Aldridge: Hawks trying to sell Joe on contender status.

[CongoP]

I disagree here. You honestly don't think we could be a much better team without Woody running the offense? we will actually be a running team with Drew I believe orchestrating the offense. Just look how ISO we were in the Orlando series with ZERO ball movement. We could of beaten Orlando with a REAL gameplan on offense. This team simply tuned out Woody's plan of 'just let them play' on offense. Everyone on our team will be better next year and with a new coach actually running offensive sets we can only get better and more cohesive. We can definitely make it past the second round with this team.

Def second round, but since like 02 i've wanted a championship here in Atlanta imagine if Atlanta the team that was once clowned and disowned by its own people got a ring it'd be surreal

[mrhonline]

You are better off using %s of the cap than absolute dollars. I expect that cap to rise again as the economy improves. It is a bigger deal than Allen's but not a massive difference if JJ doesn't fall off a cliff in the interim, IMO.

The cap would have to rise to over $78M for Joe's final season's salary to be the same % of the cap as Allen's.

Edited July 1, 2010 by mrhonline

[JJFAN4LF]

Am I the only one who thinks that joe+ smith+horford+ a reliable PG/C is all we really need to get over the hump?? I think the lack of guard play and a body in the post is what hurt us the most. I am not one to think the whole team needs to be blown up due to our team being swept. We know we were handicapped by our coaching philosophy.

Nope. I believe this too. Honestly, we had the worst coach in the playoffs with one of the best talent in the playoffs. I'm not saying all we needed was a new coach for us to win a championship, but I truly believe that our players didn't play with the best of their capabilities because of the lack of coaching ability. I think if we keep the whole squad (not suggesting that we SHOULD), we would(will) be in the Eastern Conference Finals.

[Diesel]

So you disagree that a potential owner will discount the team based on the salary cap situation? What that means, is you are saying a potential owner will not discount the team based on the salary cap. You are suggesting that a potential owner will not care if we are paying the luxury tax or have cap room to sign extra free agents.

That is asinine. Of course a potential owner will discount the team based on current contracts. That is the biggest cost to owning a team and you are suggesting they don't care. Now if you want to say that Joe's value to the team will be greater than the cost, then that is not a disagreement with anything I have said. I have only mentioned that a potential owner will discount the team if the contract is a burden and so the ASG will still feel the affects of the contract even though they don't physically pay Joe the rest of the money.

I depends on the owner...

Think about this.

If you're Bill Gates and Jerry Buss says to you, I'm sick of owning this team. Too many headaches. Buy the Lakers from me. Yeah, we're ________ over the luxury tax so every year you will have to pay the luxury tax but we're a winning franchise.

Do you think Bill gates is going to saw... Ah, Jerry... This Kobe guy is making too much money, I can't buy your team with him on it!!

You're looking at this from a cheap *ss perspective HF. Even our "cheap" owners ponied up the money to make our franchise winners. Bibby anyone? If the Hawks get a cheap *ss owner, then you can expect that regardless of who we have, he will try to fire sale and start from scratch. And then run the team "on the cheap" in order to suck up the profit from the league sharing (ala Sterling). However, an owner who wants to win something, will run the team well not on the cheap... That means maximizing your talent and setting bench marks for your team.

About Joe's value. I say this. Us having Joe signed (even to a max) is better than us not having Joe Signed. You see, I don't look at the signing as binding with this franchise. Joe can be traded. However, one of the things I learned while being a Hawks fan is that it takes talent to get talent. We were misraeble after the Smith trade when we had JT. So misraeble that we gave up Gasol (unknown quantity) for Shareef. When you start dealing with these unknwns, there are missteps that can be taken that will be franchise killing. (Look at Marvin's Picture here). We could have Paul or Deron right here, but instead... Misstep. I like having the talent and the ability to move the talent for what I want. Instead of having no talent and trying to find talent using other valuable things.

[mrhonline]

Kelly Dwyer (Y!) calls it the worst contract ever:

Link

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You simply have a group of fans that would rather this team take a chance at being led by Al Horford and Josh Smith, than Joe Johnson. They have never been too high on JJ in the first place, nor really liked the guy personally. So letting him walk or bringing back lesser talent to get rid of him, doesn't bother them one bit.

