Trade Josh, Extend Drew

[MaceCase]

I disagree there as I would suspect that many teams would want to shed some salary even if they're under the cap so that they can pay a FA more and/or make more moves in free agency. The question is whether we'd want to take on those contracts that they'd want to unload and what else we might get for our troubles.

Well I see it like this. Think about us and the cap space next season, if we wanted to sign all of Josh, CP3 and Dwight but say Deshawn's salary is gettin in the way of giving them all full maxes....would that be something the LA teams are happy with getting back in a SnT? Would that be an obstacle too large for the Hawks to overcome, getting rid of a player like Deshawn (just pretend his deal is guaranteed)?

That's why I said it would have to be a team close to the cap that would have to shed some salary in order to get Josh and realistically pursue/resign other free agents. A team with cap is not realistically going to see their hopes dashed if they don't offer up a prospect like John Wall or something in order to acheive their free agent dream. Look at Miami for example, which one of Toronto or Cleveland ended up with Beasley? Exactly, you start thinking that you have a SnT in your back pocket as a last second means to get favorable assets and you've lost....or at least most probabilities are against you.

Think also if it was/is the LA teams fearing Paul and Dwight coming to the Hawks but they are saying "we're not worried, they'll have to give us Horford in order to afford all of them". What would prevent the Hawks from turning Al into something like Jeremy Lamb, PJIII, the Toronto and Dallas pick and then having the capspace to not worry about dealing with either LA team? They'd be f***ed.

Thus why I say not to leave it til free agency because at that point the only reasonable positive expectation you have is that you are going to resign the guy because all other options are slim to nil.

[Admin]

Well I see it like this. Think about us and the cap space next season, if we wanted to sign all of Josh, CP3 and Dwight but say Deshawn's salary is gettin in the way of giving them all full maxes....would that be something the LA teams are happy with getting back in a SnT? Would that be an obstacle too large for the Hawks to overcome, getting rid of a player like Deshawn (just pretend his deal is guaranteed)?

That's why I said it would have to be a team close to the cap that would have to shed some salary in order to get Josh and realistically pursue/resign other free agents. A team with cap is not realistically going to see their hopes dashed if they don't offer up a prospect like John Wall or something in order to acheive their free agent dream. Look at Miami for example, which one of Toronto or Cleveland ended up with Beasley? Exactly, you start thinking that you have a SnT in your back pocket as a last second means to get favorable assets and you've lost....or at least most probabilities are against you.

Think also if it was/is the LA teams fearing Paul and Dwight coming to the Hawks but they are saying "we're not worried, they'll have to give us Horford in order to afford all of them". What would prevent the Hawks from turning Al into something like Jeremy Lamb, PJIII, the Toronto and Dallas pick and then having the capspace to not worry about dealing with either LA team? They'd be f***ed.

Thus why I say not to leave it til free agency because at that point the only reasonable positive expectation you have is that you are going to resign the guy because all other options are slim to nil.

I think it would depend on the direction of the team giving up the better player. In the Lakers case they are never rebuilding so I don't think they'd be willing to take on an overpaid player plus picks in return for giving up the far better player. But what if Atlanta isn't looking to use it's cap space next year on a big time FA and instead decides to trade Josh and get as many assets as possible to build for the future? Something along the lines of what we did with Joe, except that Josh would obviously be traded as a FA rather than a player under a contract already.

Here's the type of trade that I'm thinking Send Josh to the Mavericks and we take on the final year of Marion and Carter plus 2013 (assuming they have their 2013) and future 1st(s). Clearly that's not a move that will win us a championship next year but we get 2 veterans who can at least contribute for us next year to keep us competitive and more importantly some more draft pick ammo for Ferry. For the Mavericks they give up 2 players they don't need for the future and picks and it gives them additional help to sign Dwight with his buddy there and it helps to preserve their cap space to sign other players to fill the roster.

I'm not advocating waiting until FA'cy to try and trade him, just saying that's an option and Dallas would absolutely be a team we could look to make a trade with.

[MaceCase]

What If Josh doesn't want Dallas though? What if Dallas doesn't want him? What if they move Marion and Carter in another deal(s) to free up space? See, just way too many variables and ending with nothing but a late 1st to show for Josh isn't a victory in the least yet alone an incentive to bother with taking on those guys. Marion/Carter don't have much of a future and certainly not with this team and unlike with the Joe pieces they aren't creating salary space, they are eating it so why would Ferry want them? If that's the best to look forward to with Josh leaving, well, you lost. Practically any deal you were to do now til the deadline beats that.

