Final_quest

I wish we could bet you on that one. It would answer the question once and for all if these things are rigged.

Don't ever expect the Clippers to make a splash in the Free Agent market. The question with them is if they will resign their own players or not. Will the Clipps resign Simmons? If we have a shot at Ray Allen, go for it. He may realize this is his last chance at a pay day and take it. Also, over the course of seven years the Hawks can become contenders. Maybe he can see that there is an opportunity for the Hawks to make some waves down the line.

I heard on 790 last Saturday, according to Matt Chiernov, that the Hawks like Bogut and Williams over Paul. I think he said that they are high on Williams right now, but might not be able to take him because of our SF situation. He indicated that Paul was a distant third from his informants. Definitely too early to tell if we're keeping Al or not.

Let's be optimistic. A lot of franchises have hard luck stories. We have to believe things will go well. Let's get that #1 pick.

This is definitely a subjective issue, but you almost make it sound like the players are doing nothing to earn their salary. The paycut occurs when you take away 2 years of guaranteed money that the player potentially could sign for. In addition in the previous CBA the owners inked a great deal. If Shaq, or Allen Houston for that matter, played under the current CBA they would get paid significantly less. The ceiling was put in place as to how much you could pay a player and how many years you could sign them for. Since we know that players were getting signed for up to $30 million/year, we know that when the owner almost halved the max salary they were getting a great deal. In the day Michael Jordan was easily worth $40 million/year. There is no free market anymore, and the biggest losers were the players. The biggest winners were the owners. Now Lebron James will get signed for half of what he is worth, and on top of that the owners want to limit how many years he can be signed for. Let's step off the semantics of what it means to get paid for what you do. There are a lot of scenarios where people get paid for what they don't do, and others where they don't get paid for what they do. Again why are so many people siding with the owners? They are the ones who have gotten the free lunch, and now they want to get a little more.

Quote: In the RFA process, if we tender an offer and Philly comes back bigger, do we have an option to come back over the top on them with a bigger offer? If he signs with us and they match, we have no recourse. I imagine the agent would try to determine who would make the highest offer, and then it would be up to Philly to match.

Do you know who else is nothing without the fans? THE OWNERS. The players learn how much the owners make, and figure they should get paid a salary that allows the owners to make big money off of them. Why should it be the players who concede to the owners and not the other way around? The NBA is different from the NHL. The NHL was losing money so the owners had to play hardball. The NBA teams are making money, and the owners want to take more away from the players. The owners are wrong in this case, but right in the case of the NHL. If you knew that you're company was making big profits and wanted to give you a pay cut would you be happy? The best thing a fan can do to lower prices is not go to the games or buy merchandise.

What about other options? You can always make a trade. The Spurs got Nazr Mohammed for a great deal. What about Gadzuric, Ilgauskus, or Steven Hunter? Steven Hunter played solid yesterday. Gadzuric could be a cheaper alternative, and Ilgauskus I only list because he is a possibility.

This is a great draft to make deals like that. We better make at least one deal to take a pick that someone doesn't want to pay for.

Paul2Smoove is Diesel, what a dope. After his agreement to not flame on Bogut is over we will not see Paul2Smoove post on this board again.

Quote: no professional sports player is underpaid, period. they make millions to play a game. teachers, doctors, college athletes getting exploited by the NCAA are underpaid, nba players are not. agents are not really needed in the nba as far as basketball contract wise with the rookie scale, max contract limit, mid-level and min salary exception. they are probably mad that nba is sort of 'phasing them out'. that might the 1st time ive ever read/heard that a professional athlete is underpaid. Have you ever heard of the free market? These players are no longer going to the highest bidder. There are about 20 players or more that every single team in the league would pay the maximum contract to get. If Michael Jordan generates 60 million in revenues for a team, how much is he worth? These athletes that are just playing a game generate enough revenues to justify their salary. Mandating a ceiling that you can pay Lebron James makes him underpaid. If it was an open market I expect he might fetch 25-30 million/year. A teacher cannot generate 50 million in revenues a year, that is why teachers get paid less than professional athletes. Am I alone on this one?

