Deal Sucks

[Diesel]

You may be disagreeing to be disagreeable, but there may be some teams who would have offered us good deals for players with 5 or 6 years on their deal.

Moreover, the second part is equally true... with Belkin having our ownership hamstrung, he's basically in the position to call all the shots even if he's calling them from the sidelines... because if we go out and sign somebody to a big deal, that gives him leverage in his court deal.

[skyhawk]

Quote:

---

I already did. Artest straight up for Al. That was what Indy wanted from the beginning. In fact that is what they will wind up getting although they have to throw in a 1st round pick.

---

Are you implying that we would have kept Artest? That would have never happened as the ownership group was clearly against this. If the intent was to use him as a trading piece what makes you think we could have gotten more than Indy did for Artest? Peja for Al?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

If the intent was to use him as a trading piece what makes you think we could have gotten more than Indy did for Artest?

---

Indy would only trade him to a western team and Indy was over the cap.

We would have had over twice as many trade options as Indy had.

[Johnnybravo4]

We didn't give Al away for nothing. We get a pick and whomever we pickup to take Al's salary slot. At this point I don't know who we would add anyway...I mean are we going to [censored] about Chris Mihm? What would he play...3rd string center? My only hope would have been to get into the Bonzi Wells sweepstakes but, I am pretty much happy with the lineup as it stands right now.

[Diesel]

The things that were said about the summer still held up to be true.

1. AL didn't walk for nothing.

2. We were still able to get MORE teams involved in a SNT than just those who wanted to dump their GARBAGE on us.

3. We still made the best deal for us.

Now granted, we didn't get Shaq for Al. I know that's your big problem is that there's no Shaq on the line. And though I would rather have a warm body, I see that us not taking any old hack is a good thing too.

[exodus]

You were the one arguing against trading him at the deadline because the hawks could get so much more for him in a SNT deal. WRONG.

When it was suggested at the deadline that we should trade Al for a pick and an expirer you said we shouldn't give Al away for nothing.

[Diesel]

My argument at the deadline is what is justified here... can you read.

1. Al didn't walk for nothing.

2. We didn't take other people's trash.

3. IN veiw of the court ruling and power shift, we seemingly are getting the best deal for us.

As a fan, I'm not happy with another draft pick, but looking from the owners perspective, they got exactly what they wanted from a player who could have just as easily walked.... as you argued that he would.

[exodus]

The only reason he didn't is because NOK valued Peja much more highly than Al. If they had offered Al that deal he would have been gone. That just means the Hawks got lucky.

Holding Al until the summer posed two risks. The first is that he could walk for nothing which didn't happen. The second would be that the Hawks cap money would be tied up by his cap hold and prevent them from making moves. That did happen.

And the whole point of taking those risks was the potential reward of a good SNT deal for the Hawks, which didn't happen.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I never said he would walk, i said he could

---

- Exodus...

Quote:

---

BK and Al's "working relationship" won't amount to a hill of beans.

BK had they opportunity to send Al to Indiana and didn't do it. Who do you think Al would rather be playing for this year? Indy is a playoff team and Al is best freinds with their top player and is popular among the other players.

BK had the chance to send him there straight up for Artest and again with a 3rd team involved. It would have been in Al's best interest to go to indy and possibly increase his value by playing well in the playoffs.

This summer

Al will

do what is his best interests. That is what free agents do.

This nonsense about "he won't walk because he is friends with BK" is a joke. He will go wherever he wants to go, whether it includes a SNT from the Hawks or not.

---

-exodus

No need to go farther.

[Lascar78]

there is no contradiction in those quotes

[Guest Walter]

There was a perfect storm allowing for an available BIG with potential to pair with a 2, sf lineup and BK makes move after move towards mediocrity, hamstrings our offseason by keeping Al this long, and finally punts his rebuilding obligations into the wind.

I'm sold. BK's gotta go.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

He will go wherever he wants to go, whether it includes a SNT from the Hawks or not.

---

Where did i say he would definitely walk?

Looks like you may want to try Hooked on Phonics.

[Final_quest]

Who do you guys think we might have signed had we not been constrained by Al's money being tied up?

[Vol4ever]

So, a 19 and 7 guy is only worth a future un-protected 1st round pick eh????

I disagree........

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Moreover, the second part is equally true... with Belkin having our ownership hamstrung, he's basically in the position to call all the shots even if he's calling them from the sidelines... because if we go out and sign somebody to a big deal, that gives him leverage in his court deal.

---

As long as we work within the guidelines from the Court, nothing we do or don't do will give Belkin leverage in the lawsuit. It will turn on different issues than the wisdom of our personnel decisions.

[exodus]

The best defensive center the Hawks actually had a chance at was, imo, Prz. He was quoted as saying that he was looking to make as much as he could since he wasn't getting any younger.

Portland resigned him for the MLE. Nobody offered more. NOK and Chicago were options for him but when NOK traded for Chandler and the Bulls signed Wallace we were the only team left under the cap that were actually players in the fa market since the Bobcats were sitting on their hands.

[Final_quest]

If I had to guess, right or wrong, I don't think we were interested in Pryz. At that time I think it was in question whether our owners had the right to take on new contracts anyways. I really don't think he would have been a target either way though.

[vdunkndunk]

Al Harrington is basically the same thing as Shareef Abdur Rahim. How much would you be willing to give up for the privilege of paying $60 million for Shareef if he were a free agent this summer? Would you trade any of our young players for him? Would you even trade Zaza for him?

I'm sure that's how most teams around the league feel about Al. He couldn't start for a good team in Indiana, and he proved here that he is totally unable to carry a bad team and be the main man.

Sure he puts up 19 and 7, but he has a low shooting percentage on offense and he's a bad defender. What did you think we were really going to get for him? You're crazy if you think Andrew Bynum was available.

All we would have gotten for Al is another middle of the road player with an expensive contract. I'd rather get the pick, keep our cap flexibility, and go with what we've got right now. And that's not "punting." It would have been nice to land an amazing prospect or an impact veteran or something like that, but I doubt that was really an option.

[Diesel]

If you read closely..

he said "whether it includes a SNT from the Hawks or not. ".

What's holding Al up from getting a deal??

Why doesn't he just take the best offer available right now?

Because like I said at that time, Al will depend on us to give him a SNT.

That's why there's no farther reason to argue the point. Ex was wrong again.

First he wants to argue the merit of could walk versus would walk when every other post, he was claiming the sky is failing all will bolt if given the chance.

Well, Al had chances. NO BOLT.

[Diesel]

Belkins complaint was that A.S. wants to sign players while we're in the midst of a court battle and lower the value of the franchise. The courts give us room to work by saying we can get deals up to 4 years and the cap. Do you think our owners will even try to spend up to the cap and pick up some 4 year deals? Then Belkin can once again point the finger and say, " the only reason they didn't get bigger contracts was because this is what the court allowed.

My example is this. Look how much we paid Speedy... vs. how much we looked to spend after Speedy. Speedy is overpaid AND our moves and lack of moves suggest that there was something happening. I mean, we're holding up a deal over 3 million dollars...