[Admin]

What If Josh doesn't want Dallas though? What if Dallas doesn't want him? What if they move Marion and Carter in another deal(s) to free up space? See, just way too many variables and ending with nothing but a late 1st to show for Josh isn't a victory in the least yet alone an incentive to bother with taking on those guys. Marion/Carter don't have much of a future and certainly not with this team and unlike with the Joe pieces they aren't creating salary space, they are eating it so why would Ferry want them? If that's the best to look forward to with Josh leaving, well, you lost. Practically any deal you were to do now til the deadline beats that.

I would suspect that if Dwight and Josh are planning on playing together that they already have the plan in place and if it's to play with Dallas then I'd be 99% sure that Cuban would be aware of it and prepared.

Sure that trade doesn't clear up long term space but you've got to spend a minimum amount of money and if we aren't signing any quality FA's then we'll need to either re-sign our current guys or acquire them in trade. And ending up with 1 or more 1st round picks is more valuable than losing Josh for nothing and could potentially be worth more than Josh long term.

Of course I'd love to be able to sign Dwight and CP3 in the offseason and re-sign Josh but that's not likely to happen. Outside of those guys, I don't see any max worthy players and I also don't see any team giving up an equal quality player for Josh in a contract year if we were to trade him before the deadline.

But I'm open to having my mind changed, so can you come up with a realistic trade or two for Josh that we can do before the trade deadline where both teams would be interested?

[Kimsey]

The Spurs way? You mean building around a first ballot HOF/arguably the greatest power forward/center ever. I'm sure anybody who was able to acquire such a rare specimen would find their way appealing.

I wonder when Duncan call it quits, what the Spurs way will be then. Picking up two late 1st/early 2nd round picks that developed into all star caliber was a nice touch. We should get Houstons pick this year or next, combined with our own let's just pick some high caliber players shall we.

[MaceCase]

I would suspect that if Dwight and Josh are planning on playing together that they already have the plan in place and if it's to play with Dallas then I'd be 99% sure that Cuban would be aware of it and prepared.

Sure that trade doesn't clear up long term space but you've got to spend a minimum amount of money and if we aren't signing any quality FA's then we'll need to either re-sign our current guys or acquire them in trade. And ending up with 1 or more 1st round picks is more valuable than losing Josh for nothing and could potentially be worth more than Josh long term.

Of course I'd love to be able to sign Dwight and CP3 in the offseason and re-sign Josh but that's not likely to happen. Outside of those guys, I don't see any max worthy players and I also don't see any team giving up an equal quality player for Josh in a contract year if we were to trade him before the deadline.

But I'm open to having my mind changed, so can you come up with a realistic trade or two for Josh that we can do before the trade deadline where both teams would be interested?

1) You can use said space and sign whoever or combinations of whoever rather than take that duo. If you need to hit the minimum the team need only offer someone an overpriced 1-2 year deal so that's not an issue. Taking on those players at those respective deals limits your options with getting quality free agents. Look to Dallas for your prime example, they missed on Deron but used the cap to bid on Brand off of amnesty waivers, sign Kaman to a 1 year deal and get Mayo. All three are better both in the short and longterm than Marion/Carter plus cost less.

2) If the Mavs have to get rid of that duo to make a deal work well......Ferry is in the driver's seat. He can finnagle a better deal out of the Mavs to make it work or say "tough shit, Josh, but hey you still have a home here". Resigning Josh beats that by far and the team would be in a better position because his market just got limited. If Josh wants to be salty and go sign in Charlotte then oh well, a late 1st pick can be bought for less than 3 million but Marion/Carter cost 13. Josh could resign after seeing nowhere much better after his first choice and the Hawks can either stick with him or pull a Nene and move him soon after.

As for "realistic" trades, or any realistic trades that us fanboys could come up with, well you have that Pau deal that won't die, Memphis definitely strikes me as a team that would move ZBO for Josh strictly as an expiring. Randolph and Gay don't mesh well and they both have an effect on their tax situation, Memphis has Marc, Darrell Arthur and Speights in their frontcourt too so they'd probably could toss Wroten and Haddadi as sweetener. That Boston rumoured package of Bradley, Melo, Bass etc. beats that FA trade. Detroit would move Villanueva along with Jerebko and picks to shed a year off, probably feel confident resigning Josh. Houston could definitely look to consolidate half of their young tweeners into Josh. Would go on but fantasy trades take me to a dark place.