I disagree with you on this one Chillz. I think the players are underpaid, contracts should not be shortened, and I don't have a problem with the age limit. Lebron James has a $100 million dollar deal with Nike to ease the pain, but the max contract doesn't pay him what he's worth. If you are Lebron James, and you knew that a few years ago players were signing for $24 million/year, wouldn't you feel underpaid? Basketball players are underpaid. The owners have a sweet deal, and they are trying to take more from the players. I think the agents have a right to be pissed. I expect this all to get worked out and for next season to start on time, though.

Quote: Now, there are a lot of people who have said that Paul was the best college player ALL year and he lived up to a lot of the hype, but Draft time is coming and just like the Chargers, people are getting cold feet about Paul? Sounds like Vick's story to me. If you cut and paste a small part of Vick's story you might find a resemblance to Paul's. Vick was on the top ten highlights almost every week when he played in college. Vick is/was a freak athletically. Paul would have to be the next AI or greater to be compared to Vick. My take is that Paul is a little more Earl Watson than Allen Iverson. Please don't compare Paul to Vick.

No way, Paul reaching his maximum potential would not make him the equivalent of Vick. If this was possible he would be the consensus #1, and there would be no debate about who the top pick would be.

Where did you hear that Memphis wants to trade out of the first round?

Why would you take two bad contracts, trade one solid player (Harrington), to move down 7 spots in the draft? I think NY would give away either one of those players, they are actually trade liabilities. I would not trade pick #31 Al/Delk for pick #8 Hardaway/TT.

Post this trade again in 4 weeks and see what Diesel says.

I think the Hawks may be lotto bound no matter what they do in the off season. Unless we convince a really great FA to sign with us like Ray Allen. I'm hoping BK will make a deal that nobody saw coming, like the Walker trade he made last year. Our draft and acquisitions would have to be amazing to get us out of the lottery next season.

Red rover red rover send David right over. Let's see what this guy can do. It's not like it would be hard to find a roster spot. Question is would BK release Jason Collier, to sign this guy? Signing Collier and letting Przybilla go has got to be one of the worst BK moves.

Al is just not as good as Jamison, that's why he won't get a lottery pick. Jamison has averaged 25 points and 8.7 rebounds in a season. Al has not shown he is capable of that. The deal for Jamison was also about getting rid of Stackhouse and his contract. We probably could trade Al for a lottery pick, if we took a horrible contract back. Just my take on the situation. I've seen several people mention the Jamison deal to make a comparison to what we can get with Al. Also people trying to compare our potential #1 overall pick to the Webber-Golden State trade. Neither of these scenarios match ours. Al was expected to show he could average 25 points and 9 rebounds this year. Instead he showed that he could not be an effective #1 option for a team, but perhaps a third option or good sixth man. That is why Al will not get us a lotto pick.

Can anyone think of a few teams that want to trade their 1st rounder because they want space for the cap? Similar to what Phoenix did last year. Wonder if we couldn't trade either a protected future first, the Laker first, or a 2nd rounder and filler to grab someones pick. Cleveland and Golden State need room to resign players, who else? The other way to get a pick would be to trade Al, but I'm not sure if he could fetch even a mid first rounder.

I would take Howard over the Josh's. Howard looks more irreplaceable than either of the Josh's at this point. You can only play 5 people at a time. Just as stated previously, adding up stats doesn't work.

Will Stoudemire be the next Dale Ellis, Steve Kerr, or Craig Hodges? If so that's definitely worth burning a #2 pick on.

Where did you get that picture with a Lost and Found t-shirt? There must be just a few hundred of those shirts in existence, my wife has one.

I agree, who wouldn't take Kevin McHale as a #1 overall pick? He is a hall of famer. Laimbeer, not so much.