Did the fans understand what we had in Joe?

[AHF]

? But Thompson never signed with an NBA team, he came in with the the Nuggets to the NBA. Are you saying the Hawks should have still had the rights when the NBA-ABA merged and shouldn't have allowed the Nuggets to bring Thompson into the league? I have 0 problems with this, from what I read the Hawks did not even reach out to David when they drafted him number one. Hell, the Hawks took him to McDonald's for their first meeting! Seems pretty stupid when you have another league right there competing for your player.

Good point, but it still blows for the Hawks that they can't pick up one guy because he was already drafted and another team therefore held his rights and then they can't get the guy they drafted and they have no draft rights to him. That gets even more complicated with only some of the ABA teams merging into the NBA and others just being eliminated. You are right, though, that with the Nuggets coming into the NBA there was no way you would divest them of players drafted by other NBA teams.

[Guest]

Good point, but it still blows for the Hawks that they can't pick up one guy because he was already drafted and another team therefore held his rights and then they can't get the guy they drafted and they have no draft rights to him. That gets even more complicated with only some of the ABA teams merging into the NBA and others just being eliminated. You are right, though, that with the Nuggets coming into the NBA there was no way you would divest them of players drafted by other NBA teams.

I do not see much of this as bad luck for the Hawks. It just reeks of Hawks ineptitude.

[AHF]

I do not see much of this as bad luck for the Hawks. It just reeks of Hawks ineptitude.

It is a combination of both. In any other era, they would not have gotten zero value for the #1 overall pick in the draft. They would have owned his rights for life if he didn't want to come there and would at least have gotten good trade value. By virtue of bad luck and timing, they got nothing. Now that doesn't excuse taking him to McDonalds and all other associate ineptitude with that, but it is almost certain at any other period of time in the NBA's history that he would have worn a Hawks' jersey.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Who did JJs contract keep us from getting?Did it prevent us from keeping Jamal Crawford? No.Would it have prevented us from signing Lou Williams this summer? No.So what "other player(s} did JJs contract prevent us from getting?

[MaceCase]

Who did JJs contract keep us from getting? Did it prevent us from keeping Jamal Crawford? No. Would it have prevented us from signing Lou Williams this summer? No. So what "other player(s} did JJs contract prevent us from getting?

What? The answer is yes to both, Jamal because his modest contract of 5 mil last season would of pushed the Hawks deeper into the lux tax, deeper than selling a draft pick could cover, and this season the team would be at 65 million to 7 players only.

[Diesel]

What? The answer is yes to both, Jamal because his modest contract of 5 mil last season would of pushed the Hawks deeper into the lux tax, deeper than selling a draft pick could cover, and this season the team would be at 65 million to 7 players only.

I think the fact that Ferry found such ease moving Marvin and we have passed on cap saving trades for Marvin in the past tells me that we wasted time and money with contracts like Marvin's and Hinrich's. To have a guy like Marvin sucking up 8.5 Million and a guy like Hinrich sucking up 10 Million says that regardless of what Joe made, this org was not serious about winning. You take the 18.5 Million that we spent on those two last year and tell me what Star that we couldn't have had playing beside Joe?

[MaceCase]

I think the fact that Ferry found such ease moving Marvin and we have passed on cap saving trades for Marvin in the past tells me that we wasted time and money with contracts like Marvin's and Hinrich's. To have a guy like Marvin sucking up 8.5 Million and a guy like Hinrich sucking up 10 Million says that regardless of what Joe made, this org was not serious about winning. You take the 18.5 Million that we spent on those two last year and tell me what Star that we couldn't have had playing beside Joe?

Because I know that you less cap initiated people think it's a video game where the business aspect is unimportant, I'll give you the elementary version: Hinrich plus Marvin combined for 15.5 million last season. The Hawks spent 71 million for a first round and out team. 71 minus 15.5 equals 55.5. The Salary cap was at 58 million. A max contract starts at ~16 million. Try harder. Edited July 27, 2012 by MaceCase

[Sothron]

I thought Hinrich's deal started out highest in the first year and got cheaper every year after that. Wasn't he like 7.5 million last season under the cap?

