REALGM: Atlanta's Inactivity Could Lead To Johnson's Departure

[DeacKillsaDevil]

Apparently, people think that if a trade works in trade machine (aka fantasy land), it'll work in real life.

[Johnnybravo4]

All I know is that apparently cap rules only apply to us, since the other contending teams have no problems making deals.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

All I know is that apparently cap rules only apply to us, since the other contending teams have no problems making deals.

LOL

But you must admit, it's like every year around trade deadline all fans of every team drool for their team to make a trade.

[spotatl]

All I know is that apparently cap rules only apply to us, since the other contending teams have no problems making deals.

Those other teams were all willing to pay the luxury tax and had more trade pieces to work with. Those teams were all willing to spend the MLE while the Hawks wanted to save money. THe Hawks already made their deadline trade when they got Crawford- now the only expiring contracts they have are Joe and minimum salary players.

Anyone who is bitching about the Hawks not making a move simply didn't bother to look at what hte Hawks actually had to work with in a trade.

[Sothron]

All I know is that apparently cap rules only apply to us, since the other contending teams have no problems making deals.

We don't have any expiring contracts and more importantly we have a very cheap ownership. You put the two together and you don't get any trades. Bibby should never have been resigned and Marvin should have never been given an extension. But they did.

The most important question is if this ownership, and I'm afraid the answer is yes, is willing to settle for a quiet second round exit just to get two home series worth of playoff games ticket sales and revenue and then not offering Joe the max and watching him walk out the door for nothing. I still believe he's not resigning and that Crawford was brought in to replace him next year with the hope we could get a cheaper deal out of Craw.

[coachx]

All I know is that apparently cap rules only apply to us, since the other contending teams have no problems making deals.

1. Big Z for Jameison happened b/c BigZ is a big expiring contract.

2. Wizards packaged Butler with Heywood's expiring contract to get even more expiring contracts. Dallas gets 2 solid players simply b/c they had expiring contracts to offer.

3. The Clippers used an expiring contract (Camby) for more expiring contracts that happen to fill their holes (PG, SF).

4. The Knicks and Bulls are looking to to swap longterm contracts for expiring contracts.

5. What do the Suns want for Stoudemire ? A prospect and a expiring contracts

What do all of these things have in common ? They all took big expiring contract and that is one thing the Hawks do not have (unless you want to trade JJ).

Edited February 18, 2010 by coachx

[Johnnybravo4]

1. Big Z for Jameison happened b/c BigZ is a big expiring contract.

2. Wizards packaged Butler with Heywood's expiring contract to get even more expiring contracts. Dallas gets 2 solid players simply b/c they had expiring contracts to offer.

3. The Clippers used an expiring contract (Camby) for more expiring contracts that happen to fill their holes (PG, SF).

4. The Knicks and Bulls are looking to to swap longterm contracts for expiring contracts.

5. What do the Suns want for Stoudemire ? A prospect and a expiring contracts

What do all of these things have in common ? They all took big expiring contract and that is one thing the Hawks do not have (unless you want to trade JJ).

I understand if you are a contender trying to rob bad teams trying to dump salary, but you mean to tell me that there are no salary swap trades for lower playoff teams looking for chemistry fits? Expirers aren't the only folks who get traded every year.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I'm not going to say that I'm smarter than you guys. I'll only say that I question critical written articles by "national writers/bloggers" a little more than you guys do. Just like that BS article last week about JJ "not wanting to lead", written by that Chicago writer. Some of you believed that piece of crap . . . like you haven't been watching JJ do his thing all year.

Stop believing everything you read.

So I googled the name of the author of that RealGM article. Jarrod Rudolph.

He's a writer from ORLANDO folks.

If he's a legit sportswriter who does his research, he knows good and damn well that we don't have any tradeable assets that people want. And the assets they do want ( Horford, Smith, etc ), we're not giving up. Bringing in "something", as he says, doesn't help this team. We need the RIGHT SOMETHING . . . not just "something".

Some of you simply need to get behind your Captain and this Team UNCONDITIONALLY. Barring adding a star level player, we may not have enough to get past the 2nd round anyway. And adding any salary to this roster hinders us from possibly signing JJ in the offseason.

The Hawks are playing this exactly right. People don't want our scraps, so why toss their names out there like they're valuable trade pieces?

