Harrington to the Pacers is dead

[WraithSentinel]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/h...harrington.html

Harrington's deal to Pacers off

By SEKOU SMITH

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 08/19/06

Al Harrington has been working all summer concentrating on the positives.

That's why he was unfazed by Friday's news that the Hawks' proposed sign-and-trade deal sending him to the Indiana Pacers had died after weeks of negotiations.

"I'm just ready to know where I'm going to be playing next year," Harrington said by phone. "The Indiana deal was something that I really wanted to do. I was looking forward to it since it's a place I'm so familiar with. But it didn't happen, and you just have to move on."

The Golden State Warriors, Denver Nuggets, New Jersey Nets, Los Angeles Lakers and Minnesota Timberwolves, all teams that have been in the Harrington mix from the start, have picked up their pursuit of the last high-profile player left on the free agent market.

"I want to be somewhere I'm wanted, and these other teams are really interested," said Harrington, a 6-foot-9, 245-pound combo forward who averaged 18.7 points and 6.9 rebounds last season while serving as one of the Hawks' co-captains. "I feel like I can make an impact with any of those teams, whichever uniform I end up wearing. But ultimately, you have to go where you are wanted."

Friday's developments ended a month-long saga that would have returned Harrington to the Pacers franchise that drafted him with the 25th pick of the 1998 draft, the team he spent the first six NBA seasons playing for and the city his mother and father now call home.

The proposed deal was struck its fatal blow when the Pacers declined to agree to the terms — Harrington was to be signed by the Hawks to a six-year, $57 million deal and then sent, along with John Edwards, to the Pacers for a future first round draft pick.

After agreeing to negotiate the deal in that form, the Pacers came back this week seeking a shorter deal, four years, and for far less money, $36 million, than initially discussed. They also balked at taking back Edwards, a third-year center with a guaranteed $1 million contract for the upcoming season. The Hawks also had sought to add $3 million in cash to the deal at one point, yet another sticking point for the Pacers, but later agreed to do the deal without that as part of the package they would get for Harrington.

Atlanta Spirit CEO Bernie Mullin confirmed Friday night that the Hawks don't have a deal in place with the Pacers or "any other team." He said that Hawks general manager Billy Knight and Harrington's Los Angeles-based agent, Arn Tellem, are working on new possibilities. "We're looking for a deal that's in the best interest of the Atlanta Hawks and Al Harrington," Mullin said.

Those new deals also could be shorter than the six-year deal Harrington was seeking at the start of the NBA's free agent negotiating period, which began July 1. At least two of the teams, Golden State and Denver, are believed to be willing to discuss six-year deals in the $60 million-to-$65 million range, which would net Harrington $10 million or more per season.

But even if they were interested in doing four years instead of six, they'd still be willing to pay Harrington a salary in the $10 million per season range. The Pacers, armed only with a $7.5 million trade exception, could offer Harrington a starting salary of only $7.6 million.

[Seano]

Wow, I really have to feel for Harrington here. He's always struck me as seeming like a very nice person, and he has been and is being nothing but a class act during this whole impossible ordeal. But one would think this has to be difficult for him emotionally- it seemed like he had his heart set on going back to Indy and it seemed like that interest was mutual, but apparently not so much. I would assume that probably feels pretty painful.

It's hard to believe he was regarded as being the second best FA heading into this offseason, and here it is in mid-August and he is still out there totally available, totally in limbo as far as what his future will be. That really kind of sucks for him, and IMO he doesn't deserve it. He's a good person, and he's a quality player.

With the way this situation has been handled and the Joe Johnson affair went down last summer, it is somewhat miraculous to me that any player would choose to come voluntarily to play for the Atlanta Hawks.

[Vafan]

Can you tell me why is it the Hawks fault that Harrington isn't traded yet? BK has to find a deal that benefits the Hawks. The Pacers wanted to lowball the Hawks and Harrington. That is why the deal is off.

[Final_quest]

I'm sure Al feels a little pain right now, but there's only so much pity I can feel for someone who will sign a contract for over $40 million dollars.

[GMyrberg]

Personally, I'm glad that's over. An ugly stalemate, at best. My impression is that Walsh and the Pacers were low-balling us, for some obvious reasons. Their confidence seemed built on the fact that we would HAVE to deal with them. If there is a SNT deal that we will make, it may very well involve taking back a player or two now. Too many factors here to start focusing on blame. Props to Al for dealing with a dismal situation with true professionalism. More waiting is a beat deal, however.

[Final_quest]

Check out what this guy posted:

Sorry, you don't need no explanation. You're a fan and that's it. The Pacers owners and leadership know what they are doing. They have been doing it for years. Do you think you know better than them?

