I don't think Jamal Crawford will resign...

[willthepureshooter]

For the past couple days I've been following him on twitter and it seems as though he wants a starting role again. Plus, Joe Johnson's contract has pretty much made our ability to re-sign him even more difficult. I would be extremely pissed if he signed with Miami or New York. But it seems he will not return to Phillips Arena when the season starts back up. Why couldn't we have traded Marvin Williams a couple years ago?? ARGHHHH!! I guess I have to say goodbye to "Mr 3 + 1"

[Deeman]

I think he's gone too. A fan tweeted him about Atlanta resigning him and he said something along the lines of "They should of signed me when they had the chance SMH"

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Get behind Jeff Teague and forget about Jamal Crawford.

We'll never know if Teague can reach his potential if we keep relying on Jamal's "semi-instant offense" to bail us out. We REALLY need to find out if Teague is the real deal by giving him real minutes. He can't get those types of minutes and control of the offense if Jamal is here.

Jamal did better than expected while he was here. But it's time to part ways and see if our younger talent can get it done. Maybe even Marvin comes back to being a semi-productive player without Jamal in the mix.

[Wretch]

Get behind Jeff Teague and forget about Jamal Crawford.

We'll never know if Teague can reach his potential if we keep relying on Jamal's "semi-instant offense" to bail us out. We REALLY need to find out if Teague is the real deal by giving him real minutes. He can't get those types of minutes and control of the offense if Jamal is here.

Jamal did better than expected while he was here. But it's time to part ways and see if our younger talent can get it done. Maybe even Marvin comes back to being a semi-productive player without Jamal in the mix.

Agreed.

Though I don't think keeping him is going to be financially feasible. Not under the old CBA and certainly not under the new one - assuming that the owners get anything they want out of the deal.

[capstone21]

I do like the 3 guard rotation of Joe, Hinrich and Teague. We now have defense. I do hope Teague learns to be more of a playmaker though.

[frosgrim]

Crawford was really good for what he did, as others have said it Teague-time. I gave Teague a lot of ish during the season, but I'm glad he showed what he can be in the playoffs. Now it's time to see if that was a mirage or the real thing.

[willthepureshooter]

I understand that its Teagues time to step up and show us what he did in the playoffs. But, who will take over the offensive role from the bench? Remember, that was the reason why we drafted "he who shall remain nameless." I'm not willing to put all of my eggs in the Marvin Williams basket. I just think Jamal is still valuable to this team. LeBron James tweeted about wanting him to joing the Miami Heat. If that happens, we may be in a lot of trouble.

[AHF]

I understand that its Teagues time to step up and show us what he did in the playoffs. But, who will take over the offensive role from the bench? Remember, that was the reason why we drafted "he who shall remain nameless." I'm not willing to put all of my eggs in the Marvin Williams basket. I just think Jamal is still valuable to this team. LeBron James tweeted about wanting him to joing the Miami Heat. If that happens, we may be in a lot of trouble.

Yeah, I heard Lebron said it was the lack of elite talent playing with him on the Miami team last year that was the reason they fell short against the Mavs. If he only had Jamal and maybe an in-his-prime Shaq then he would really be the king. Lebron doesn't want anything easy, that is for sure!

[capstone21]

I understand that its Teagues time to step up and show us what he did in the playoffs. But, who will take over the offensive role from the bench?

Teague will be the sparkplug off the pine. He will get JC's pt. Joe and Hinrich will start and Teague can come in to replace one of them or Marvin (with Joe moving to SF).

[AHF]

Teague will be the sparkplug off the pine. He will get JC's pt. Joe and Hinrich will start and Teague can come in to replace one of them or Marvin (with Joe moving to SF).

I think Teague will be starting and Hinrich coming off the pine at both guard spots. Maybe that is just me being hopeful but if Teague has continued to make any kind of progress as a player I don't know how you don't put him in a major role this season.

[capstone21]

I think he still has a major role if he is the 6th man (taking JC's pt).

I don't want the Teague taking all the shots like he did in the Chi series but a Teague who will distribute the ball and then look for his shot.

Edited October 28, 2011 by capstone21

[willthepureshooter]

I'm with AHF on letting Teague start and having Hinrich come off the bench. I think Hinrich will have more a spot-up shooting role this year. But the big question is, what do we do with Marvin? The guy can't shoot worth a lick anymore and he's becoming more and more passive as a slasher. Call me crazy but I would extend the veteran minimum to Allen Iverson. He's looking and sounding hungrier each day. Just saying... Can't go wrong with at least trying to see if he has more in the tank. Plus, it would boost ticket sales in Phillips.

[frosgrim]

I'm with AHF on letting Teague start and having Hinrich come off the bench. I think Hinrich will have more a spot-up shooting role this year. But the big question is, what do we do with Marvin? The guy can't shoot worth a lick anymore and he's becoming more and more passive as a slasher. Call me crazy but I would extend the veteran minimum to Allen Iverson. He's looking and sounding hungrier each day. Just saying... Can't go wrong with at least trying to see if he has more in the tank. Plus, it would boost ticket sales in Phillips.

I was wondering about MW as well. If JC goes, then Marvin needs to go back to the starting SF. The Hawks can't go with Smith full-time at SF and one of our punching bag Cs starting.

At the same time it looks like there is an amnesty clause in the new CBA. Does the ASG waive MW to get that 8ish million off the books? That would potentially give them cap to resign JC, but I'm not sure they'd want to just eat that salary.

Once the CBA is worked out, the Hawks have a lot of work to get this roster figured out. Right now they just don't have the right pieces in the right places.

