Harrington to the Pacers is dead

[KB21]

So, basically we are working on the presumption that none of our younger players are going to improve enough to elevate this team, even though they did so last season by doubling their win total from the previous season?

If the best deal that is out there is one that has us taking back Troy Murphy's contract or Marko Jaric's contract, then the Hawks are better off letting Al Harrington walk and getting nothing in return. The negative impact those contracts would have on this team is far greater than the positive impact either player would make on this team.

The only other option would be to resign Al to a one year deal.

[Dejay]

Do I think the young guys will improve their game from a year ago? Of course I do; we ALL DO. Enough to win an additional 15+ games to get to the playoffs? Uhhh, nope; not without some additional help, which could be had from what is obtained from the Harrington deal along with the signing of Lorenzen Wright. While Harrington has his shortcomings, he was still the team's second leading scorer and lone threat in the post. To say that his production could be easily replaced by 2nd and 3rd players who have yet to show their stuff on a consistent basis is rather foolish, IMHO.

Speaking of improving, did I mention the names of Murphy or Jaric as far as trading Harrington for? Did anyone on this board? I'm pretty sure your boy, BK, can do better than that. Don't you agree, KB????

You see, as a fan, I could give a fat baby's ASS about the luxury tax or salary cap flexibility. I really, REALLY could care less. I care about winning championships, PERIOD. When the Lakers had their run of titles, I don't think there was anyone at the parade that was thinking, 'yeah, we won it all but boy are we in for some salary cap issues in the next 5 years'. Whether the payroll is $38 million or $138 million, I DON'T CARE; as Al Davis would say, JUST WIN BABY.

GAME, SET, MATCH.

[KB21]

Take a look at the teams that are being mentioned the most in a deal with the Hawks.

Minnesota and Golden State are two of those teams. Now, you do you think they would be able to offer to make this deal work? It isn't going to be a combination of reasonably priced contracts or any young players.

So, who among the teams interested in Al has a veteran with a good contract they would be willing to offer to get Al?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Speaking of improving, did I mention the names of Murphy or Jaric as far as trading Harrington for? Did anyone on this board?

---

It is always easier to argue againt a strawman.

[Diesel]

Looks like Indy was trying to "play" Al. They knew that the most that the Hawks could offer Al was a 4 year deal and used that to their advantage in Negotiations. I can't want to see them flounder and their fan base completely crucify them over what could have been a win win for them!

[Diesel]

It still makes more since that there would be better deals in the offseason simply because a team is not going to put up anything of value to the franchise for 3 months of a guy's service. I think everybody learned that lesson from the Hawks Clipps deal which watched Danny Manning play well as a Hawk and then Bolt for the Suns... Atlanta Lost it's FRANCHISE player in that deal.

Secondly, those who say look now, need to seriously look. We LOST a LOT in a courtroom Battle. I think our owners would have taken other deals for Al before finding out that they might not own the franchise. They've basically been told that they will be in the house for 60 more days then they have to get out... Does that mean you go out and build a fence and put a new roof on the House?? Hell no. You spend nothing on the house... That's the situation.

Indy just tried to use us for everything they know. It's time to walk away from Indy. Hell, they're in our division... F--- Indy. Let's not give them the means to beat us for a playoff spot for the next 6 years.

[Nicholasp27]

Quote:

---

You see, as a fan, I could give a fat baby's ASS about the luxury tax or salary cap flexibility. I really, REALLY could care less. I care about winning championships, PERIOD. When the Lakers had their run of titles, I don't think there was anyone at the parade that was thinking, 'yeah, we won it all but boy are we in for some salary cap issues in the next 5 years'. Whether the payroll is $38 million or $138 million, I DON'T CARE; as Al Davis would say, JUST WIN BABY.

GAME, SET, MATCH.

---

and u won't win a championship with overpaid, mediocre players

our only chance is for our young guys to improve and to use them, or what we get for trading them, to get to the championship...and by not overpaying mediocre players, we increase our odds of getting what we need to win a championship

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Take a look at the teams that are being mentioned the most in a deal with the Hawks.

Minnesota and Golden State are two of those teams.

