Ok so if Joe Johnson doesn't sign with us maybe it wont be so badd...........

[JTB]

I know alot of you dont want to think about us not signing J.J but maybe it wont be so bad.Ok lets assume we dont sign J.J back over the off-season. Dont we have the money to get other players with the money we would have gave to J.J. (of course we want to keep him)

Were im going with this is, if we dont sign J.J aren't there enough good free agents to actually make us a better team than what we are withJ.J. If we have the money we would have gave J.J. to spend on other free agents it's possible we might be an even better team right?

Think about it, there are alot of good free agents in this off season. If we use the money we have and dont sign J.J. we might be able to aquire 2 of these good players and keep the other primary players we already have and possibly have a good starting lineup that will contain crawford at the 2 now and signing good players from the free agency to beef up the bench. I believe this is possible and is probably the way Rick Sund is going considering that we cant offer as much money to J.J than other teams.

Your thoughts please!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jhay610]

no.

[jhay610]

I'll just repost coachx's post from another thread, which does a good job of summarizing our position and may answer some of your questions:

I'll give you a brief run down. There are other guys on here that can get more in depth on this then me.

Even if the Hawks let JJ walk in free agency, they will still be over the salary cap and will have nothing but the MLE (mid-level exception) of around $5.2 mill to spend on FAs. Of course teams can alwayse sign players to the veterans minimum, like we did with Joe Smith and Jason Collins, without using the MLE.

Teams can only go over the salary cap to resign their own players. That is why we can offer $17 mill to JJ but not James, Bosh, or Wade. Only teams under the salary cap can offer contracts to other teams free agents. Teams with enough room under the salary cap to sign 1 or more max free agents include:

Knicks

Nets

Bulls

Heat

Clippers

T-Wolves

Kings

Wizards

Those are the teams that can sign JJ away from us, IF JJ chooses to leave us . I imagine the ASG ownership will allow Rick Sund to offer JJ just as much as any of these teams. Its just up to JJ where he wants to play.

The luxury tax limit is $69.9 mill...........the salary cap is some where around $54 mill. The Hawks team salary is right at $65 mill right now. Even if we renounce JJ we would have Chillz cap hold, cap holds for our draft picks, and cap holds for each empty roster spot. In other words.........even if JJ signs with another team and his $14.8 mill falls off the books, the Hawks still would not be under the salary cap. (Its not quite as simple as just doing ($65 mill - $14.8 mill ) to get next years salary number. Cap holds must also be figured for teams restricted free agents, players they hold rights to like Josh Childress, draft picks, and empty roster spots.

That is why GMs are paid the big bucks. Managing an NBA team is far more complicated then video game franchise modes make them out to be. Its not just about scouting basketball talent but also managing the salary cap and luxury tax.

Again.........I'm no expert on this stuff but that is a quick summary.

[niremetal]

I know alot of you dont want to think about us not signing J.J but maybe it wont be so bad.Ok lets assume we dont sign J.J back over the off-season. Dont we have the money to get other players with the money we would have gave to J.J. (of course we want to keep him)

Were im going with this is, if we dont sign J.J aren't there enough good free agents to actually make us a better team than what we are withJ.J. If we have the money we would have gave J.J. to spend on other free agents it's possible we might be an even better team right?

Think about it, there are alot of good free agents in this off season. If we use the money we have and dont sign J.J. we might be able to aquire 2 of these good players and keep the other primary players we already have and possibly have a good starting lineup that will contain crawford at the 2 now and signing good players from the free agency to beef up the bench. I believe this is possible and is probably the way Rick Sund is going considering that we cant offer as much money to J.J than other teams.

Your thoughts please!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Diesel]

I know alot of you dont want to think about us not signing J.J but maybe it wont be so bad.Ok lets assume we dont sign J.J back over the off-season. Dont we have the money to get other players with the money we would have gave to J.J. (of course we want to keep him)

Were im going with this is, if we dont sign J.J aren't there enough good free agents to actually make us a better team than what we are withJ.J. If we have the money we would have gave J.J. to spend on other free agents it's possible we might be an even better team right?

Think about it, there are alot of good free agents in this off season. If we use the money we have and dont sign J.J. we might be able to aquire 2 of these good players and keep the other primary players we already have and possibly have a good starting lineup that will contain crawford at the 2 now and signing good players from the free agency to beef up the bench. I believe this is possible and is probably the way Rick Sund is going considering that we cant offer as much money to J.J than other teams.