The thing is, those same people know good and well that Smoove will never be a go-to-guy type scorer on offense, because his inability to make mid-range jumpers. But when Smoove is on his game, he's the heartbeat of the defense. As for Horford, he may have a shot to be a go-to-scorer, but only if he can prove that he can consistently score over taller centers and develop more of a back to the basket game . . which is why he'd prefer to play PF than C.

Not retaining JJ could STILL MEAN that we'd have to trade Horford or Smoove, simply based on Al's desire to play PF. We would be absolutely screwed if Al flat out told the Hawks next summer . . "Please don't match any offers for me. I don't want to play here because I'm tired of playing center. I would rather be sign and traded than come back here."

So what would the plan be then? No JJ . . No Horford . . but we'd still have Smoove, Teague, Jordan Crawford, and incredibly . . Marvin Williams? Is that what Hawk fans potentially want to roll with in the future?

As much as people complain about overpaying JJ, this team could significantly be different going into 2012 anyway, if Horford tries to get out of here because Smoove is playing his position. At least by retaining JJ, you'll be able to insure that you'll have at least one of Smoove or Horford here.

[mrhonline]

At least by retaining JJ, you'll be able to insure that you'll have at least one of Smoove or Horford here.

Al could make his "demand" either way. Keeping JJ actually makes it harder to bring in a center because of the lack of financial flexibility.

[Diesel]

Ha ha. You realize that's verifiable, right?

Yeah, that's 2005.. 5 year 85 Million dollars.

Wasn't quite the max, but still 17 Mill per. 5 years ago. Compared to 20.6 per now.

And the Cap numbers are:

2004-05 $43.87 million

2005-06 $49.5 million

2006-07 $53.135 million

2007-08 $55.630 million

2008-09 $58.68 million

2009-10 $57.7 million

Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml#ixzz0sS370aBo

About 13.8 Million.

[AHF]

The cap would have to rise to over $78M for Joe's final season's salary to be the same % of the cap as Allen.

Rising from the current $57.7M to $78M over the next 6 years, would not be an unprecedented rise but that is also why I said the deal is bigger than Allen's. To go from $57.7M to $78M is a 35% rise in the cap.

Historically the cap has basically always risen more than 35% over that kind of time frame:

From the first year of the cap ($3.9M) to 6 years after ($11.9M) the cap rose over 300%.

From 1990-91 (that $11.9M season) to 6 years after (1996-97) the cap rose over 200% to 24.4M.

From 1996-97 ($24.4M) to 6 years after (2002-03), the cap rose to $40.3M which is a rise of 65%.

From 2002-03 (40.3M) to 6 years after (2008-09), the cap rose to $58.7M which is a rise of 46%.

So the 35% we are talking about is not out of line historically. In that case, Allen's deal will be the equivalent of JJ's. In the unprecedented case that the cap doesn't rise more than 35% by the 6th year of the deal (which is what I expect), then JJ's deal, as I said, is bigger but if the cap rises a significant amount that is less than 35% the difference between the final years of their deals may not be that significant as a percentage of the cap.

[mrhonline]

Cap then was $49.5M. Cap now is expected to be $56.1M.

[exodus]

Cap then was $49.5M. Cap now is expected to be $56.1M.

56.1 minus 49.5 = 15

By now i would think you would be well versed in Diesel Math.

Edited July 1, 2010 by exodus

[GST]

Kelly Dwyer (Y!) calls it the worst contract ever:

Link

Worse than Eddy Curry! This is starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

[gutz]

Nope. I believe this too. Honestly, we had the worst coach in the playoffs with one of the best talent in the playoffs. I'm not saying all we needed was a new coach for us to win a championship, but I truly believe that our players didn't play with the best of their capabilities because of the lack of coaching ability. I think if we keep the whole squad (not suggesting that we SHOULD), we would(will) be in the Eastern Conference Finals.

I agree as well. This team is loaded with talent but was underutilitzed by Wood's moronic assss! Horford himself said in an interview last week on 680 that Woody's philosophy on offense was 'he just let us go out there and play' with no offensive gameplan or sets.