---

And Boston and LA are another two. Thank you for playing.

Now, since we are court obligated to not take on a 5 or more year deal can you stop it scare crow. Your weak kneed straw man nonsense is like arguing with air. I can't argue for Murphy if I wanted to because it legally can't even happen.

2ndly, we currently do not have enough capitol to make this a title contending team. That means we may have to take on a less desirable contract for at least a year or two to get more potential and talent, especially at positions of need, in lue of getting such with just draft or trade capitol. That's the reality and we had better consider every option because cap flexibility doesn't win you games and isn't a banner you can hang in your rafters.

W

[KB21]

That's why fans don't make personnel decisions.

[Dejay]

Yep, because BK's track record and lineage of playoff runs and conference championship appearances in his career as a GM is FAR better than this fan's opinion. I mean, he's constructed as many playoff teams (and nope, don't give me the Grizzlies, who started winning once Hubie and West got there) as I have over the past decade so this fan can't be THAT far off.

As I said before, if this this team as is goes 42-40 and makes the playoffs (hell, even if they go 37-45), I'll be the first one lined up to say that I was dead wrong. Like a lot of folks, I've been here long enough to have done that before. But if this team flounders or better yet, they bring in some players for Harrington and starts winning, would you guys do the same??????

[Dejay]

If capspace was a banner, the Hawks would have a dynasty by now. ESPN would be running specials on what it would take for other teams to overcome the Hawks run of capspace banners and talk about Charlotte becoming a top contender for next year. They would be interview Babs and Kasten, along with talking to former Bulls GM Jerry Krause about to build a team well below the salary cap in hopes of getting a team to the playoffs 7+ years later.

[tmac13]

Why would we lose our younger players?..Do you assume we will always operate the team on a shoestring budget?..If the team starts having success revenues will go up and allow us to exceed the salary cap like most teams.

If we remain a bad team then we are much more likely to lose our young players..They will be sick of losing..

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If capspace was a banner, the Hawks would have a dynasty by now. ESPN would be running specials on what it would take for other teams to overcome the Hawks run of capspace banners and talk about Charlotte becoming a top contender for next year. They would be interview Babs and Kasten, along with talking to former Bulls GM Jerry Krause about to build a team well below the salary cap in hopes of getting a team to the playoffs 7+ years later.

---

...what the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls are to titles.

I respect any desire to not take on bad contracts for their own sake, but when you are short on the necessary talent AND the talent you do have is in a bottleneck, draft capitol challenged because of poor GM moves with the vast draft capitol you have had, and for various reasons using your fast diminishing cap space isn't working out, you HAVE to consider every other option. One of those means is taking on a bad contract (I would suggest absolutely not one longer than 2 years given we will need to resign our young talent at that point.) but receiving more additional talent than you otherwise would have to justify doing so.

In effect, if you get sufficient (young) talent as part of the deal, it's like signing a young player coming off their rookie contract. You have to pay them then generally, and while we might be paying a Brian Grant for a year or two instead of really paying an Al Jefferson, the team development result is the same and eliminates the difficulty we may having convincing an UFA, much less a RFA to come here (and the team not to demand compensation from us to do a sign & trade). It even allows us to "try out" said young talent before we commit long term large dollars for them. At least our large dollars would generally go to a veteran proven professional and the time frame would be limited.

Anyhow, anytime I hear we can't take on a contract ever or we should only do BPA, etc., usually from KB, I cringe. "Never" and "always" are cop outs for having a legitimately good argument. And strawman arguments such as anything Murphy only further the lazy lack of critical thinking going on in the KB "camp".

W

[Dejay]

Which is exactly why I'm against this 'wait a few more years while we play the young guys and hope for better' mode that BK has the franchise under right now. If they continue this and don't get to the playoffs soon, it won't matter how much the Hawks are under the cap. Both Joshes and MW will be looking elsewhere once their rookie contracts are up because of the hopeless situation here. How many playoff contenders would love to have either of those guys, especially considering that the grunt work (i.e., player development) was already done on the Hawks' dime?