[Diesel]

Because I know that you less cap initiated people think it's a video game where the business aspect is unimportant, I'll give you the elementary version: Hinrich plus Marvin combined for 15.5 million last season. The Hawks spent 71 million for a first round and out team. 71 minus 15.5 equals 55.5. The Salary cap was at 58 million. A max contract starts at ~16 million. Try harder.

So are you saying that a trade of Marvin and Hinrich for a star player couldn't have worked o cap master Mace? My point was that the money we spent on them pushed us closer to the luxury tax also.

[MaceCase]

So are you saying that a trade of Marvin and Hinrich for a star player couldn't have worked o cap master Mace? My point was that the money we spent on them pushed us closer to the luxury tax also.

So you are saying that Marvin and Hinrich would of netted us a star in trade, oh delusional one? I mean yea, you might have a point seeing as both Marvin and Hinrich netted their teams much better pieces in Devin Harris and the great quotable Jordan Crawford than Joe did but like I said, it's not a video game. Your point on tax is moot too because: A) the team would of only had 2.5 million in actual cap space to sign a star. B) even if the fantasy of Marvin and Hinrich's combined deals got the team a star they still made less than the starting salary of a max deal for a team paying the tax.......thus (if you aren't following) the team would still be paying the tax if not more of it had they swapped out the deals. Try harder.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What? The answer is yes to both, Jamal because his modest contract of 5 mil last season would of pushed the Hawks deeper into the lux tax, deeper than selling a draft pick could cover, and this season the team would be at 65 million to 7 players only.

What? The answer is yes to both, Jamal because his modest contract of 5 mil last season would of pushed the Hawks deeper into the lux tax, deeper than selling a draft pick could cover, and this season the team would be at 65 million to 7 players only.

Look at what you just wrote. That has nothing to do with JJs contract. This has everything to do with how the ASG operates. The teams who are serious about going deep into the playoffs are not hamstrung by the luxury tax, especially if we're talking about a few million dollars. This is professional sports. The teams that "pay the cost to be the boss" are the teams most likely to be contenders. Everybody cant get lucky and catch lightening in a bottle with a bunch of young guys like OKC did. If Brooklyn surpasses us this year, you'll know the reason why. They were willimg to bring in high quality guys and were not worried about the cost.

[MaceCase]

Look at what you just wrote.

That has nothing to do with JJs contract. This has everything to do with how the ASG operates. The teams who are serious about going deep into the playoffs are not hamstrung by the luxury tax, especially if we're talking about a few million dollars.

This is professional sports. The teams that "pay the cost to be the boss" are the teams most likely to be contenders. Everybody cant get lucky and catch lightening in a bottle with a bunch of young guys like OKC did. If Brooklyn surpasses us this year, you'll know the reason why. They were willimg to bring in high quality guys and were not worried about the cost.

How delusional are you? What time period are you even living in? North, look at the facts, the ASG paid luxury tax for a first round and out team. You can't just throw money at a team and think it will equal on court results especially when the biggest expense in all of that is also the most dissapointing. That was the inherent flaw in all of this thus why he was jettisoned for scraps. I mean come on now, lol. "Pay the cost to be the boss"? Like the Wizards did? Like Portland? Like Milwaukee? Overpaying for a mediocre product is not the ticket to a championship and plenty of teams have found that out the hard way including our Hawks.

If you have an actual piece to build around, sure but clearly Joe wasn't that considering that even his fanclub admit and won't stop mentioning not getting somebody that would of actually carried him (well, more than his current cast already did). The thing is about being a tax team is that options are limited in terms of what you can spend and what you can trade for....All of that has become even worse now with the new CBA yet the idea for you is to hold onto the guy making more than any other player in the league? You are even mentioning window dressing as if it'll make a difference. Joe spent two years with Jamal, what was his playoff averages? Would Louis come in and change that?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

How delusional are you? What time period are you even living in? North, look at the facts, the ASG paid luxury tax for a first round and out team.

No they didn't. They paid the luxury tax because Al Horford got hurt, and they felt the need to bring in an extra center. Remember who our last 2 signings were during the season?

- Erick Dampier

- Jerry Stackhouse

Both guys were simply cheerleaders on the bench for the most part. Stackhouse was brought in because of his "locker room leadership", despite contributing little or nothing out on the court. That's almost 2 million in salary that the ASG brought in . . for nothing.