[Admin]

1) You can use said space and sign whoever or combinations of whoever rather than take that duo. If you need to hit the minimum the team need only offer someone an overpriced 1-2 year deal so that's not an issue. Taking on those players at those respective deals limits your options with getting quality free agents. Look to Dallas for your prime example, they missed on Deron but used the cap to bid on Brand off of amnesty waivers, sign Kaman to a 1 year deal and get Mayo. All three are better both in the short and longterm than Marion/Carter plus cost less.

2) If the Mavs have to get rid of that duo to make a deal work well......Ferry is in the driver's seat. He can finnagle a better deal out of the Mavs to make it work or say "tough shit, Josh, but hey you still have a home here". Resigning Josh beats that by far and the team would be in a better position because his market just got limited. If Josh wants to be salty and go sign in Charlotte then oh well, a late 1st pick can be bought for less than 3 million but Marion/Carter cost 13. Josh could resign after seeing nowhere much better after his first choice and the Hawks can either stick with him or pull a Nene and move him soon after.

As for "realistic" trades, or any realistic trades that us fanboys could come up with, well you have that Pau deal that won't die, Memphis definitely strikes me as a team that would move ZBO for Josh strictly as an expiring. Randolph and Gay don't mesh well and they both have an effect on their tax situation, Memphis has Marc, Darrell Arthur and Speights in their frontcourt too so they'd probably could toss Wroten and Haddadi as sweetener. That Boston rumoured package of Bradley, Melo, Bass etc. beats that FA trade. Detroit would move Villanueva along with Jerebko and picks to shed a year off, probably feel confident resigning Josh. Houston could definitely look to consolidate half of their young tweeners into Josh. Would go on but fantasy trades take me to a dark place.

Dallas did very well to get the players that they got this year, but I wouldn't think that is normal. How many teams have the amnesty clause left to use and have a player who could actually contribute next year? Brand may not be the same player he was, but I wouldn't expect to get a player of his caliber on amnesty. They did well to get Kaman and Mayo and if there are players of that caliber available as FA next year then you've got a point, but so far the list is looking pretty sad. Depending on what's out there next year, we probably aren't going to find any decent FAs willing to sign a 1 year deal who can give what Marion and Carter will and they both expire next year as well so we're still in good shape for 2014.

I haven't heard of that Boston rumor but that's pretty good. I could definitely be talked into the Memphis deal as well and Zbo would fit in nicely alongside Al. Wroten would be a nice sweetener as well. Hell no to the Detroit package as I want no part of Charlie V and Jerebko does nothing for me. Only way I take them is if they come with Drummond or Monroe. No to Pau due to his knee problems. If Houston offered us picks along with their young players I'd be up for it but so far I don't see anyone on the team I'd be willing to move Josh for that we could realistically get back so 1st round pick(s) would be a must - unless they'd part with Parsons AND Patterson and that's pretty unlikely. Good trade ideas though!

[hawkman]

I know who you're hoping for and I hope that you're right... but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

I'm pretty sure Ferry's 'plan' has not changed regarding the 'help' he wants to bring here. The finger pointing and losing on the West coast is a good sign that said 'help' can be had next offseason.

[Admin]

I'm pretty sure Ferry's 'plan' has not changed regarding the 'help' he wants to bring here. The finger pointing and losing on the West coast is a good sign that said 'help' can be had next offseason.

Wouldn't that be nice! But I'm not ready to write the Lakers off yet or write off Dwight's desire to be the man there.

[thecampster]

Well I see it like this. Think about us and the cap space next season, if we wanted to sign all of Josh, CP3 and Dwight but say Deshawn's salary is gettin in the way of giving them all full maxes....would that be something the LA teams are happy with getting back in a SnT? Would that be an obstacle too large for the Hawks to overcome, getting rid of a player like Deshawn (just pretend his deal is guaranteed)?

That's why I said it would have to be a team close to the cap that would have to shed some salary in order to get Josh and realistically pursue/resign other free agents. A team with cap is not realistically going to see their hopes dashed if they don't offer up a prospect like John Wall or something in order to acheive their free agent dream. Look at Miami for example, which one of Toronto or Cleveland ended up with Beasley? Exactly, you start thinking that you have a SnT in your back pocket as a last second means to get favorable assets and you've lost....or at least most probabilities are against you.

