Just heard rumor on 790theZone that....

[Diesel]

The other thing that you have to look at in this whole talk about Cap Space is...

In 2005, what FAs are slated to come out and what's the likelyhood of them coming out and coming to a team in the process of rebuilding?

http://www1.realgm.com/src_freeagents.php?year=2005

There are some names here, but none that we just can't live without... IMO.

I mean... Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Antoine Walker...

However, if we keep the same squad that we have now... Theo, SAR, CC, Hendu, and Big Dog all become Free Agents that year as well. The only player we would have under contract is JT. So I think it's well worth it to wait it out.

[cynic]

Let's set the record straight:

1) To say that the cap doesn't matter AT ALL is as silly as saying it's the most important thing. I'm certainly not on either extreme, but you ARE.

True, ATL cannot use cap space as effectively as LAL, but it's not impossible. We have signed a big FA before, you know.

2) HOWEVER, THIS IS REALLY BESIDE THE POINT. I'm not lobbying for cap space in the first place, so stop pretending that I am. I'm only attributing slight value to it. We cannot say it's worthless. In total, I don't care what the payroll is any further than it might cost us a chance to resign some people.

All things equal, however, it would be better to have cap space than not to have it. You cannot argue that. AND, if we need to resign JT or DG or DJ (if he ever becomes good) and we can't, strictly because we're too far over the cap and can't afford them, then, one has to admit that it would be a detriment to the team. You cannot argue that.

3) If we could trade for a good player, then I wouldn't worry about the cap. KG? OMG, who cares what he makes.

I wouldn't make a trade specifically to get below the cap, and I wouldn't trade Big Dog for cap space alone. That in itself is not enough. I've been disgusted with him enough to say that I would trade him for a few 9-penny nails, but that's not true. He does have some value, and I want to get some value for him, especially since we gave up value to get him (even though it is a sunk cost).

EVEN AFTER I made a long post on how I DO NOT want to trade Dog strictly for cap space (I NEVER SAID I DID), you came back and said, 'How Logical is it to trade a 21/7 SF for a old broken down 9.6/3 SF who can't play but 20 mpg?'

WHA? Not logical! I never said it was! I never advocated a Dog for Rice trade! Why are you accusing me of this again? It wasn't me! Shawty came in and she caught...wait.

I said that I didn't think the trade would help us much. Cap space? Maybe, but that's not enough. I want GRIFF if we're going to take on soggy Glen Rice.

How can you misinterpret that TWICE??

I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO TRADE DOG FOR RICE STRAIGHT UP!

I NEVER SAID CAP SPACE WAS VERY VALUABLE! I NEVER SAID CAP SPACE WAS ENOUGH IN RETURN FOR DOG!

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

HOW CAN I SAY IT DIFFERENTLY SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND????

[SWISH9061]

Couldn't agree more. In spite of all his skills, Big Dog is a poor fit for this team (maybe any team) and he's got to go. So even GRice skills have eroded I'd jump on this trade in a minute. Rice sqauwked about his minutes this year but I think most of that comes from playing on a selfish team....similar to the Hawks.

Any potential deal with the Rockets won't include their pick because it belongs to Memphis. And for those of you who want Cuttino Mobley all I can do is laugh at the very thought of this. I live in Houston and watch the Rockets all the time and I can say the Cat is highly overrated and their version of the Big Dog. He may put up numbers but plays no D, can't pass and has an over-inflated opinion of his skills. Talk to any Rockets fan and they'd be more than glad to give him away.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

To say that the cap doesn't matter AT ALL is as silly as saying it's the most important thing. I'm certainly not on either extreme, but you ARE.

True, ATL cannot use cap space as effectively as LAL, but it's not impossible. We have signed a big FA before, you know.

---

First off, I said from a fan's perspective cap doesn't matter. However, if you want to talk about Deals that may be available in 2004... Let's go on a little further. First off, How far over the cap would we be? I see Theo, I see SAR, I see Hendu, I see CC.. I see Nazr.... Now the tough part... I see JT asking for more than 5.0 million to start.

Quick math.

Theo ....10 million.

Hendu ~8.5 million.

SAR ~13 Million.

CC ~ 2.5 Million.

Nazr ~ 6.0 million.

JT ~ 6.0 Million.

To start... We are at about 45 million.

Dare I ask what the Cap will be next year??

IN other words, are willing to trade Grob for Cap Space that will be eaten in Salary Increases and JT/DJ resigns? Come on man. That's not addition by Subtraction Even when you consider the Cap..

I say Cap makes no difference. It's clear from what kasten Said that we might be willing to resign JT at his price even if we don't trade Big Dog.

Now, If you were really interesting in wearing the GM's hat... You would see it's probably better to Keep Big Dog until Trade deadline. BIg Dog's Value will be Extremely high at the trade deadline next year and at the beginning of the 2004-2005 Season.