As much as I don't like Jamal Crawford's game, I'd much rather had him here, than Jerry Stackhouse and Erick Dampier.

Just keep it real with all of this. These were the Hawks last year that were under contract before free agency last summer

Joe Johnson - 18.04 mill

Al Horford - 12.49 mill

Josh Smith - 12.4 mill

Our Big 3 = 42.93 mill

Kirk Hinrich - 8 mill

Marvin Williams - 7.5 mill

Zaza Pachulia - 4.75 mill

Jeff Teague - 1.58 mill

These 4 players = 21.83 mill

Those 7 players = 64.76 mill

Luxury tax last year roughly at 70.3 million. Hawks have 5.54 mill to spend on 6 players before they hit the luxury tax.

Now build your team.

- Sign Jamal ( one year at 5 mill )

- Sign 4 more "bargain basement vet minimum players" at 854 thousand a piece = 3.42 mill ( T-Mac, Pargo, Green, Collins )

- Sign Ivan ( 474 thousand )

So those 6 players = 8.89 mill

64.76 mill + 8.89 mill = 73.65 mill ( roughly 3.35 mill over the luxury tax )

If the ASG chose to do so, they could've functioned over the luxury tax for ONE YEAR, to see if the team that pushed the Bulls to 6 games in the 2nd round of 2011, could go a little further.

OR

Instead of paying Crawford 5 mill, they could've paid someone else a 5 mill ( MLE type contract ), and brought them in. Heck, they could've used the Bi-Annual exception and brought in a 2 million dollar player, and only been barely over the tax.

Or

They could've signed Keith Benson and Donald Sloan last year, and saved a million dollars, instead of signing Jason Collins and Jeremy Pargo.

You act like the Hawks were just so hamstrung, that we couldn't do anything. We could've done whatever we wanted with the MLE. We could've traded a player or two. The ASG simply chose not to do so, because they didn't want to pay the Tax. And when they did decide to pay the tax by signing Dampier and Stackhouse, it was out of stupidity.

You can't just throw money at a team and think it will equal on court results especially when the biggest expense in all of that is also the most dissapointing. That was the inherent flaw in all of this thus why he was jettisoned for scraps.

So the alternative is to not only trade away that "disappointment" ( despite he and Teague being the only one to produce at a high level on occasion in the 2011 playoffs ), but also to trade him away for scraps that may see you take a step back. So to treat a bad deep cut on your leg, you cut your entire leg off instead of stitching it up. OK.

I mean come on now, lol. "Pay the cost to be the boss"? Like the Wizards did? Like Portland? Like Milwaukee? Overpaying for a mediocre product is not the ticket to a championship and plenty of teams have found that out the hard way including our Hawks.

What was the payroll of the Miami Heat this year?

The Dallas Mavericks last year?

The LA Lakers the two years before that?

The Boston Celtics before that?

This is professional sports man. Good organizations pay to bring in good players. Last I checked, Milwaukee wasn't paying the Luxury Tax last year. Nor was Portland, after they amnestied Brandon Roy and got rid of an injured Greg Oden. Nor was Washington, despite them having the worst contract in the league on their team in Rashard Lewis.

The fact is that Joe Johnson's contract didn't prevent the ASG from doing anything

- it didn't prevent them from trading one or more of the core ( including himself ) for a better or better fitting player(s)

- it didn't prevent them from using the MLE to bring in a player

- it didn't prevent them from using the Bi-Annual exception to bring in a player.

Other teams who are SERIOUS about competing against the best, do just that. They pay to get who they want.

Teams that worry more about paying the Tax and getting the free handout from the league, instead of putting the best possible product out on the court, don't do these things.

If you have an actual piece to build around, sure but clearly Joe wasn't that considering that even his fanclub admit and won't stop mentioning not getting somebody that would of actually carried him (well, more than his current cast already did).

If that is the perception, I have no problem with that. But look what the team did. They didn't trade him for an upgrade in player. They traded him for 3 maggots and 2 dead flies, in hopes that they can land a "butterfly" next summer. A "butterfly" that has NEVER said that he wanted to play in Atlanta, despite his "best friend" being here.