Think also if it was/is the LA teams fearing Paul and Dwight coming to the Hawks but they are saying "we're not worried, they'll have to give us Horford in order to afford all of them". What would prevent the Hawks from turning Al into something like Jeremy Lamb, PJIII, the Toronto and Dallas pick and then having the capspace to not worry about dealing with either LA team? They'd be f***ed.

Thus why I say not to leave it til free agency because at that point the only reasonable positive expectation you have is that you are going to resign the guy because all other options are slim to nil.

Like I explained....the list is very small where things work because most teams are near the LT. Meaning a trade now is less flexible than in the offseason. Even then there will only be a handful of teams where signing Josh outright without a trade makes sense for them...none of which are contenders which is what Josh will want to leave here.

[MaceCase]

Like I explained....the list is very small where things work because most teams are near the LT. Meaning a trade now is less flexible than in the offseason. Even then there will only be a handful of teams where signing Josh outright without a trade makes sense for them...none of which are contenders which is what Josh will want to leave here.

Uhm no, you said the exact opposite. In the offseason there will be plenty teams that can afford Josh and even close to 6 that could throw a max at him. This is less flexible for the Hawks because if another team can already afford a player why give up tangible assets for him then? You don't buy a car at full sticker and throw the dealership an extra 20k just because. If you can't afford said car though you may look to trade in your current one to free up some dough but in this case the car is Carrie and can decide if it wants you to drive it in the first place. This is why it's called free agency. You are talking about interest in Josh during the offseason as if the Hawks have anything to do with that. A team like the Blazers could say "we'll give you Aldridge" Ferry will say "hell yea" but then Josh would say "hell no, I don't like Portland, it's rainy and cold" and that's the end of that discussion. A trade now nets you guaranteed assets as really only the teams' needs matter. Come the offseason only Josh's needs matter.

[thecampster]

Uhm no, you said the exact opposite. In the offseason there will be plenty teams that can afford Josh and even close to 6 that could throw a max at him. This is less flexible for the Hawks because if another team can already afford a player why give up tangible assets for him then? You don't buy a car at full sticker and throw the dealership an extra 20k just because. If you can't afford said car though you may look to trade in your current one to free up some dough but in this case the car is Carrie and can decide if it wants you to drive it in the first place. This is why it's called free agency. You are talking about interest in Josh during the offseason as if the Hawks have anything to do with that. A team like the Blazers could say "we'll give you Aldridge" Ferry will say "hell yea" but then Josh would say "hell no, I don't like Portland, it's rainy and cold" and that's the end of that discussion. A trade now nets you guaranteed assets as really only the teams' needs matter. Come the offseason only Josh's needs matter.

Mace....Josh will have his choice of teams. But he isn't going to just chase the money. The Hawks will have the money...Money isn't the issue. He'll want to go to a contender. Let's say NY for example. NY won't have any money to give him. He won't fit under their cap. But they can acquire him in a SNT. I know you know this but I think you are overthinking it. It is very similar to the Dwight thing this last year. Since Josh is a free agent, he can go anywhere he wishes. But the teams with money will not be the teams who will be able to win. Now this opens up a very interesting situation for the Hawks who will be far below the cap without Josh. They can take back more in assets than they give up. This greatly opens the possibilities to what they can do. But right now, there are only a few teams if any that can swing a legit deal for Josh. So if Josh wanted to go to NY....we could hold them to give up servicable players. Facilitate Josh's desires while swinging the best options for ourselves. Think of the picks Orlando nearly got for Dwight in the Brooklyn trade that didn't quite get done. Josh will command similar but slightly regressed attention in the offseason. The big boys will want him but will need our help to make it happen.

[MaceCase]

Mace....Josh will have his choice of teams. But he isn't going to just chase the money. The Hawks will have the money...Money isn't the issue. He'll want to go to a contender. Let's say NY for example. NY won't have any money to give him. He won't fit under their cap. But they can acquire him in a SNT. I know you know this but I think you are overthinking it. It is very similar to the Dwight thing this last year. Since Josh is a free agent, he can go anywhere he wishes. But the teams with money will not be the teams who will be able to win. Now this opens up a very interesting situation for the Hawks who will be far below the cap without Josh. They can take back more in assets than they give up. This greatly opens the possibilities to what they can do. But right now, there are only a few teams if any that can swing a legit deal for Josh. So if Josh wanted to go to NY....we could hold them to give up servicable players. Facilitate Josh's desires while swinging the best options for ourselves. Think of the picks Orlando nearly got for Dwight in the Brooklyn trade that didn't quite get done. Josh will command similar but slightly regressed attention in the offseason. The big boys will want him but will need our help to make it happen.

