Jump to content

  • Current Donation Goals

    • Monthly Donations
      Raised $390 of $700 target

Curious, has any team with a 19/8 FA received less

Guest Walter

By Guest Walter
in Homecourt

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Walter

Guest Walter

Posted
Posted

Has any team received less than for signing and trading a 19/8 player than a lotto protected pick from a division rival the deal just made into made a playoff team? Anybody? Any examples. We all know Al had to do a sign and trade. Indy had to and needed us to do it or else they would suffer terribly...AND THEY GOT THEIR PREFERED LENGTH OF CONTRACT AND SALARY SCALE. How could Indy shorten the contract, pay to their prefered scale AND get it all for a lotto protected pick? We got hosed.

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lascar78 Newbie

Lascar78

Posted
Posted

Martin was coming off an all-star season, and Reef was at 20/9/3 about to have an all-star season.

Either way, comparing these trades makes little sense. Each offseason is its own market, and value will fluctuate wildly based on who else is available.

I would do the reef trade all over again, in which we got about the same deal for a much better player. So we'll see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Plainview1981 Mentor

Plainview1981

Posted
Posted

Quote:

Al Harrington is washed up. His legs are dead and knees balky. He wont last 42 games and can no longer finish with authority.

Hawks get 2007 #1pick and shaved $10M off their cap, BK is a genius!

1.Why are people saying Al is a 19/8 player... He's never averaged 8RPG.

2.He's not a 19/7 player on a good team. Sorry, but he's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHORO44 Newbie

CHORO44

Posted
Posted

Look. Harrington is an Unrestricted free agent who no longer fits with the direction the Hawks are going. We are going young, long, and with the ability and desire to play defense.

Harrington has skills and is 19/8 but he gives up more on the defensive end. He simply no longer fits with what BK and Woody are trying to do.

With the young guns stepping up and coming into contract years soon we can not take any significant salary back. This includes the fantasy that is Allen Iverson.

To sign and trade Harrington to Indy for the exception and a pick is the right move for the Hawks. We maintain cap flexibility, get a trading chip in a draft pick, reward Al for his contribution, and give Indy a defensive black hole at the forward spot.

If you thought you would have gotten a king's ransom including Bynum you are mistaken. The best you could have hoped for was Joe Smith's expiring contract and some change. Taking back Murphy or any other junk contract only hurts the Hawks long term.

Why can't we just accept that a financially responsible plan is in place to let our youngs guys earn their next contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Walter

Guest Walter

Posted
Posted

...a 6'8" "young, long", prospect "with the...desire to play defense" but without the ability to do so and with limited much else.

Quote:

With the young guns stepping up and coming into contract years soon we can not take any significant salary back.

Then get 1 or 2 year deals that expire before the youth are resigned. Boston, LA Lakers, even GS in a 4 team deal had better prospects or players available and contracts that ended prior to the time to resign our youth. It's one thing to say we needed to trade Al, it's another to ague for the benefit of peanuts. Bad argument.

Quote:

To sign and trade Harrington to Indy for the exception and a pick is the right move for the Hawks. We maintain cap flexibility, get a trading chip in a draft pick, reward Al for his contribution, and give Indy a defensive black hole at the forward spot.

1) Cap flexibility requires you use it and in our case preferably for more than just role players.

2) A trading chip? Al was our trading chip! Al is certainly a bigger trading chip than the 22nd pick in the NBA draft.

3) I'm glad Al is happy. That makes Indy and he happy. Us, not so much.

4) They needed offense to compliment O'Neal and they got it. He was an ideal fit for them with Granger being defensively so strong. I don't see them hurt by this AT ALL. They are only helped.

Quote:

If you thought you would have gotten a king's ransom including Bynum you are mistaken.

I disagree entirely. It was a perfect storm in LA to get Bynum and we didn't offer the Al/Childress it would have taken. Of course, we'll get a king's ransom with Indy's 22nd overall pick. Whoopee!

Punt.

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Walter

Guest Walter

Posted
Posted

Quote:

that is what the cap space is actually for.

We needed a bold creative move to help reshape this team this offseason. Something outside of the box. We punted and made moves towards mediocrity.

KB argues the only way to use cap space is to sign players and that poor usage is taking on contracts, even short or reasonable ones in order to complete deals you otherwise couldn't that return you a needed, good young prospect. That removes half the potential uses for cap space from the equation.

Gotta use cap space while you have it or it slowly eats away at itself as salaries all rise. Gotta use in any way that helps the team.

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
Diesel Grand Master

Diesel

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

Quote:

To sign and trade Harrington to Indy for the exception and a pick is the right move for the Hawks. We maintain cap flexibility, get a trading chip in a draft pick, reward Al for his contribution, and give Indy a defensive black hole at the forward spot.

I don't think this was the right move simply because what did it yield us?

Another midround player that will need 2 to 3 years to develop?

Here's the pros..

1. We get rid of Edwards.

2. We get another midround pick that will need 2 to 3 years to develop.

Here's the cons...

1. Passed up many other rumored deals that would have given us players... I would have taken the before mentioned Magloire trade over this. I would have taken Mihm, Cook, and Mckie. I would have taken Joe Smith, 1st, and 3Million.

2. Made our division Rival much stronger for the next 3 years.

I don't know... Over the next 3 years, I think this deal will suck. That draft pick better be whipping ass in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnnybravo4 Newbie

Johnnybravo4

Posted
Posted

Quote:

I'm glad someone here knows the direction the hawks are going. because other than fielding a team of 12 guys who all have the same height, weight, and position and giving the pacers a championship, I can't figure out what BK/KB is doing.

If you think that adding Al makes the Pacers a championship team you are officially too dumb to be on this board. Take yo ignant (yes I said ignant)azz to the AJC message board with the other clueless fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
chillzatl Newbie

chillzatl

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

becuase it makes a huge difference. The answer is obviously yes, by a mile. Most teams get NOTHING for unrestricted free agents. We managed to get rid of a scrub and get a late pick. Unless you ignore the facts of the deal, believe all those rumors were really possible or just want to cry like a baby over anything and everything, it was a good deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
Diesel Grand Master

Diesel

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

BUT.. It does not negate the fact that we sent a good player to a divisional rival for a midround draft pick.

It would have been better just to let Al walk.

The benefits in this trade does not outweigh the bad parts.

So keep trying to spin this deal as "A GOOD DEAL"...

I say B.S.

If it doesn't help our chances this year... It's not a good deal. If it increases our rivals chances, then it has all the sudden become a bad deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
Sothron Grand Master

Sothron

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

BK got the best trade he could get with the handcuffs in place by ownership not to take on more salary. The only real blame for BK is that he was warned by people inside the team (not ownership) to make a trade for Harrington before the trading deadline to avoid any kind of legal wrangling or ownership woes and BK ignored that advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
Diesel Grand Master

Diesel

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

Quote:

he was warned by people inside the team (not ownership) to make a trade for Harrington before the trading deadline to avoid any kind of legal wrangling or ownership woes and BK ignored that advice.

Huh??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Premium Member
Sothron Grand Master

Sothron

Posted
  • Premium Member
Posted

People on the team in the FO told BK there could be legal troubles trading Harrington in the offseason or the ownership could tighten up the pursestrings due from it. He was warned about it and BK believed he could still make a better trade in the offseason. Obviously that thinking was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...