The thing is about being a tax team is that options are limited in terms of what you can spend and what you can trade for....All of that has become even worse now with the new CBA yet the idea for you is to hold onto the guy making more than any other player in the league? You are even mentioning window dressing as if it'll make a difference. Joe spent two years with Jamal, what was his playoff averages? Would Louis come in and change that?

Tax teams are not limited in doing anything. The most active teams are usually the tax teams, because they're willing too trade young pieces to bring in established vets. They're the ones that are usually willing too spend the MLE on a player. They're the ones that are willing to do bold moves, ( like trading their scraps for Joe Johnson ), to see if that player can help the team get to the next level.

It's the "tax teams" that are after Dwight Howard the hardest. ( LA Lakers, Brooklyn, etc ), while bad teams with "cap space" have no shot at him because he doesn't want to go there.

I'm not arguing that the Hawks shouldn't have been "blown up a bit" by trading away JJ or any other "core" player. What I'm saying is that JJ's contract ( a contract that hadn't even reached 20 million yet ), didn't prevent the ASG from doing anything.

And those are facts.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Hawks going into the 2012 - 13 season . . before the JJ and Marvin tradesJoe Johnson - 19.75 millJosh Smith - 13.2 millAl Horford - 12 millOur Big 3 = 44.95 millMarvin Williams - 8.29 millZaza Pachulia - 5.25 millJeff Teague - 2.43 millThese 3 = 15.97Total for these 6 players = 60.92 millLet's say both Rookies make the team and the Hawks re-sign IvanJohn Jenkins - 1.2 millIvan Johnson - 962 thousandMike Scott - 500 thousandThese 3 players = 2.66 millNine players signed = 60.92 + 2.66 = 63.58 millLuxury Tax is at 70.3 million . . which gives us 6.72 mill to sign 4 playersUse the MLE on a player = 5 millSign Keith Benson = roughly 500 thousandSign 2 Vet Minimum guys @ 854 thousand a piece = 1.8 millTotal for these 4 players = 7.3 millHawks are roughly 600 thousand over the Luxury Tax.Legit teams vying to be a major contender do not let 600 thousand stand in their way from adding pieces. And if money IS a concern, they simply trade away the talent that they do have, for equal or better talent that may fit better with the team.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Or like some said . . . make the Marvin trade FIRST. Then add an MLE player

[MaceCase]

- Sign Jamal ( one year at 5 mill )

- Sign 4 more "bargain basement vet minimum players" at 854 thousand a piece = 3.42 mill ( T-Mac, Pargo, Green, Collins )

- Sign Ivan ( 474 thousand )

So those 6 players = 8.89 mill

Wrong, just because the owners actually pay ~850k doesnt mean that is the worth of a vet min contract. The cap hit is for the full ~1.3 on each of those guys. Seeing as payroll was eating most of profits for, again, a 1st round and out team, you're still not painting a picture other than continued window dressing

If the ASG chose to do so, they could've functioned over the luxury tax for ONE YEAR, to see if the team that pushed the Bulls to 6 games in the 2nd round of 2011, could go a little further.

I'm sorry, but what were the team's profits?

OR

Instead of paying Crawford 5 mill, they could've paid someone else a 5 mill ( MLE type contract ), and brought them in. Heck, they could've used the Bi-Annual exception and brought in a 2 million dollar player, and only been barely over the tax.

Or

They could've signed Keith Benson and Donald Sloan last year, and saved a million dollars, instead of signing Jason Collins and Jeremy Pargo.

You act like the Hawks were just so hamstrung, that we couldn't do anything. We could've done whatever we wanted with the MLE. We could've traded a player or two. The ASG simply chose not to do so, because they didn't want to pay the Tax. And when they did decide to pay the tax by signing Dampier and Stackhouse, it was out of stupidity.

More window dressing. This has been debated ad nauseum on here yet you still don't get it. Is there an impact player in that lot? Is there an MLE player than was the clearcut difference in pushing a team over the top? (who you gonna say, Shane Battier?) You're speaking of a trade could have been done but uhmmmmmm any difference that could have been achieved would have required a core member......kind of like Ferry did.

So the alternative is to not only trade away that "disappointment" ( despite he and Teague being the only one to produce at a high level on occasion in the 2011 playoffs ), but also to trade him away for scraps that may see you take a step back. So to treat a bad deep cut on your leg, you cut your entire leg off instead of stitching it up. OK.