[sturt]

All I know is that it seems to make sense to NYK, Dallas, and Houston or they would have already left town (... I know, I know, the Knicks don't absolutely have to do a SnT, but one would have to suspect that they, nonetheless, are ready to do that if necessary).

Why would they have such a different perspective from Economist Extraordinaire Kelly Dwyer?

For NYK, it's widely suspected it's because they perceive JJ to be one-half or one-third of a package, and to get the other portions, they have to pay him.

For DAL and HOU, it's because they perceive JJ to represent the most realistic opportunity to improve their rosters given current market conditions.

And that's the overriding key... always, always, always comes back to supply and demand. We can talk cost-benefit ratio all we want, boys, but cost-benefit is subjugated to that greater economic principle.

Edited July 1, 2010 by sturt

[gutz]

Worse than Eddy Curry! This is starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

That is complete garbage! What about the contract Rashard Lewis signed for around the same amount? He is nowhere near the player Joe is. What about Jerome James contract he signed with Knicks? He NEVER even played a game for the Knicks the entire contract.

[AHF]

Worse than Eddy Curry is ridiculous. If JJ falls off a cliff, then we should be comparing it to Tracy McGrady or Steve Francis.

[AHF]

All I know is that it seems to make sense to NYK, Dallas, and Houston or they would have already left town (... I know, I know, the Knicks don't absolutely have to do a SnT, but one would have to suspect that they, nonetheless, are ready to do that if necessary).

Why would they have such a different perspective from Economist Extraordinaire Kelly Dwyer?

For NYK, it's widely suspected it's because they perceive JJ to be one-half or one-third of a package, and to get the other portions, they have to pay him.

For DAL and HOU, it's because they perceive JJ to represent the most realistic opportunity to improve their rosters given current market conditions.

And that's the overriding key... always, always, always comes back to supply and demand. We can talk cost-benefit ratio all we want, boys, but cost-benefit is subjugated to that greater economic principle.

+1

[mrhonline]

AHF, the details of those CBA's have changed fairly significantly over the years. It's an apples to oranges comparison, IMHO.

Regardless, the cap has not risen that dramatically during this CBA agreement.

Had they not set an arbitrary amount for the cap in 2005-6, it would have been $50.9M. Assuming it will be $56.1M this year, that means it has risen "only" 10% during this CBA.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I depends on the owner...

About Joe's value. I say this. Us having Joe signed (even to a max) is better than us not having Joe Signed. You see, I don't look at the signing as binding with this franchise. Joe can be traded. However, one of the things I learned while being a Hawks fan is that it takes talent to get talent. We were misraeble after the Smith trade when we had JT. So misraeble that we gave up Gasol (unknown quantity) for Shareef. When you start dealing with these unknwns, there are missteps that can be taken that will be franchise killing. (Look at Marvin's Picture here). We could have Paul or Deron right here, but instead... Misstep. I like having the talent and the ability to move the talent for what I want. Instead of having no talent and trying to find talent using other valuable things.

It's almost like people don't know the history of this league. Teams don't improve by maximizing on every draft pick that isn't a lottery pick. Even the Spurs ( the team that maximizes the draft the best ) needed to basically tank a season, so that they could get lucky and acquire Tim Duncan, who ended up being the cornerstone of the franchise. And along with their draft picks, they were able to trade for the right type of talent to surround Duncan.

But no other team even comes close to what the Spurs do via the draft. The vast majority of teams get better by trading talent for talent. Even if it's disgruntled talent on a bad team. Talents on bad teams . . like a Monta Ellis, Danny Granger, Al Jefferson . . and possibly down the road like an Andre Iguodala or Gilbert Arenas will all be traded for, if those guys continue to be productive players that could help a contending team. They'll team with a star player already in place to make the squad better.

That's the general history of the league.

[AHF]

AHF, the details of those CBA's have changed fairly significantly over the years. It's an apples to oranges comparison, IMHO.

Regardless, the cap has not risen that dramatically during this CBA agreement.

Had they not set an arbitrary amount for the cap in 2005-6, it would have been $50.9M. Assuming it will be $56.1M this year, that means it has risen "only" 10% during this CBA.

The economy has also tanked during this CBA. Will it be as bad in 6 years as it is now? History says "no" but we don't know. I know my business's modeling says things will be a lot better.