We're rolling with what we have right now, for better or for worse. It's amazing how gullable some of you are, even though we're 16 games above .500 right now. Our focus right now should be winning the division and getting that #2 seed. Worry about the playoffs when they get here, not before.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I understand if you are a contender trying to rob bad teams trying to dump salary, but you mean to tell me that there are no salary swap trades for lower playoff teams looking for chemistry fits? Expirers aren't the only folks who get traded every year.

Johnny . . who wants our scraps? Our scraps don't even make a lot of money to trade a decent player for. It's not hard to understand why we didn't make a move, or couldn't make a move. This will all be over and done with in about 14 hours . . . I wish it hurries up and comes and pass.

Good win tonight by the Hawks. Congrats to Horford, dominating tonight.

[Diesel]

We kinda know that with the deadline passing, Joe becomes one of the big fish for the offseason. The media will make up many stories about Joe until he's signed. I just think Joe wants to win. If that's the case, he should stay here.

[dlpin]

We kinda know that with the deadline passing, Joe becomes one of the big fish for the offseason. The media will make up many stories about Joe until he's signed. I just think Joe wants to win. If that's the case, he should stay here.

If he wants to win, and he knows the hawks won't spend into the luxury tax, why would he stay here? When, in all likelihood, there will be several competitive teams with enough space for one, maybe two max players? Wouldn't he be better off following Lebron or Bosh wherever they go? Say, just as an example, a bulls team that would have a starting line up of Rose, JJ, Deng, Noah and Bosh?

[Diesel]

If he wants to win, and he knows the hawks won't spend into the luxury tax, why would he stay here? When, in all likelihood, there will be several competitive teams with enough space for one, maybe two max players? Wouldn't he be better off following Lebron or Bosh wherever they go? Say, just as an example, a bulls team that would have a starting line up of Rose, JJ, Deng, Noah and Bosh?

Uhm, when we offered him the extension this past summer, we would have passed the luxury tax.. so that's not a consideration. Joe waited to sign a longer deal.

[spotatl]

Uhm, when we offered him the extension this past summer, we would have passed the luxury tax.

Uhm- thats just completely made up. An EXTENSION wouldn't have affected Joe's salary at all this year. The Hawks would have exactly the same salary this season even if they extended Joe.

[Diesel]

Uhm- thats just completely made up. An EXTENSION wouldn't have affected Joe's salary at all this year. The Hawks would have exactly the same salary this season even if they extended Joe.

This year won't be effected by Joe signing over the summer either. Your argument here is terrible. You were arguing luxury tax. Obviously not this year's luxury tax... so what the hell are you arguing? I just pointed out that regardless of how you give Joe 17 per year, we're going over the luxury tax... Weather if we had given it to him last summer or this summer, we're going over the luxury tax... So your POINT SIR is Meaningless. The fact that we offered the extension means that our owners are willing to go over the LUXURY tax.

[macdaddy]

We really don't have much to trade considering all these deals are sending good players for cap space, but isn't that part of the problem? This isn't a new concept. If we're serious about contending then having some assets to trade when other teams are dumping good players should be part of the plan. Granted its expensive.

The other interesting thing to me is that Miami and Cleveland are as desperate to sign their star as we are this offseason. We are operating under the restriction that if we take on another contract of a decent player then we won't be able to sign JJ. Cavs and Miami are working the opposite way. That if they don't find another good player to push toward a title then their star won't be interested in staying.

This to me feeds into the fan apathy more than anything. The Hawks are holding bake sales to try to retain 4 decent players while the rest of the contenders are snapping up talent and stacking for playoff runs.

[spotatl]

Diesel- thats not true either. A ton could happen between then and next season. The Hawks could have decided not to pay marvin. They could have decided not to pay bibby. They could have decided to not sign Zaza. They could still try and trade any of those players for less salary. The Hawks could They could decide not to resign Horford. They could decide to trade Marvin or Crawford for salary relief. NOTHING about offering Joe an extension means that the hawks are sure to pay the luxury tax. I just never thought in a million years you could be trying to say that by offering to extend Joe then it meant the Hawks would absolutely be willing to pay the tax.

Edited February 18, 2010 by spotatl

[Diesel]

Diesel- thats not true either. A ton could happen between then and next season. The Hawks could have decided not to pay marvin. They could have decided not to pay bibby. They could have decided to not sign Zaza. They could still try and trade any of those players for less salary. The Hawks could They could decide not to resign Horford. They could decide to trade Marvin or Crawford for salary relief. NOTHING about offering Joe an extension means that the hawks are sure to pay the luxury tax. I just never thought in a million years you could be trying to say that by offering to extend Joe then it meant the Hawks would absolutely be willing to pay the tax.