I mean it does make sense to get something for him instead of getting Nothing for him right?

Secondly You said:

In reply to:

---

All things equal, however, it would be better to have cap space than not to have it. You cannot argue that. AND, if we need to resign JT or DG or DJ (if he ever becomes good) and we can't, strictly because we're too far over the cap and can't afford them, then, one has to admit that it would be a detriment to the team. You cannot argue that.

---

DG and JT are restricted free agents. That means that we can resign them over the cap. Again, the only person who is worried about the Cap is THE OWNER. And most smart Owners Don't mind going over the cap for a good team. Why?

Well, the little known secret is that Luxury tax money is redistributed to the Owners. Looking at NY, Dallas, Sac, PTL's payroll, I would have to say that Any Owner would basically Break Even if he were to go over the cap. Moreover, NO Owner is going BROKE because of the Luxury tax. Not when you add up all the money that Owners are making off TV and other things.

Again, this is not an indictment of YOU on this particular thread. BUt to all the other lame brain Grob for Popcorn trades that you and others have amened and given your blessing to. It doesn't make sense.

[Traceman]

You said: "In spite of all his skills, Big Dog is a poor fit for this team (maybe any team) and he's got to go. So even GRice skills have eroded I'd jump on this trade in a minute. Rice sqauwked about his minutes this year but I think most of that comes from playing on a selfish team....similar to the Hawks."

You acknowledge that Rice is a lesser player than Dog and that he complained about his lack of PT last year. You said the complaining stemmed "from being on a selfish team... similar to the Hawks" and yet you want to put him on our team. So basically, you think an over the hill, injury-plagued malcontent (who played almost just like Dog does now when he was in his prime) is better for this team than Dog? How? If we are going to have to listen to Rice (and his wife) complain about his lack of PT, why not just bring Dog off the bench? I'm sure he'll [censored] but Rice will too.

[Diesel]

Exactly.

[cynic]

"IN other words, are willing to trade Grob for Cap Space that will be eaten in Salary Increases and JT/DJ resigns? Come on man. That's not addition by Subtraction Even when you consider the Cap.. "

I'm absolutely speechless.

Are you reading my posts? Well, you must at least be reading parts, but certainly not all. Did you read this part of the last one:

"How can you misinterpret that TWICE??

I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO TRADE DOG FOR RICE STRAIGHT UP!

I NEVER SAID CAP SPACE WAS VERY VALUABLE! I NEVER SAID CAP SPACE WAS ENOUGH IN RETURN FOR DOG!

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

HOW CAN I SAY IT DIFFERENTLY SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND???? "

That's three times now that I have attempted to tell you that I do not want to trade Big Dog for cap space, and have never said so. YOU COME BACK IMMEDIATELY and say,

"IN other words, are willing to trade Grob for Cap Space that will be eaten in Salary Increases and JT/DJ resigns?"

I don't even know what to say. You seemed like an intelligent person. What are you not getting???

[cynic]

In REPLY TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

Secondly You said:

In reply to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All things equal, however, it would be better to have cap space than not to have it. You cannot argue that. AND, if we need to resign JT or DG or DJ (if he ever becomes good) and we can't, strictly because we're too far over the cap and can't afford them, then, one has to admit that it would be a detriment to the team. You cannot argue that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DG and JT are restricted free agents. That means that we can resign them over the cap. Again, the only person who is worried about the Cap is THE OWNER. And most smart Owners Don't mind going over the cap for a good team. Why?

Well, the little known secret is that Luxury tax money is redistributed to the Owners. Looking at NY, Dallas, Sac, PTL's payroll, I would have to say that Any Owner would basically Break Even if he were to go over the cap. Moreover, NO Owner is going BROKE because of the Luxury tax. Not when you add up all the money that Owners are making off TV and other things.

DID YOU NOTICE THE LAST SENTENCE of what I said? What is it? "YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT." Yet you did.

Why do you think I said 'You cannot argue that'? Why?

Did you notice the first sentence? ALL THINGS EQUAL. That's why you cannot argue it.

All things equal, having cap space is better than not having it.

Do you know what 'ALL THINGS EQUAL' means?

It means assuming we had all the same players / conditions / whatever else. If all these things were EQUAL, we'd rather have the ability to sign a free agent than not. It doesn't matter who will be a free agent next year. That's not part of the argument. We're speaking GENERALLY, here. IN GENERAL, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL it is better to have cap space than to have none, no matter which season it is. I'm not talking about trading a player to get that cap space...that would violate the EQUALITY of conditions that I presupposed. See, if you subtract a player from our team, then all things are not equal anymore.

Do you understand?

[KB21]

First, we would be getting rid of Big Dog, which is addition by subtraction.

Secondly, we wouldn't be taking on a long term, cap crippling contract in return.