Right now, I think that we're kinda pot committed on JJ. IF we lose JJ, we don't have the money under the cap to go after anybody significant. I saw this this offseason after we signed the small three. When we signed Crawford, I said that he was JJ's possible replacement. The thing about this is that we have very little talent in the absence of JJ. Craw has been great, but in the absence of somebody more talented than himself, Crawford goes to pieces. We're not going to draft a great player at 20 something... so our goal is simple... Resign JJ. Somebody stopped reading... but f--- them. Resigning JJ is just keeping talent on this team. Hell, we can trade JJ before the deadline next year, but we must resign him first. Otherwise, we walk away with Smoove's affinity for arguing with Refs, Marvin's Rubix Cube and Zaza's Rocky imitation.

[JTB]

I'll just repost coachx's post from another thread, which does a good job of summarizing our position and may answer some of your questions:

so we can sign jj to whatever he's offered by another team?...or atleast match the offer since he's our player correct?

[dakast]

So if JJ leaves we're screwed...........unless Marvin takes his game to another level.

[pimp]

so we can sign jj to whatever he's offered by another team?...or atleast match the offer since he's our player correct?

Nope, JJ is unrestricted free agent..Unrestricted free agent can't be matched

If JJ signs with another team that has a tun of capspace,that means he's gone and the Hawks lose him without getting anything in return.

[pimp]

So if JJ leaves we're screwed...........unless Marvin takes his game to another level.

LOL I guess we're screwed then.

[spotatl]

The Hawks can offer more money to Joe than any other team can offer. If all contracts start at 16 million dollars the Knicks could offer Joe a 5 year contract for 93 million dollars. THe Hawks could offer a 5 year 97 million dollar contract. The real hawks advantage is that they could offer a 6th year that the KNicks couldn't match for a total contract of 6 years and 121 million. But Joe could elect to take the Knicks offer even if the Hawks offered more money.

[NickJYD]

The Hawks can offer more money to Joe than any other team can offer. If all contracts start at 16 million dollars the Knicks could offer Joe a 5 year contract for 93 million dollars. THe Hawks could offer a 5 year 97 million dollar contract. The real hawks advantage is that they could offer a 6th year that the KNicks couldn't match for a total contract of 6 years and 121 million. But Joe could elect to take the Knicks offer even if the Hawks offered more money.

First, I think Joe will be back.

But, if he doesnt want to come back...a sign in trade is in his best interest as we can offer the most money/years.

I highly doubt that Joe would walk and we'd get nothing. It doesnt make financial sense for him.

[georgiaheel]

First, I think Joe will be back.

But, if he doesnt want to come back...a sign in trade is in his best interest as we can offer the most money/years.

I highly doubt that Joe would walk and we'd get nothing. It doesnt make financial sense for him.

The only thing we can do besides a sign and trade is use the money to get back josh chilldress. I have no idea if we would want him now.

[NickJYD]

The only thing we can do besides a sign and trade is use the money to get back josh chilldress. I have no idea if we would want him now.

if joe leaves, we dont need childress because we'd be better off playing for the lottery. This team would be nowhere near where it is right now without Joe.

[Diesel]

if joe leaves, we dont need childress because we'd be better off playing for the lottery. This team would be nowhere near where it is right now without Joe.

If we just lose Joe for nothing, we don't just quit.

We have to take advantage of what's going on and what we have.

It is still a time for us to look to move off some pieces... Namely Bibby and Marvin. Chillz is a different story. Our team would then be built around Jamal, Josh, and Horf. That's not a losing team, but we definitely have to do something.

Worst case Scenario is that we use either Smoove or Horf in trade to get a real Big... then we find our PG.

Like I said before, we're already pot committed.

[niremetal]

Our team would then be built around Jamal, Josh, and Horf. That's not a losing team, but we definitely have to do something.

Worst case Scenario is that we use either Smoove or Horf in trade to get a real Big... then we find our PG.

That's a pretty bad worst-case scenario. As much as some of the JJ-bashers around here would love to think so, Craw is not good enough to be a #1 option for a playoff team. He's having the best shooting year of his career right now because he's getting the most open looks of his career. If JJ leaves, defenses will collapse on him and he'll most likely go back to being a 40-41% shooter. And then there's the defense...our perimeter defense would be a shambles without JJ. Combine that with the loss of his offensive game, and it's tough to see the team doing much better than 41-41.