What an asinine analogy. Yes, when you have a bad cut on your leg that is gangrenous and infected with a whole slew of bacteria that is slowly whitling it away and is not responsive to antibiotics you don't just stitch it up and keep moving. Ask anyone with any modicum of medical training and they'll say that the only choice is to amputate the source before the entire body is affected. That's a far more apt interpretation of the analogy. This is the delusion, you still think all the team needed was stitches and bandaids.

What was the payroll of the Miami Heat this year?

The Dallas Mavericks last year?

The LA Lakers the two years before that?

The Boston Celtics before that?

You aren't f***ing serious. Remind me again how many MVPs, DPOYs and championships Joe won with the Hawks to justify spending up there? Like I said, instead of spending to help Dirk, Kobe, Garnett and Lebron.....the Hawks were spending on Redd, Arenas and Roy.

This is professional sports man. Good organizations pay to bring in good players. Last I checked, Milwaukee wasn't paying the Luxury Tax last year. Nor was Portland, after they amnestied Brandon Roy and got rid of an injured Greg Oden. Nor was Washington, despite them having the worst contract in the league on their team in Rashard Lewis.

Yea, you know why......because after spending into the tax years before on mediocre products they were all forced into rebuilding. You can't be that simple minded to only think that far back.

If that is the perception, I have no problem with that. But look what the team did. They didn't trade him for an upgrade in player. They traded him for 3 maggots and 2 dead flies, in hopes that they can land a "butterfly" next summer. A "butterfly" that has NEVER said that he wanted to play in Atlanta, despite his "best friend" being here.

The perception that you need to come to terms with is that Joe Johnson is actually worth 3 maggots and 2 dead flies. Actually, it isn't perception, it's reality. Fact, not fantasy. Yes it happened, North.

Tax teams are not limited in doing anything. The most active teams are usually the tax teams, because they're willing too trade young pieces to bring in established vets. They're the ones that are usually willing too spend the MLE on a player. They're the ones that are willing to do bold moves, ( like trading their scraps for Joe Johnson ), to see if that player can help the team get to the next level.

And those are facts.

The tax teams like LA that jettisoned Lamar Odom for nothing? Dallas that has watched nearly it's entire championship team from not even 2 years ago don other team's uniforms? Really? Brooklyn that has been trying to do creative accounting to get Dwight because they won't even be able to trade for anybody next season? New York that let the biggest cash cow since Yao walk for nothing? Chicago that jettisoned their entire bench? Yes, do tell me about how the tax has no implications on "real contenders" Edited July 27, 2012 by MaceCase

[Diesel]

So you are saying that Marvin and Hinrich would of netted us a star in trade, oh delusional one? I mean yea, you might have a point seeing as both Marvin and Hinrich netted their teams much better pieces in Devin Harris and the great quotable Jordan Crawford than Joe did but like I said, it's not a video game. Your point on tax is moot too because: A) the team would of only had 2.5 million in actual cap space to sign a star. B) even if the fantasy of Marvin and Hinrich's combined deals got the team a star they still made less than the starting salary of a max deal for a team paying the tax.......thus (if you aren't following) the team would still be paying the tax if not more of it had they swapped out the deals. Try harder.

I like how you keep calling people who disagree with you delusional... Anyway... You package that Marvin 8.5 Million dollar contract to Cleveland for a pick back when Crawford was to become a free agent and you can resign him to his meager 5 million dollar deal. However, instead of that, you stick with this idea that Marvin may still blossom and you want to keep the core together and you miss out on sending Marvin to Gant for a pick. or the year before Marvin for Shaq. The deal is that we never made decisions that would lead us to be a contender... that's no delusion. The real delusion is you believing that everything was Joe's fault and that his contract is the reason why we couldn't get anything. Sorry but we can go down the list and point out players who don't do anything on the court making Millions of dollars and figure out that trading them weather for picks or for star players would make us better. Moreover... in a time when Carmelo Anthony was just handed to us, we refused to make the deal. Could Marvin/Hinrich get us something back? I remember Sessions being in play to us for Marvin.