I'd trade Big Dog for one year of Glen Rice. Bring Rice off the bench as a three point specialist.

[Traceman]

He SUCKS! Glen Rice hasn't been worth a [censored] since he left Charlotte. He SUCKS, but worse, he COMPLAINS about everything and doesn't get along well with his teammates. Even when he was good, he played just like Dog meaning he was a jump shooter who can't defend or handle the ball. He brings nothing that we need to the table.

From everything I've seen, Dog's problem is blending his talent with his teammates on the court and not off the court. He seems to get along well with his teammates and the coaches. I doubt that he would come off the bench without raising [censored] but he could probably be convinced to reduce his minutes for the good of the team, particualrly if he became the designated go to guy when Reef sat. Even if he did complain, I doubt he would complain any more than Rice would and he would [censored] sure be more productive.

If we trade Dog for someone who brings skills that we need, ballhandling, shooting and defense at SG or size and toughness at PF/Center, I'm all for it. But trading him for a FAR lesser version of himself is crazy! We could keep Dog for another season and trade his expiring contract the following year for a lot more than Rice. If Rice's expiring contract can get a 20/7 guy, surely Dog can get a better player than Rice can with an expiring contract!

We are not going ANYWHERE next year with a lineup of JT/Glove/Ira/Reef/Theo and making that trade would doom us to that or something similar unless we can resign DJ. If we trade Dog, at least get back a need. We have NO need for Rice.

[jjjohns3]

Such a [censored]-sucker, how about u listen to what everyone's saying instead of just posting every free thought that comes into your head. Big Dog is our PROBLEM!!! He won't cure AIDS or Cancer,and most importantly he WONT get us to the PLAYOFFS. He WON'T SHARE THE BALL & he WON'T PLAY DEFENSE! A new coach WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE with BIG DOG! Just because he feels that what he brings to a team is JUST THE WAY HE PLAYS!! I DON'T like that particular trade, but if we can get rid of BIG DOG while adding what we need than it's gonna be a plus for the TEAM.

~Peace

[Guest]

I wish we could just put a package together for

KG.He isn't going to be happy when the Wolves

lose in the first round again.If we only had a player

worthy his is stature.Don't hand me the Reef is

close to him stuff because KG just had 35/21/6

last night IN A PLAYOFF GAME.

The best players Tmac/Kobe/Shaq/Duncan/KG/Iverson/

Paul Pierce/Jason Kidd/Gary Payton show up when

needed.That doesn't Always mean they'll win, but you

got to have guys that will put it on the line.

We need one of these guys.I'd like to have Jermaine

O'Neal,but he a better version of Reef in that he is

a second banana.

Ricky Davis would be a good player to have also if

we could put together something for Cleveland it

would be nice.

[KB21]

.....continue to have Big Dog be the chemistry buster that he is. Big Dog would definitely become a cancer if he were to be benched, and the team is better without him. So, I'm more than willing to trade him for a shorter contract just to get rid of him. He's not going to bring much value from anyone because every GM in the league sees him as a player who has no concept of team basketball.

At least with Rice, you can cut him and only pay for his contract this year. You can't do that with Robinson.

Robinson will not be willing to accept less minutes for the betterment of the team, because he is completely unwilling to accept taking less shots, passing the ball more, and actually giving an effort defensively for the betterment of the team.

He may be a great guy off the court, but on the court, he is a chemistry buster. The Hawks have to get rid of him.

[KB21]

You also don't keep a 20-6 player that does nothing but disrupt team chemistry.

Face it. This team isn't going to get Derek Anderson or anyone of value for Glenn Robinson, and it is futile to keep him because he will always be a chemistry buster.

Whatever deal we can get to get rid of him, make it unless it involves some true dregs to society like Rueben Patterson.

[Diesel]

Cynic... It's funny to me that you have these two rant posts about he said she said... about what words I tried to put in your mouth.

It's obvious that you didn't get to the bottom of my post before you responding...

Hello Kettle...

From the Pot.

In reply to:

---

Again, this is not an indictment of YOU on this particular thread.

BUt to all the other lame brain Grob for Popcorn trades that you and others have amened and given your blessing to. It doesn't make sense.

---

[Diesel]

That's the problem KB...

You attribute all of our chemistry problems on GRob? He's not at fault for all of our chemistry problems. A lot of you point to last season. Well, Last season we had Toni/SAR/JT and we lost mostly and couldn't score mostly... because we had CHEMISTRY problems.

There are so many chemistry problems that singling out Grob is not going to solve it.

Furthermore, what benefit will there be in getting Rice?

-It doesn't help the cap.

-It certainly won't help our Chemistry.

(You've replace a Big slow SF for a Small Slower SF who doesn't rebound as well and has bad feet).