Don't let these facts get in your way spot...

We signed Bibby and Zaza on July 13, 2009. We signed Marvin on Aug 7, 2009.

Joe turned down our extension in late Sept.

How do you say.....

Ah-hmm?

We these untradable contracts on the books... It was destined that we were going over the salary cap unless you think that Sund would trade Josh Smith for picks to make room for Joe? That's what you really have left in mid-late Sept.

[spotatl]

Going over the salary cap is not the same as being willing to pay the tax. Paying Joe Johnson is not the same as being willing to pay the tax. There is still a lot that can happen between signing Joe Johnson and paying the luxury tax bill.

I still don't think that the ASG will ever pay a dime of the luxury tax. I'd love to be proven wrong but I'd be shocked if they ever do.

[niremetal]

This year won't be effected by Joe signing over the summer either. Your argument here is terrible. You were arguing luxury tax. Obviously not this year's luxury tax... so what the hell are you arguing? I just pointed out that regardless of how you give Joe 17 per year, we're going over the luxury tax... Weather if we had given it to him last summer or this summer, we're going over the luxury tax... So your POINT SIR is Meaningless. The fact that we offered the extension means that our owners are willing to go over the LUXURY tax.

That's not necessarily true. Even if we re-signed JJ to the max this summer, we wouldn't necessarily be in the luxury tax.

Remember that the salary cap and the luxury tax threshold are both a defined percentage of the NBA's revenues. The maximum contract amount for a player, in turn, is based on a defined percentage of the salary cap - which, of course, means that it varies directly with both the cap and the tax threshold.

Here is a hypothetical payroll for the Hawks next year:

JJ: $15.8M*

Josh: $11.6M

Jamal: $10.1M

Marvin: $6.7M

Bibby: $5.6M

Horford: $5.4M

Zaza: $4.3M

Mo: $2.5M

Teague: $1.5M

Minimum salary x 4 = $3.4M

TOTAL = $66.9m

* That is the lowest amount a max contract could start at (105% of his current salary).

JJ's salary conceivably could be higher if the cap stays the same or goes up, but that is unlikely. Right now, the tax threshold is $69.9M, and the max player contract for someone with Joe's experience is $16.2M. No way in hell his max will START at $17M, because that would require that the cap would go UP by a significant amount this summer - and that, in turn, would require that league revenues be up this year compared to last year (and no one thinks that'll happen). And even if that happened, that would mean that the luxury tax threshold would go up as well. And if you can do the math, adding $1.2M to JJ's above salary would put us below even today's tax threshold. So if the max contract amount and the tax threshold both increased, that actually would make it easier to sign JJ to the max and still stay under the tax threshold.

If the cap drops by a significant amount, it could make it tough to keep JJ without going into the tax - but then again, that would also reduce the number of teams that would have the cap space to sign JJ. For instance, if the cap dropped to $52M this summer, only 5 teams (New York, New Jersey, Chicago, Miami, and Minnesota) would have the cap space to sign another team's free agent for $13M or more. That lack of competition for JJ might make it easier for the Hawks to retain him with a strong first offer that starts lower (but perhaps is longer and/or includes higher annual raises).

Also, I'm not at all convinced that JJ will draw literal max money - my guess is that his contract will start a few clicks below the max (ie ~$15M).

And even if it did put us in tax territory to start the year, we would have until April 1, 2011 to shed salary and get below the tax threshold (eg by trading Crawford or trading/buying out Mo, both of whom will be expiring).

And lastly, if re-signing JJ would require us to just barely go into the luxury tax, I'm pretty sure management would be ok with that. In that sense, you're right. People who still call our owners cheap are still stuck in 2006. We've increased payroll substantially each of the past 3 years. The fact that the owners offered JJ the max extension they could offer this past summer, knowing that the tax threshold would likely be much lower come the summer of 2010, indicates that if the choice is between losing JJ without compensation and going just barely into the luxury tax to keep him, I can't imagine the owners would let him walk. They would lose a lot more money if the team lost JJ and went back into the lottery than they would by paying $1-2M in luxury tax.

Edited February 18, 2010 by niremetal

[TanAdam]

Word is that Big Z's agent is attempting to get a buyout from the Wiz. Wonder if the Hawks would take a look?