[thecampster]

So you are saying that Marvin and Hinrich would of netted us a star in trade, oh delusional one? I mean yea, you might have a point seeing as both Marvin and Hinrich netted their teams much better pieces in Devin Harris and the great quotable Jordan Crawford than Joe did but like I said, it's not a video game. Your point on tax is moot too because: A) the team would of only had 2.5 million in actual cap space to sign a star. B) even if the fantasy of Marvin and Hinrich's combined deals got the team a star they still made less than the starting salary of a max deal for a team paying the tax.......thus (if you aren't following) the team would still be paying the tax if not more of it had they swapped out the deals. Try harder.

THIS!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Wrong, just because the owners actually pay ~850k doesnt mean that is the worth of a vet min contract. The cap hit is for the full ~1.3 on each of those guys. Seeing as payroll was eating most of profits for, again, a 1st round and out team, you're still not painting a picture other than continued window dressing

You sure? I mean, correct me, and this, if I/they are wrong. And be mindful of the cap holds as well.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/2012/hawks.jsp

And that team that you keep calling a "1st round and out team" had made it to the 2nd round for 3 consecutive years and actually made a little progress in the 2nd round last year. Horford was gone for most of the year, only coming back for the final few games of the playoffs. We didn't have Zaza for the playoffs. If healthy, we're at least a 2nd round team, because we're not playing Boston in Round 1 . . we're playing Orlando, because we'd probably be the 3rd seed.

That was a 2nd round team. They just weren't healthy enough to get out the 1st round. And it didn't help that we were playing Boston.

More window dressing. This has been debated ad nauseum on here yet you still don't get it. Is there an impact player in that lot? Is there an MLE player than was the clearcut difference in pushing a team over the top? (who you gonna say, Shane Battier?) You're speaking of a trade could have been done but uhmmmmmm any difference that could have been achieved would have required a core member......kind of like Ferry did.

Was there an impact player available had JJ been making less money? Because the consensus around here was that if JJ were making a "mere 12 million a year", people wouldn't have that much of a problem with him on the team. But the Hawks would still be above the Salary Cap and couldn't add any "significant" player other than with the MLE or Bi-Annual exceptions. And they could do that anyway.

To say that JJ isn't the guy to build around is one thing. To say that JJ's contract prevented the Hawks from improving the team, is false.

What an asinine analogy. Yes, when you have a bad cut on your leg that is gangrenous and infected with a whole slew of bacteria that is slowly whitling it away and is not responsive to antibiotics you don't just stitch it up and keep moving. Ask anyone with any modicum of medical training and they'll say that the only choice is to amputate the source before the entire body is affected. That's a far more apt interpretation of the analogy. This is the delusion, you still think all the team needed was stitches and bandaids.

Funny thing is . . the guy that has been keeping the team "out of balance" is still on the team. And we're about to give him a JJ-like 2nd contract after this season is over. But some around here ( including yourself ) will be cool with that.

I thought the team needed to trade one or more of the core for a better fitting player. Like I said, you ( and others ) act like Joe Johnson is the root of all of the problems in ATL. That contract wasn't preventing anything happening in ATL, because ownership wasn't looking to do anything significant, than tear the team down.

This is the same team that traded two 1st round draft picks for Kirk Hinrick . . but JJ was the problem? This is the same team signed two old men that put them into the Luxury Tax . . but JJ is the problem? This is the same team that traded a 6 time All-Star for scraps . . but JJ was the problem?

No other team in the league would've done what the Hawks did with JJ, while that team was still at playoff level. They would've gotten SOMETHING for the dude, other than expiring contracts. But it is what it is.

You aren't f***ing serious. Remind me again how many MVPs, DPOYs and championships Joe won with the Hawks to justify spending up there? Like I said, instead of spending to help Dirk, Kobe, Garnett and Lebron.....the Hawks were spending on Redd, Arenas and Roy.

You need to calm down and keep this civil. If you can't debate this without the name-calling and cursing, then you don't need to be debating this. The Hawks were spending ( or investing ) in not only JJ, but in "the core" as a whole. If they aren't good enough to get it done, you trade them for other pieces that can possibly get it done. But teams worrying about putting their toes or feet into the Luxury Tax aren't normally going to be the ones that will contend for anything.

Yea, you know why......because after spending into the tax years before on mediocre products they were all forced into rebuilding. You can't be that simple minded to only think that far back.