Camp........you haven't put much if any thought into this and I already mentioned this quite clearly earlier.

Starting 2013-2014 (Josh's free agency) teams over the luxary tax can no longer receive any player in a sign and trade deal.

That avenue is dead as a rule of the new CBA so come free agency that's not even an area that Josh and his agent will look to unless they are fine just signing for an over the cap MLE.....of which the Hawks aren't getting any assets.

The Hawks however can trade Josh to a team over the lux tax right now at this moment. That is an option available now that is not available in the offseason, ergo, ipso facto, etc. that is a greater amount of flexibility for a trade now than come the summer. That just rendered your original point entirely moot because as soon as July hits, Boston, LA, NY, Brooklyn, Miami, Chicago, Memphis, and Golden State are erased off the destination list for Josh.

So Josh will have to come to the conclusion that if he wants a "contender" he'll have to find a team on it's way up or is in a lower tier of pretenders looking to make the jump. Playoff teams such as Philly, Indiana, Dallas, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Utah and Houston can all offer him a max or near max deal without needing to shed much if any salary (far less of an issue if getting the most money isn't his primary motivation), so that's money and stable situations but with teams that won't have to deal with the Hawks.

Then you have Detroit, Cleveland, Phoenix, New Orleans, and Charlotte as bottom tier teams that could afford him but not have to give up much if any assets.

This leaves you with only 9 teams in the entire league that if Josh is interested in them and they are interested in Josh, they would have to deal with the Hawks to make it happen. This is down, of course, from the 29 that are potentially available right now.

I'll say it again: If the Hawks let Josh hit free agency it is because they see being able to resign him as the most likely outcome. The other most likely outcome at that point is watching him walk for nothing over getting any tangible assets in return.

[thecampster]

Camp........you haven't put much if any thought into this and I already mentioned this quite clearly earlier.

Starting 2013-2014 (Josh's free agency) teams over the luxary tax can no longer receive any player in a sign and trade deal.

That avenue is dead as a rule of the new CBA so come free agency that's not even an area that Josh and his agent will look to unless they are fine just signing for an over the cap MLE.....of which the Hawks aren't getting any assets.

The Hawks however can trade Josh to a team over the lux tax right now at this moment. That is an option available now that is not available in the offseason, ergo, ipso facto, etc. that is a greater amount of flexibility for a trade now than come the summer. That just rendered your original point entirely moot because as soon as July hits, Boston, LA, NY, Brooklyn, Miami, Chicago, Memphis, and Golden State are erased off the destination list for Josh.

So Josh will have to come to the conclusion that if he wants a "contender" he'll have to find a team on it's way up or is in a lower tier of pretenders looking to make the jump. Playoff teams such as Philly, Indiana, Dallas, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Utah and Houston can all offer him a max or near max deal without needing to shed much if any salary (far less of an issue if getting the most money isn't his primary motivation), so that's money and stable situations but with teams that won't have to deal with the Hawks.

Then you have Detroit, Cleveland, Phoenix, New Orleans, and Charlotte as bottom tier teams that could afford him but not have to give up much if any assets.

This leaves you with only 9 teams in the entire league that if Josh is interested in them and they are interested in Josh, they would have to deal with the Hawks to make it happen. This is down, of course, from the 29 that are potentially available right now.

I'll say it again: If the Hawks let Josh hit free agency it is because they see being able to resign him as the most likely outcome. The other most likely outcome at that point is watching him walk for nothing over getting any tangible assets in return.

From ESPN:

Additional limits for taxpaying teams

• 2005 CBA: No additional limits for taxpaying teams.

• 2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams have a smaller midlevel exception, can acquire less salary in trade, and cannot use the biannual exception. Starting in 2013-14, teams more than $4 million above the tax level cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction.

• Who benefits? Throughout the labor dispute, the league has tried to improve competitive balance by installing a very restrictive cap system -- first asking for a hard cap, then a "flex" cap, and then a highly punitive luxury tax, before finally settling on a luxury tax with more teeth. In addition to an incremental tax penalty, taxpaying teams now will have less access to exceptions. This will give small-market teams a competitive advantage -- for example, instead of weighing equal $5 million offers in Los Angeles and Minnesota, a free agent might be forced to choose between a $3 million offer in Los Angeles and a $5 million offer in Minnesota.

