What message would Sund / ASG be sending if no trades are made?

[Admin]

I would be very disappointed if the Hawks don't make a run at CP3 or Howard in '12. Those are not the type of players you nickle and dime over. You spend the money upfront knowing that you will get return on your investment.

You gotta be way under the cap to be able to sign either of them and that won't be the case here. No way Orlando would trade Howard to us but we might have a shot at trading for CP3 although I doubt it.

[spotatl]

Once again - the superstars aren't the problem... I do think the ASG are smart enough to know that brining in a true superstar woudl pay for itself.

Ironically for the Hawks to get Howard it would mean that they would shed a ton of salary in order to have the space to resign him so the people who want to see the Hawks pay the luxury tax are barking up the wrong tree.

Edited February 16, 2011 by spotatl

[AHF]

the nba's highest paid player.

How is JJ paid more than, say, Kobe?

Kobe's current and next 3 seasons: $24,806,250 $25,244,493 $27,849,149 $30,453,805

JJ's current and next 3 seasons...: $16,324,500 $18,038,573 $19,752,645 $21,466,718

[Admin]

How is JJ paid more than, say, Kobe?

Kobe's current and next 3 seasons: $24,806,250 $25,244,493 $27,849,149 $30,453,805

JJ's current and next 3 seasons...: $16,324,500 $18,038,573 $19,752,645 $21,466,718

Whoops you're right about that, that'll teach me to post from my phone without fact checking. Let's change that to the highest paid player from the big FA class of 11 ... that should be accurate, right?

[Sothron]

If you cant afford to compete, then get out. I own a business and if I could not keep up with the competition I would sell. They have a asset in the professional sports team, and that does come with liabilities, but the good outweighs the bad and they simply will not spend to get to the next level, it's as simple as that.

Exactly. These bums are too cheap to run one team let alone two. Get them out of here with an owner willing to spend money. Arthur Blank I'm praying you are that person.

[NineOhTheRino]

You have to give the fans a reason. This team is flat out boring 70% of the time. So let's see:

-You're dull

-You hav 0 chance of winning a title

-You take nights off

Why in the hell should I dodge 200 homeless people to watch you play?

[niremetal]

Unless you're BOS/NYK/LAL, you don't have the revenue base to pay the luxury tax until after you make a deep (read: Conference Finals or Finals) playoff run and get the playoff ticket and future season ticket revenues that go with it. I'll just re-post what I said a year ago:

The Magic did NOT pay the tax last season, or in the 2 years before that. They only paid the tax in '05-'06 because the new CBA changed the tax rules; under the previous set of rules, Kelvin Cato's contract would not have counted against their tax figure. It was actually only AFTER they dumped salary and got below the tax threshold that they posted a winning record.

Boston, like LA and NY, has paid the tax even in years when they weren't contenders early in the decade. That is because those three teams earn lots of revenue even when the teams suck because they have large, intensely loyal followings nationwide.

The Mavs did NOT pay the tax until after they made the WCF in 2003.

The Heat paid the tax the year AFTER they won the Finals.

The problem with ASG isn't "cheap." Running a sports team is a business. Fans may not like it, but it is. No owner will put money into a team on the mere hope that they will earn it back. Breaking even is easy enough to do when you have the huge guaranteed revenues of teams like the Knicks, Celtics, and Lakers. Even when the Celtics were one of the worst teams in the NBA in the middle of the decade, they were turning 8-digit profits and remained in the top 10 in both revenues and operating income. And that's their floor.

When you're not in those markets, you aren't going to be getting huge royalties or sponsorship offers just based on the use of your logo and team name, nor can you rely on millions of dollars in merchandise sales of jerseys and other paraphernalia from the days of yore. That's true even if your team has a marketable superstar, so you can imagine what the revenue base is for a team without one. After the new CBA in 2005 made the tax a bit more prominent as a deterrent, team started scrambling to unload contracts and get under the tax. Even the Blazers, which has an absurdly rich owner and an even more absurdly loyal fan base, were so desperate to avoid the luxury tax a couple years ago that they threatened to sue any team that signed Darius Miles (thereby putting his contract back on their books).

The Nuggets were the only team that broke the trend and spent above the tax before making a deep playoff run, apparently on the hope that the marketability of Anthony and later Iverson would allow them to turn a profit anyway. Ironically, though, they didn't make a deep playoff run until 2008-2009 - the one year in which they got under the tax. After they made the WCF, they pushed above the tax limit again.