This 'wait 2-3 more years and we might have something' plan is the same thing that Rankin Smith tried with the Falcons, which pretty much explains why they've never had consecutive winning seasons in their 40-year history. It seems to always blow up in your face because guys you're banking on get tired of planning tee times and vacation cruises in mid-April while their colleages elsewhere are positioning their teams for playoff seeds and homecourt advantage. You don't think there wouldn't be at least a little frustration on Smith's and Childress's part if they miss the playoffs for a THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR? You don't think a couple of players on other teams would throw hints of leaving to play for a 'real team' once their contracts are up while they're playing out the string (again)? That's not selfish, that's human nature.

[Dejay]

Quote:

---

and u won't win a championship with overpaid, mediocre players

---

You mean like Miami just did with Antoine Walker and Jason Williams???

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and u won't win a championship with overpaid, mediocre players

---

You mean like Miami just did with Antoine Walker and Jason Williams???

---

If all you take back are exceedingly well-priced players you are excluding from potential consideration at least half the league! Not to say we need to look for bad contracts, but we do need to look for the right players. That's similar to why I suggest including trading Childress with Al to get Bynum/decent filler. We need the right players and prospects, we're short on capitol, and we will have to be draft capitol or contract flexible to get these players or else we'll be the longest running team under the cap without a winning season. Donald Sterling would be proud of that achievement.

W

[KB21]

Because most teams outside of the New York Knicks do not want to go into the luxury tax threshold, and if we take on bad contracts, this will cause us to approach the luxury tax threshold to resign our own, young players.

Did none of you learn a damn thing from all the bad contracts that Pete Babcock gave out and traded for, and how those contracts effected the Hawks ability to improve?

[KB21]

Really?

Considering that the Hawks haven't had any cap space except for the past three offseasons, and we were able to use that cap space wisely to bring in players like Joe Johnson, Zaza Pachulia, and now Speedy Claxton.

The Atlanta Hawks before Billy Knight are a model of what an irresponsible GM does to a team's salary cap, because the Hawks had no ability to do anything in free agency.

If you want a GM that stupidly throws money around at players to give the impression that he's trying to win, go follow Isiah Thomas and the Knicks.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Considering that the Hawks haven't had any cap space except for the past three offseasons, and we were able to use that cap space wisely to bring in players like Joe Johnson, Zaza Pachulia, and now Speedy Claxton.

...

If you want a GM that stupidly throws money around at players to give the impression that he's trying to win, go follow Isiah Thomas and the Knicks.

---

Let's be clear here. We got JJ with cap space AND high draft picks (including next year's) and some young talent. Since we don't have such high draft picks anymore, we are either going to have to trade existing talent to get other talent (be it a straight up trade or a FA sign and trade) and/or we are going to have to take on some sort of contract in order for a team to give us more talent than we give them.

In short, CAP SPACE ISN'T JUST FOR SIGNING PLAYERS!!! That's narrow minded BS. Cap space allows you to make otherwise inequitable trades for young talent.

Similarly narrow minded is that there are only two ways: BK's or Isaiah's. Clearly there is a wide spectrum between them and I believe somewhere in the middle of these two GMs yet to make the playoffs you find the phrase "title contention".

Fact is KB, you cannot respond to this. You have no argument. No case. Nothing to support using cap space only for signing FAs. Why not use it for getting young talent in other, more creative ways?!?

You will continue to make your strawman nonsense argument that should we not lick BK's boots we'll become like Isaiah Thomas, the boogeyman of tax and spend GMs, and if we use cap space creatively, well, there isn't such a thing in your narrow concept of cap space, is there?

W

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Because most teams outside of the New York Knicks do not want to go into the luxury tax threshold, and if we take on bad contracts, this will cause us to approach the luxury tax threshold to resign our own, young players.

---

Have you even looked at our cap situation for the long term, or are you just guessing at this?

Unless we sign all of them to MAX extensions, then we won't be at the Luxury Tax Threshold. None of the Joshes or Marvin are close to being worhty of a Max deal, I think they will want what Prince, Josh Howard, and Kirk Hinrich get in terms of extensions. However, I doubt they will actually get what they will get, none of them are as good as them.