunter are due a raise you just trade JC if necessary as if it's as simple as just making a phone call. It's not. That's the point. There's a difference in on court analysis and salary analysis. Just because the team is better with JC than without JC doesn't justify giving him a max contract if it means you are less likely to keep Cam and Hunter down the road. Your philosophy appears to be to pay JC whatever it takes just to keep the team together which is, in effect, awarding him for being first in line to free agency. That makes no business sense. You pay him based on what he's worth. We're talking about building a championship team here. Title teams have 2-3 max players. But the max salaries they have, the less money they have for the supporting players. Overpaying JC will have a negative impact on someone at sometime. The Hawks have 8 players in their "young core" if you throw in Cap and Bogi. Next season, Capela will make $19M, Bogi will make $18M. Trae is due a raise and will be paid 25% of cap so another $30M or so. You want to pay JC $25M so what's left for Cam, Hunter, Huerter, and the rest of the team? It's not good business. If you can bring JC back on a reasonable deal, great. Otherwise, you have to part ways, imo.

A deal like that is perfectly fair. And it wouldn't hamstring the team in future years.

I've already calculated his max. As far as I can tell it's $123M over 4 years or $167M over 5 yrs. That's based on a Year 1 salary of $28,560,000 which is 25.5% of the Cap. The 4 yr calculates in 5% raises while the 5 yr is 8% per the CBA. The avg annual salary (and the starting salary) are each similar to Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, and Mitchell. So what are you even talking about? Yeah I don't even follow what you are trying to say here. I've never suggested trading Trae or that trades are based on how impactful a player is within the team. Your post makes no sense in light of what I'm saying. I'm saying trading a guy who isn't a top player worth a max but on a max contract is not and easy deal to make. That's it. You keep making ancillary arguments that don't pertain to the discussion at hand. Again, the bottom line is JC isn't worth the max based on his current level of play. Giving him the max could very well hinder the team's title chances in the future. And yes, I still want him on the team next year. I just want him on a reasonable deal. Not the max.

I've done the research. I'm still not sure you know what you are talking about. From what I can find, as a player with under 6 years experience, he can "max" at 25.5% of the Salary Cap. At a projected cap of $112,000,000, that's a starting salary of $28,560,000. If he signed with the Hawks, he can do 5 years with 8% bumps which equates to 5-$167M or an avg annual of $33.5M. If he signed with another team or Hawks match another offer, the "max" is 4yrs with 5% bumps which equates to 4-$123M or an avg of $30.7M per year. That's the same Max neighborhood that those other all star and all nba players are living in. JC ain't that. You keep saying $25M and then say he can get the max but $25M isn't the max. I don't know where you getting that but it's not true. Here's an excerpt from an article by The Ringer talking about JC... "Walking away from a number that big certainly raised some eyebrows, but the logic underpinning it is simple: Collins has said plainly that he “definitely” feels like he’s “in max contract contention,” in line for the kind of full-freight deal that draft classmates Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donovan Mitchell, and De’Aaron Fox got. Rather than taking the eight-figure deal Atlanta offered and leaving money on the table, he decided to bet on himself balling out hard enough in Year 4 to entice some team into tendering a max offer sheet when he hits the restricted market." https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/3/22/22343534/john-collins-atlanta-hawks-trade-deadline You can't agree that he's not in the class of Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, Mitchell, etc.... AND say he should get a max deal.

If the young players progress to where we all hope they do, then I think yes. But that's a big ? at this point. That means Hunter stays healthy and keeps improving. Cam develops into an elite player. Trae stays healthy. OO continues to develop. JC gets better. All of those things would have to happen, imo. The problem I think some folks don't want to see is that if all that happens, one of the young guys is going to walk due to lack of money as the Hawks aren't going to max out Trae, JC, Hunter, and Cam. Not possible. My problem with this whole max argument is JC is, at best, probably the 4th best guy on the team once everyone reaches their "prime." You can't pay your 4th best player like he's the 2nd best player and expect to keep the rest. And if he's really a number 4 guy but paid like a 2, his trade value will be squat.