If you want to see our Chemistry get better, why not get another Ball handler in here. Someone who can run the offense or run an offense that more complex than 2 man game and screen and roll. Someone who has recognition skills and recognizes defenses. Someone who doesn't defer the offense over to shooters across the halfcourt.

If you want to see our Chemistry get better, why not get a coach in here that can teach SAR how to pass out of a double team. And will define everyone's role from minicamp.

If you want to see our Chemistry get better, why not bring in a physical Post Player who can teach this team Toughness.

If you want to see our Chemistry get better, why not bring in a LEADER. The Hawks are LEADERLESS. We need a leader who will teach our players not to waste time arguing with officials. Who will teach ourplayers how to hustle and rotate when they are tired.

If you think Big Dog is a Cancer, go back toMilwaukee 2 seasons ago when they were almost in the finals. See how Big Dog fit on that team and there was no bickering, no chemistry problems. Where's the cancer. The Cancer didn't show up until the next year when Karl moved a ROLE player and replaced him with Mason. Everybody developed a selfishness. Compare that to Now. We don't have enough role players... However, the truth of the matter is that Big Dog is not a CANCER... We just lack Chemistry. IF he were a Cancer, he'd been a problem for Milwaukee all the time... However, since he got there until 2 seasons ago, he was a Model player in Milwaukee. That didn't change overnight.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,3883239,00.html

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/may01/...sid21052001.asp

[KB21]

Primarily because all of that happens when Big Dog isn't on the court.

When Big Dog isn't on the court, JT is getting all his teammates involved offensively.

When Big Dog isn't on the court, the Hawks usually get 5 players that score in double figures.

When Big Dog isn't on the court, the Hawks play tough defense.

And your premise about the team chemistry at the end of the previous season is wrong. That wasn't a team with Terry, Kukoc and Abdur-Rahim.

The team that was playing well at the end of the season was a team of Terry, Johnson, Newble and Abdur-Rahim. Replacing Nazr with Theo made the team better defensively, until they had to make up for Robinson's lack of effort defensively.

What good will another ball handler do when all the ball movement stops once the ball touches Glenn's hands?

You're not watching the same games that everyone else is watching when Glenn is out. When Glenn is out, Theo Ratliff becomes an offensive option and not an afterthough. Ira Newble becomes an offensive option that is perfectly capable of getting you 14-15 points a game. Dion Glover becomes more of an offensive option because he becomes the #3 scorer. And he does it without taking 21 shots a game.

[chillzatl]

[Traceman]

If we can trade Dog for something we need, I'm all for it but to trade him for Rice is WORSE than trading him for nothing. Rice will disrupt the team MORE than Dog ever did with his griping and you think Dog doesn't play D, Rice makes Dog look like Ron Artest.

I don't think every GM's opinion has the same opinion of Dog that you do but even if they do, he has WAY more value than Glen Rice. Worse case scenario, we keep him for one more season and trade him when he has an ending contract. If Rice can get Dog in the last year of his deal, Dog can d@mn sure get us a better player than Rice.

Getting rid of Dog's contract one year early will still leave us over the cap. Rice's one year deal means little because we don't have any significant FAs who we need to resign in 04/05. All of our significant FAs are either up for a contract now (JT, DJ, Glove, Ira) or in 05/06 (Reef, Theo, Dog, Hendu). If we can move Hendu AND Theo or Reef for an ending contract(s), I could see doing the deal because we could start rebuilding a year earlier but if not, it makes no sense.

You said: "At least with Rice, you can cut him and only pay for his contract this year." We wouldn't even cut Emmanual Davis who made less than $1 million to make a roster spot for Mike Wilks and you think we would cut a $9 million guy? No way that happens.

You said: "Robinson will not be willing to accept less minutes for the betterment of the team, because he is completely unwilling to accept taking less shots, passing the ball more, and actually giving an effort defensively for the betterment of the team." And you think Glen Rice, a guy who complained about not getting enough shots behind Shaq and Kobe (2 of the 5 best players in the game without question), will be okay with coming off the bench for a lottery team? No way.

I agree with your sentiments that the ball moved better when he was out and that we played better defensively when he was out. I don't know about JT being responsible for getting his teammates more involved. Actually, I think that Glover and Ira were the ones who kept the ball moving. Still, JT was more effective because he looked for his shot more rather than trying to prove that he was a tradiutional PG and as a result, he was generally more effective with Dog out.

As I said before, if we can move Dog for a need, GREAT! But we need Rice about as much as fire needs water.

Maybe the right coach can get Dog to play the right way as far as moving the ball goes (he's never going to be a great defender). He played unselfishly at times last year, just not consistently so. I'd rather try to get him to play the right way than to bring Rice on board. I'd rather they bring Dog off the bench (or limit his minutes - the more likely option) than to bring in Rice.

[Guest]

The money is redistributed to those teams NOT over the cap...thus the double hit of going over.