Why didn't we sign Grant Long?

[jaywalker72]

If Long has been unemployed, and ready to sign with the Celtics, then why didn't we sign him, even if he has been hurt?

Could he have been any worse than Paul Shirley?

Can anyone explain how we determine to sign guys?

I NEED ANSWERS!!!

[hawkszone]

Considering that Babcock actually said he "forgot" to resign him several years ago, I think Grant might still have a bad taste in his mouth.

It's too bad though, he single handedly won several games for us a few years back and is a hustler and hard worker on both sides of the court - something the Hawks desperately need.

[Teeareess]

I think you might be right. If I remember correctly, didn't Babs completley ignore him while going after Lorezen & drafting Cal? Or maybe Babs has a reason of his own that he didn't call Long both then and now?

[jaywalker72]

Grant was offered the same type of contract he signed with the Grizz, but put the Hawks on hold.

Since Pete couldn't wait forever for Long, and there was no guarantees from Grant that he would come back and take the offer, Pete covered himself by overpaying for Lorenzen.

Imagine if Grant had just signed....Two picks and millions of dollars might have been saved...

[Swopa]

Shirley, I imagine, is getting the NBA minimum (around $350K).

Long would get the minimum for a longtime NBA veteran (around $1M).

The league pays part of the $1M, but not all of it -- and when you add in the luxury tax, it's $2M.

Not many teams want to pay that much for an 11th or 12th man.

[Diesel]

I remember that situation.

I think that it may have put a bad taste in both mouths. However, Long should have been considered over Shirley simply because Long and SAR are good friends and LONG would have certainly brought his hard hat and work ethic with him.

I have to believe that the broken hand had something to do with us not going after him.