[mountain_jim]

Quote:

---

With the way this situation has been handled and the Joe Johnson affair went down last summer, it is somewhat miraculous to me that any player would choose to come voluntarily to play for the Atlanta Hawks.

---

Yes Seano, why are you bashing the Hawks 'handling' over this?

The terms of the amount to pay Al have been known to all of us (6 years, 57 million) for over a month, the 2 GM's (finally) reach an agreement on the trade, AND THEN the Indy ownership balks at the 6 year deal..

When the Indy ownership should have balked a month ago if they were not OK with the contract and dollars to Al.

And for that you bash the Hawks dealing abilities?

I am sorry, but thats just BS on your part imho.

[Final_quest]

I think it's hard to blame one side on this. A negotiation requires two parties.

To me what the Hawks really wanted out of the deal is not having to add contract. Now, they at least have to pay someone for one season. As a fan this is good news because we will hopefully get at least one useful player for this coming season.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

I think it's hard to blame one side on this. A negotiation requires two parties.

To me what the Hawks really wanted out of the deal is not having to add contract. Now, they at least have to pay someone for one season. As a fan this is good news because we will hopefully get at least one useful player for this coming season.

---

Boy, it sounds like Indy really drew this thing out. If I were Billy, I'd never deal with Indy again for anything.

[sturt]

I was never a fan of the IND deal to begin with. There ARE players that can help us get to the playoffs in 06-07, and while I'm not suggesting BK indiscriminately take on multi-year contracts, I am suggesting that the "right" deal is out there, and IND was NOT it assuming that the Hawks are serious about contending this season.

[mountain_jim]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

With the way this situation has been handled and the Joe Johnson affair went down last summer, it is somewhat miraculous to me that any player would choose to come voluntarily to play for the Atlanta Hawks.

---

Yes Seano, why are you bashing the Hawks 'handling' over this?

The terms of the amount to pay Al have been known to all of us (6 years, 57 million) for over a month, the 2 GM's (finally) reach an agreement on the trade, AND THEN the Indy ownership balks at the 6 year deal..

When the Indy ownership should have balked a month ago if they were not OK with the contract and dollars to Al.

And for that you bash the Hawks dealing abilities?

I am sorry, but thats just BS on your part imho.

---

On later thought I was being overly harsh to Seano here. Because aside from the Indy ownership botch on the late issue with Al's payment, Al's options as to other available deals have been restricted by the Hawks ownership situation and who knows when that clears up so other players do have reason to wonder how they will be affected by such things when their service-time to the Hawks completes...

mj

[Blunt91]

I guess Indy thought that they were taking back too much money with AL's salary and Edwards combined. They knew they didn't want to pay the 57million from the beginning. I am pretty sure the 1million dollars for Edwards wasn't the sticking point.

[Vol4ever]

Hold on there Jim. , the Hawks and BK have to take some of the blame on the Harrington saga. Heck we can't seem to get any deal done and that is not always the other team.

BK and the Hawks waited til summer instead of doing a deadline deal and now the Hawks are backed into a corner and will not get full price.

Open your eyes, this is not a perfect franchise by any stretch of the imagination.

[mountain_jim]

My eyes are open, and I agree BK would have been much better off dealing Al last year....

I was basically trying to say in my last post that the Hawks ownership and management situation is reason for player talent to be concerned about what sort of black hole they might someday find themselves in they are in this position that Al is now.

That being said, the Indy ownership has known about the Al contract size in this deal for a month - if that was their problem they should have changed tack a month ago, and you can't blame BK for that.

Indy management thought they had a deal and were just taking it to ownership for approval. Crash!

mj

[KB21]

Considering that there is nothing out there that even remotely suggests we could have gotten more at the trade deadline for Al Harrington, I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that we would have gotten more had we dealt him then.

Once again, we are dealing with nothing more than speculative reports by those that have no insight into what's really going on. People only speculate that Denver offered Nene and 2 first round picks. Obviously, that deal was never offered. First, if it had been offered, Atlanta would have made the deal. Secondly, it appears that Denver never even considered moving Nene in the first place, because they gave him a freaking $60 million contract.

Bernie Mullin even stated that the only thing being offered to the Hawks at the deadline were packages that included the Hawks taking on overpaid, underachieving players. I don't know why some choose to believe some damn sports writer over what the president of the Hawks actually says.