[coachx]

At the same time it looks like there is an amnesty clause in the new CBA. Does the ASG waive MW to get that 8ish million off the books? That would potentially give them cap to resign JC, but I'm not sure they'd want to just eat that salary.

Where have you seen this ? I would be interested in seeing the details.

My understanding of the previous NBA amnesty clause simply meant 1 player's contract does not count towards the salary cap but that player remains on the roster and is still paid their contract. In that case wouldn't Joe Johnson be the best player to use the clause on ? That way you get the more luxury tax forgiveness, over a longer period of time, then with Marvin Williams contract.

Is that your understanding too ?

Edited November 1, 2011 by coachx

[coachx]

Looks like I did not understand the amnesty details:

http://basketball.ab...t-Contracts.htm

NBA teams have had this opportunity once before. In 2005, teams were given the chance to waive a single player contract. Teams were still bound to pay the players' salary, and the salaries continued to count against the cap, but teams were freed from any obligation to pay luxury tax on those salaries.

That rule came to be known as the "Allan Houston Rule" - based on the general assumption that New York would jump at the opportunity to waive their oft-injured, high-priced guard. (In an ironic twist, Houston was not waived under the rule that bears his name - the Knicks gambled that Houston's injuries would prove to be career-ending, and that they'd get cap - and insurance - relief as a result. That turned out to be the team's savviest personnel move of the decade.)

The provision in the owners' CBA proposal may be similar, though it seems reasonable to assume that this amnesty clause would remove contracts from the salary cap number as well, especially if accompanied by a substantial reduction in the cap number or the elimination of cap "exceptions."

That's interesting for a couple of reasons. A big wave of amnesty-clause free agents would make the 2011 free-agent class a lot deeper -- and if we assume that the waived players would still collect money owed under their existing contracts, those new free agents might be willing to work for very little. It would also give teams that are struggling under the weight of some bad decisions to add some talent over the summer.

Which players would be impacted? A quick look at each team's payroll offers quite a few clues. (All salary figures are from the invaluable team payroll listings at HoopsHype.com.

The NBA's Worst Contracts: 2011-on

Atlanta: Joe Johnson's mammoth contract (which will pay him nearly $25 million in 2015-16) is generally regarded as the league's worst. But can the Hawks afford to part ways with their best player? Kirk Hinrich ($8 million in 2011-12) might be another candidate, given Jeff Teague's emergence in the playoffs.

Edited November 1, 2011 by coachx

[AHF]

From what I have read on the new amnesty clause, the player would be cut and he would still be paid his contract. 75% of the contract would be removed from the salary cap, so a player like Marvin being cut would add 6M to your cap -- if you were at or below the cap (if you were already 10M over, you only get tax relief). This wouldn't necessarily give the Hawks room to spend 6M on someone else unless they had exceptions which allowed them to do this.

Given the Hawks' attachment to Marvin, I personally question whether he would be cut under this system.

[willthepureshooter]

I think I will go ahead and get my "Amnesty Marvin 2011" shirt lol.. I would be highly upset if we let Crawford walk and keep this good for nothing slop.

[frosgrim]

From what I have read on the new amnesty clause, the player would be cut and he would still be paid his contract. 75% of the contract would be removed from the salary cap, so a player like Marvin being cut would add 6M to your cap -- if you were at or below the cap (if you were already 10M over, you only get tax relief). This wouldn't necessarily give the Hawks room to spend 6M on someone else unless they had exceptions which allowed them to do this.

Given the Hawks' attachment to Marvin, I personally question whether he would be cut under this system.

But they could use that 6 mil in space to resign Crawford AND keep them under the LT. That is what I was thinking.

[AHF]

But they could use that 6 mil in space to resign Crawford AND keep them under the LT. That is what I was thinking.

How would you use that space to sign Crawford for 6M? 6M exceeds the mid-level exception and even after cutting Marvin the Hawks are over the cap.

Under that scenario, you could sign Crawford for the mid-level but where is the great upside?

Situation #1 - Use the mid-level on Crawford and pay the tax. You are at 66M in salary and then adding 5M for Crawford on a mid-level deal. Say you add another 3M filling out the roster. That means, you are 4M over the cap and you pay 5M for Crawford, 4M for the luxury tax hit, and lose 3M in revenue sharing.

That amounts to a $12M hit for Crawford and you total bill for your team is $81 million ($66M in salaries, $3M in finishing the roster, $5M for Crawford, $4M for tax hit, $3M for lost revenue sharing).

Situation #2 - Cut Marvin, use the mid-level on Crawford. If you are at 66M in salary and cut Marvin you then save 6M in cap space which takes you down to 60M. Add 3M for filling out the roster, add 5M for Crawford on the mid-level and add 8M for the amount you are paying Marvin. That adds up to $68M for the team, $8M for Marvin and your total cost is $76 million ($66M in salaries, $3M in finishing the roster, $5M for Crawford).

So in one situation you are paying $76 million for a team that doesn't have a small forward worth a darn and that will be decimated if they lose Smith or Horford for any period of time and the other you are paying $81 million for a more talented and significantly deeper team and you still retain your ability to use the amnesty on a bigger target like Joe.

Situation #3 is simply fill out the roster at $69 ($66M + 3M) and don't sign Crawford. That is $7M cheaper than the option to sign Crawford and I think it puts you in roughly the same position competitively.

It seems penny-wise, pound foolish to me to cut Marvin and sign Crawford. To me the only rationale choices are sign Crawford on the MLE and pay the tax or let him walk.

Edited November 4, 2011 by AHF

[DrReality]

With the ASG still at the helm who knows what will happen. I think if there is a deal they will have a finite number of options and JCraw won't be one of them.