Teams outside of the Big Three have to follow the model of the Cavs, Magic, Mavs, Heat, and Jazz, all of whom went on somewhat unexpected deep playoff runs without paying the tax and THEN went out and spent above the tax. It's hard, but not impossible, as those teams showed. You need to catch a break or two in playoff matchups and get hot at the right time.

Like I've said many times - the problem with ASG isn't cheap. It's stupid. They seem to think they know better than the basketball pros about key issues. The unforgivable moments for me were not calling the Suns' bluff on matching JJ and not siding with Knight when he tried to fire Woody in '08. With the latter event in particular, I honestly think this team could have made a deep playoff run if we'd gotten rid of Woody 2.5 years sooner, before the bad habits got etched in stone. They certainly would have had a better shot. To me, money ain't the issue. It's how they've spent that money and the non-money decisions that get me.

I just don't want people to think "oh, if we had another owner, we'd be spending more money," because that wouldn't happen. What we would have, presumably, is someone who knows how to spend his money more wisely.

Exactly. These bums are too cheap to run one team let alone two. Get them out of here with an owner willing to spend money. Arthur Blank I'm praying you are that person.

You keep suggesting that, but it will never happen. First, owning a NFL team is as close to a license to print money as there is in pro sports. There is little risk that a NFL team will lose money because such a huge chunk of the revenues are generated by the leaguewide TV contracts. Owning a team in the NBA, a league where most franchises lose money, is a different matter. He wouldn't buy a NBA team, and even if one were handed to him on a silver platter, he certainly wouldn't run a NBA team the same way he runs a NFL team. He's too smart a businessman for that.

Oh, and NFL owners aren't allowed to own other pro sports teams except under very limited circumstances that don't apply to the Hawks and Falcons. Blank could buy a NBA team in a city with no NFL team (like the Spurs or Grizzlies), but that's it. So Blank would have to sell the Falcons to buy a majority stake in the Hawks. And that ain't happening.

As a side note, the NFL's cross-ownership rules probably violate anti-trust laws (IMHO), but no court has ruled on the current edition of those rules yet. A court struck down the absolute bar on cross-ownership back in the 80's, but the current version of the rules hasn't been directly challenged as far as I know.

Edited February 16, 2011 by niremetal

[MaceCase]

Whoops you're right about that, that'll teach me to post from my phone without fact checking. Let's change that to the highest paid player from the big FA class of 11 ... that should be accurate, right?

Don't feel bad about it, there are plenty of those that are actually paid to fact check that are saying the same. You know how those network folks just loooove bringing up numbers when talking negatively about the Hawks.

[NineOhTheRino]

Oh, and NFL owners aren't allowed to own other pro sports teams in the same city.

Are you sure? I thought AB was trying to buy the braves a few years back. And he did own the GA Force.

blank-breaks-off-braves-talks

Edited February 16, 2011 by NineOhTheRino

[niremetal]

Are you sure? I thought AB was trying to buy the braves a few years back. And he did own the GA Force.

blank-breaks-off-braves-talks

(Blank is apparently interested in buying a MLS franchise too.)

The NFL would have had to approve the sale had it happened. Based on what they've done in recent years, they probably would have rejected it. They took a lot of flak for basically granting Huizenga an exception to the rule in the 90's because it created the impression that the rule was being applied arbitrarily since a few other sales had been nixed by the NFL based on the cross-ownership rule in previous years. Since then, their stated policy is that you can only own other major (with apologies to the AFL) pro sports teams in cities where there is no NFL team (thus making Paul Allen's ownership of the Blazers acceptable).

Blank may be confident that the rule would be struck down by a court if challenged, though - and he's probably right. Sooner or later, an owner will directly challenge the rule, and my guess is that the NFL will lose in court. Stan Kroenke was thinking about that last year in Denver, if memory serves, when he tried to buy the St. Louis Rams. Don't know what happened with that.

Edited February 16, 2011 by niremetal

[NineOhTheRino]

I like Blank but Atlanta gives him too much credit. The Smith family did make it to the SB. And yeah Blank spends but what has that spending gotten him.

Vick (I give him a pass on Vick)

Peerless Price

Edgerton Hartwell

Dunta Robinson

hmmm....

and he fired Dan Reeves

Edited February 16, 2011 by NineOhTheRino

[mrhonline]

They made a trade this summer - all of the team's flexibility for six years of Joe Johnson.

[niremetal]

They made a trade this summer - all of the team's flexibility for six years of Joe Johnson.

One could argue they did the same thing 2.5 years ago for 5 years of Josh Smith or 1.5 years ago for 5 years of Marvin Williams. It's the accumulated investments in this "core" that's hamstrung us, not any one move.