Much as I love my boy Horford, I'm pretty sure that neither he nor Smoove have the tools necessary to step up and average 18+ per game for a full season on a playoff-bound team. And if we trade Horford or Smoove to get a "real" big (why is the "real" modifier still there? who are these "real centers" out there better than our All-Star at the position?), who would that big be who would help bring us out of the lottery?

We won't be players in the 2011 free agent market assuming we extend Horford and the new cap is pretty low (both of which seem like safe bets). That means we won't have cap flexibility for the next few years unless we blow up the team and start from scratch a la 2004 (which is, of course, "just quitting"). When you don't have cap flexibility, you can't afford to lose key assets and get nothing in return.

So we can't lose JJ for nothing. If we lose JJ, it has to be as part of a sign-and-trade where we get a lottery pick or two. And if that happens, the best thing to do with Jamal is try to package his expiring deal with either Marvin or Bibby to get a star perimeter player to replace JJ. If we do those two things, maybe we can bounce back to contention in a year or two. If we lose him for nothing though, we could be stuck in that not-quite-contender-but-not-bad-enough-to-draft-a-star rut that a quarter of the league is in during any given year.

Edited February 21, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

That's a pretty bad worst-case scenario. As much as some of the JJ-bashers around here would love to think so, Craw is not good enough to be a #1 option for a playoff team. He's having the best shooting year of his career right now because he's getting the most open looks of his career. If JJ leaves, defenses will collapse on him and he'll most likely go back to being a 40-41% shooter. And then there's the defense...our perimeter defense would be a shambles without JJ. Combine that with the loss of his offensive game, and it's tough to see the team doing much better than 41-41.

Much as I love my boy Horford, I'm pretty sure that neither he nor Smoove have the tools necessary to step up and average 18+ per game for a full season on a playoff-bound team. And if we trade Horford or Smoove to get a "real" big (why is the "real" modifier still there? who are these "real centers" out there better than our All-Star at the position?), who would that big be who would help bring us out of the lottery?

We won't be players in the 2011 free agent market assuming we extend Horford and the new cap is pretty low (both of which seem like safe bets). That means we won't have cap flexibility for the next few years unless we blow up the team and start from scratch a la 2004 (which is, of course, "just quitting"). When you don't have cap flexibility, you can't afford to lose key assets and get nothing in return.

So we can't lose JJ for nothing. If we lose JJ, it has to be as part of a sign-and-trade where we get a lottery pick or two. And if that happens, the best thing to do with Jamal is try to package his expiring deal with either Marvin or Bibby to get a star perimeter player to replace JJ. If we do those two things, maybe we can bounce back to contention in a year or two. If we lose him for nothing though, we could be stuck in that not-quite-contender-but-not-bad-enough-to-draft-a-star rut that a quarter of the league is in during any given year.

No, there will be worse teams. Plus, the city would turn on us and we'd never get back to the limelight. No more TV appearances. No more FAs wanting to be here.

I say you see what good pieces we can fetch with the players we have. It does work wonders. Look at Charlotte. They have done so much with very little.

Horf or Smoove can get us a star back.

Then there's the thought that maybe we need to keep Horf/Smoove and see if Marvin/Bibs can get us anything.

[PureGreatness]

If we lose Joe then we have to get a star back somehow. If we trade horf or smoove and bring in a star to replace Joe then that does NOT make us a better team. We need to package Marvin, Bibby, Mo and a draft pick for a star.

[gsuteke]

If we lose Joe then we have to get a star back somehow. If we trade horf or smoove and bring in a star to replace Joe then that does NOT make us a better team. We need to package Marvin, Bibby, Mo and a draft pick for a star.

that's funny. it's as if you're saying the Hawks are the only team in the NBA where winning is a priority.

[DJlaysitup]

...We need to package Marvin, Bibby, Mo and a draft pick for a star.

No offense hood...but Marvin/Bibby/Mo and a late round pick for a star? Other teams certainly see the stats too. In this case it wouldn't be bigger piles of ish...it would be bigger piles of average. Nobody trades a star for any amount of average in this league.

[niremetal]

No offense hood...but Marvin/Bibby/Mo and a late round pick for a star? Other teams certainly see the stats too. In this case it wouldn't be bigger piles of ish...it would be bigger piles of average. Nobody trades a star for any amount of average in this league.

What are you talking about? That's how it works in NBA Live.