Those teams spent money on those players because they were very good players. Seeing that they couldn't obtain a top 5 player, they decided to invest in a group of "stars", and hope they would be good enough to get it done. That's the exact same thing the Hawks, and every other team that doesn't have a top 5 player in the league, has done.

But I guess in your mind that there is no middle area when you're trying to build a winner. People that subscribe to the "if you're not great, you might as well be sorry" attitude, probably doesn't know one Golden State Warrior or Charlotte Bobcat fan. Fan bases that would KILL just to be decent for 2 or 3 years, forget good or great. But Hawk fans act like we're in the worst possible place to be. Oh no sir . . it gets worse . . MUCH WORSE.

Funny thing is, if we "invest" in Josh Smith at season's end, we'd be doing the exact same thing as those mid 2000s Portland and Washington teams. Investing in good but not great players. But it's OK, because it's Josh Smith we're investing in, and not Joe Johnson.

The perception that you need to come to terms with is that Joe Johnson is actually worth 3 maggots and 2 dead flies. Actually, it isn't perception, it's reality. Fact, not fantasy. Yes it happened, North.

Yep . . because Brooklyn didn't jump at the chance to add him to their team. They said . . "nope . .he costs too much. We don't want a 6-time All-Star like that on our team". Brookly fans aren't shedding one tear for the players they've lost, mainly because they know this is what they can get on occasion from the new addition.

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=NABojcdl8M4

People think Ferry is a genius by trading JJ for expiring contracts. We'll see if that is the case. All I know is if the Hawks DON'T land a major free agent next summer, and the Nets and JJ go on to do big things in the coming years, that trade will be known as the worst trade in ATL franchise history . . with only the Nique for Manning trade being more blasphemous.

The tax teams like LA that jettisoned Lamar Odom for nothing? Dallas that has watched nearly it's entire championship team from not even 2 years ago don other team's uniforms? Really? Brooklyn that has been trying to do creative accounting to get Dwight because they won't even be able to trade for anybody next season? New York that let the biggest cash cow since Yao walk for nothing? Chicago that jettisoned their entire bench? Yes, do tell me about how the tax has no implications on "real contenders"

Those tax teams contstantly mold and remake their team. You're criticizing teams who actually try to make themselves better on a yearly basis? Those teams didn't make those moves because they didn't want to pay tax. Those teams made those moves to make themselves better.

Lamar was inititally traded in a deal to bring Chris Paul to LA. Then he got so hurt, that he ASKED to be traded. So the Lakers traded his crybaby butt for a trade exception. An exception that they were trying to use to still work the Chris Paul deal, before the Clippers got him

Dallas didn't let those guys go because of the Luxury Tax. They let those guys go because they wanted to make a play for one of the big name free agents. And it didn't help that they made a few decisions that were horrible ( Brendan Haywood ), which cost them Tyson Chandler.

Brooklyn has EASILY been the most active team this offseason

- traded their garbage for JJ

- re-signed Gerald Wallace

- re-signed Deron Williams ( killing the hopes of Dallas )

- did everything in their power to deal for Dwight

- then after they got tired on waiting on Dwight, they moved on with their life and filled out the rest of their team

LOL @ criticizing Brooklyn and what they're doing, when the biggest move the Hawks made this season, was trading their All-Star for the cap space to bring in a guy that doesn't even want to play in the city, and bringing in 2 guys that play the same position, which will threaten the psyche of the young PG we already have here.

Chicago refused to overpay for their bench, and they'll be proven to be right. Their "core" is intact. All they do is add the correct pieces to their bench, which they've done the past 3 years. Chicago switching around their bench is nothing new. No way are they're coveting Omer Asik like we do Zaza. They know a role playing center like that is expendible.

[thecampster]

You sure? I mean, correct me, and this, if I/they are wrong. And be mindful of the cap holds as well. People think Ferry is a genius by trading JJ for expiring contracts. We'll see if that is the case. All I know is if the Hawks DON'T land a major free agent next summer, and the Nets and JJ go on to do big things in the coming years, that trade will be known as the worst trade in ATL franchise history . . with only the Nique for Manning trade being more blasphemous.

Try to remember this is a 4 year decision. We found a buyer today. Because of that we don't have JJ in 4 years when his knees are shot, his defense will be suspect and his cost will be 25 million.