All of the speculation at the deadline centered around the Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, New York Knicks, and Chicago Bulls. I've already stated reasons to believe that the speculated deal with Denver was never on the table. Indiana obviously didn't have anything the Hawks wanted player wise. The Knicks obviously aren't willing to give up Channing Frye, which would be the key to any deal with New York. Chicago obviously wasn't as interested in Al as the media made out, because they could have made a run at him in the offseason and chose not to, despite their need for some interior offense.

So, I want someone to give me a deal that was actually offered at the trade deadline that proves the Hawks would have gotten more then than they will now.

[Dejay]

There are some players available on the teams mentioned who can help the Hawks right now and not in 2009. I was against this Indy deal from jump street; can you imagine trying to sell a mid-late 1st round pick to prospective ticket buyers when many knew Harrington would eventually be shown the door the instant Marvin Williams's name was announced in the draft over a year ago? Its high time to move on and get some guys who can help the team win THIS SEASON.

[slap]

A few things regarding dealing Al at the deadline. I am going to preface this by saying I wanted them to deal him at the deadline, but I wasn't aware that they'd still be able to get something back for him in the offseason. It does seem like they'll be getting something for him.

First off, there was a meeting that Mullin had with some season ticket holders just before the trade deadline. He said there that there was interest from the Knicks, Pacers and Nuggets (may have said the Bulls too, but don't remember). He said the Knicks wouldn't trade Channing Frye, and that is the only guy they wanted from them. He didn't say who the Pacers offered, but he mentioned that they're not interested in taking back overpaid guys, like Pollard. He said the Nuggets were offering Nene and Voshon Lenard, so you were getting back a guy with a torn ACL, and a dead weight player. No 1st round picks were mentioned. So, my point being, I don't think there were golden deals at the deadline being offered.

Secondly, Josh Smith did not hit his 1st 3 pointer of the year till that game before the deadline, and his game did not morph into a really solid offensive one till March and April. There was a lot more uncertainty about if they may need Al then than there is now.

Finally, and I have not heard this mentioned recently, but there there was still about half a season to be played in February. Don't you think they had to consider what message they were sending to their fans, when they were asking them to support the team by coming out, but they were dumping their 2nd best player to try to get a salvage value? Trust me, I'm not looking through purely rose-colored glasses here, but I'm able to realize that the management here must balance the short-term with the long-term, and I think they've played it OK. I hope they get back good value for Al, but if it is only a draft pick, their team is still a pretty solid 10 deep, and I think they will already be cutting some guys minutes to lower than they deserve, because there aren't enough to go around (assuming they sign Lo).

[KB21]

....and in the process, we wreck our salary cap structure and lose some of our younger players due to an inability to resign them. All because a few fans think the Hawks absolutely have to take back players in any deal.

[DrReality]

Here is a great post from the Salary Cap guru, Larry Coon. This post is from a post over at LG.net from Mr. Coon:

LarryCoon wrote:

wolfpack -- I believe Atlanta is enjoined from deals longer than four years, and Murphy & Dunleavy both have five.

I think a general statement of the situation is that any team who will make Harrington happy won't make Atlanta happy, and that any team who will make Atlanta happy won't make Harrington happy. This will make Harrington the first to blink, since Atlanta would be perfectly fine doing nothing, while Harrington would be screwed doing nothing.

So I think we're back to lower-level contracts, although I'm not sure Al has caught up with us yet. A six year deal is probably out the window, and a five is iffy. Indy would probably be back in the picture if Al would accept 4/34.

Indy is also the only team that could take Al without sending salary. Atlanta wanted Indy to take Edwards, but that wasn't the holdup -- the length of Al's contract was what killed it.

The Lakers are just about the only team who could send contracts Atlanta would be willing to swalllow. Mihm & Cook because they're both last years and fill roles on the team -- remember, Atlanta was ready to sign Lo Wright once the trade went through, and Mihm would fill the same role.

I'm sure the Lakers would also want to send McKie, and that Atlanta doesn't want him. Maybe a compromise is Atlanta takes McKie, LA takes Edwards.

Since I think LA is probably more concerned right now with salary than years, perhaps they offer five years with a lower starting salary. 5/40 probably gets LA interested (it starts at about $6.5M), and may be seen by Harrington as better than Indy's offer.

The other way for LA to better Indy's offer is by offering more base salary for four years, but I really don't think that's their first choice. They can only go another couple million before they're in tax danger.

[Dejay]

Or.....we could continue to flounder around the 25-30 win mark for the next 2-3 years and lose them ANYWAY once they're tired of watching the playoffs from the plasma screens in their living rooms.

Now that this deal's dead in the water, what's the solution, KB? Since no one else other than Charlotte has the room to bring Al in without trading salary back, it seems like the Hawks would have to get someone back. I'm hoping that the person's at least decent and could help right now.