Your posts are so inconsistent. An hour ago you literally stated, "Teams are already willing to give him the max now." And now you say, "Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us." So which is it? Because I'm talking about a MAX contract. I've said all along that they should try to keep him. But he's not a MAX player. And by the way, his MAX deal from another team is somewhere in the 4 - $123M range which is $30.7M per year on avg. That ain't $25M per year. His MAX would place him in the Top 40 contracts in all the NBA. His max puts him with Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donavon Mitchell, Branden Ingram, and Jaylen Brown among other all star and all nba players. Is that really JC comps? If you want to talk about bringing him back on a less than Max deal, fine. I keep saying they need to bring him back on a reasonable deal. I'm simply also saying that those of you who just assume a max contract for a non-max player is "easily moveable" are being foolish. Would any of the above teams trade those similar salaried players for JC? You speak as if all Travis will have to do is make a phone call and any team will be willing to take JC at 30 million. That's laughable unless JC gets a lot better and more consistent. If the Hawks and JC can work a deal in the 4-$100M or 5-$120 range then great. Sign him up. But what happens if SA who has $60M+ to spend throws 4-$123M out there? What do you think the Hawks should do? That's the question.

I could be misunderstanding this graph, but isn't it just saying that Trae shoots his FTs quickly while Giannis and Randle take their sweet time? This graph isn't about frequency of attempts right?

Well you are talking about different things. The JC that we've seen the first four years IS NOT WORTH A MAX CONTRACT. He's not consistent enough. He doesn't rank higher than 4th at his position in any statistical category. The idea of him "working out" is how is he going to fit on a winning team and how much better can he be? Can he continue to grow into a value that justifies a max contract. In this year's post season, JC got lost more times than he dominated or took over a game. That's not to say he didn't have moments. He certainly did. But you don't hand out max contracts to guys that only have moments. You hand them out to guys that take over games. JC was, for the most part, the 3th or even 4th option on most nights in the playoffs. You can miss me with this condescending crap. I know what this team is. I know how good they are and that they still have room to grow. I understand that this FO is different than the past circus side shows. I also know they aren't replacing JC's production easily if they let him go. BUT, I also understand that they can't max out everyone. Trae is obvious. We all think Hunter is progressing toward that as well. Cam, if he reaches his potential, is going to be better than JC. So if you max JC just so he doesn't leave, you are screwing yourself down the road. Bottom line, if you rank the current roster in terms of their impact to the team over the next 5 years, where does JC rank? If he's not 2nd or 3rd, at worst, impactful then he's not a max player. And to me, Trae will absolutely have more impact, Hunter will absolutely have more impact, potentially Cam (as he progresses), potentially OO (as he progresses). That's 4 that, to me, are highly likely to have more impact on the Hawks winning a title than JC if he doesn't keep getting better. So stop with the he's already proven crap. He's already proven he isn't a max player CURRENTLY. The hope is that he keeps improving and gets to that point. If he does, then he'll justify the max contract and / or will have value in the market. If he doesn't but the Hawks hand him a max deal just because they are scared of losing him, it will set the franchise back because they'll never get value for him in a trade AND could end up losing better players as cap casualties. This concept that they should just max him out so he doesn't leave is BAD business and is the quickest way to peaking at the ECF and never sniffing a title.

I think the Hawks should do everything in their power to keep him because there's no obvious answer to replacing his production. So yeah, they need to keep him. BUT.....I would caution anyone from just assuming he will be easily moveable on a max deal if it doesn't work out in Atlanta. At least if you are expecting some equal return. Keep in mind that "not working out" in Atlanta would mean that he doesn't play well enough to be a max player and is holding the team back. IF that were the case, why would any other team give up anything of value for an overpriced non-all star? If you are in the "keep JC at all costs" camp, you are essentially saying you'd be ok with the Hawks letting Cam or Hunter walk in a couple years if they aren't competing for a title and Ressler decides he isn't going into the tax. I'd prefer not to lose JC, but I'd be very careful about just assuming signing him to a max deal will just work itself out in the long run without any ramifications on the Hawks.