So you might want to rethink your assertion. Currently there are only a couple of teams that fit into that category. Only 6 teams paid the LT last season. I believe only 3 or 4 are more than 4 mil over the LT and of those, most have waivable options/early termination clauses, etc. Almost every team in the league is a player if they want to be (LA/Miami excluded).

[coachx]

Please name 1 sign and trade deal where the team losing the unrestricted free agent got a good return.

The only times I recall getting a good return in a S&T is when it was RFA situation where the team with Bird Rights has the power to match any offer. That leverage causes the bidding team to throw in draft picks or assets in fear their offer will be matched if they do not.

With unrestricted free agents this seems much more rare.

From ESPN:

Additional limits for taxpaying teams

• 2005 CBA: No additional limits for taxpaying teams.

• 2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams have a smaller midlevel exception, can acquire less salary in trade, and cannot use the biannual exception. Starting in 2013-14, teams more than $4 million above the tax level cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction.

• Who benefits? Throughout the labor dispute, the league has tried to improve competitive balance by installing a very restrictive cap system -- first asking for a hard cap, then a "flex" cap, and then a highly punitive luxury tax, before finally settling on a luxury tax with more teeth. In addition to an incremental tax penalty, taxpaying teams now will have less access to exceptions. This will give small-market teams a competitive advantage -- for example, instead of weighing equal $5 million offers in Los Angeles and Minnesota, a free agent might be forced to choose between a $3 million offer in Los Angeles and a $5 million offer in Minnesota.

So you might want to rethink your assertion. Currently there are only a couple of teams that fit into that category. Only 6 teams paid the LT last season. I believe only 3 or 4 are more than 4 mil over the LT and of those, most have waivable options/early termination clauses, etc. Almost every team in the league is a player if they want to be (LA/Miami excluded).

Campster, you opinion sounds great and it is possible....but please apply it to reality for us. For the off season to be the best time to get value for Josh Smith, by doing a sign and trade with an unrestricted free agent, then surely there is some past precendence of this happening in the NBA.

Please name some sign and trade deals where the team losing the unrestricted free agent got a good return.

Edited December 5, 2012 by coachx

[MaceCase]

From ESPN:

Additional limits for taxpaying teams

• 2005 CBA: No additional limits for taxpaying teams.

• 2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams have a smaller midlevel exception, can acquire less salary in trade, and cannot use the biannual exception. Starting in 2013-14, teams more than $4 million above the tax level cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction.

• Who benefits? Throughout the labor dispute, the league has tried to improve competitive balance by installing a very restrictive cap system -- first asking for a hard cap, then a "flex" cap, and then a highly punitive luxury tax, before finally settling on a luxury tax with more teeth. In addition to an incremental tax penalty, taxpaying teams now will have less access to exceptions. This will give small-market teams a competitive advantage -- for example, instead of weighing equal $5 million offers in Los Angeles and Minnesota, a free agent might be forced to choose between a $3 million offer in Los Angeles and a $5 million offer in Minnesota.

So you might want to rethink your assertion. Currently there are only a couple of teams that fit into that category. Only 6 teams paid the LT last season. I believe only 3 or 4 are more than 4 mil over the LT and of those, most have waivable options/early termination clauses, etc. Almost every team in the league is a player if they want to be (LA/Miami excluded).

Did we forget about capholds? You know they do affect the actual salary available to teams, right?

Did you forget that ETO/Player Options are at the behest of the players too?

So let's take your Knicks example. They are 7.3 million over the lux tax to only 10 players. Even if they waive their non-guaranteeds, decide not to offer QOs to their rookies and JR Smith also decides he's no longer interested in staying NY they are now sitting at 4.4 million above this years cap....before capholds for those empty roster spots. Wrong there.

The Nets are sitting at 15 million above the cap next year to 11 players. Not much CJ Watson walking away from his 1.1 will do to get them anywhere near the apron. Wrong again.

The Bulls are sitting at 6.74 million above the current lux tax to 8 players in 2013. They waive Hamilton's deal they'll be sitting at 2.74 mil above the lux tax...before those 4 minimum roster holds pushes them back to 5.14 above the tax. Wrong.

Memphis is currently looking at being 5 mil above the lux tax next season to 10 players. They could not exercise their option on Selby and waive Haddadi to shave 1.1 million off but then multiply 473k by the 4 empty roster spots and that's 1.9 million being tacked on. Again, this isn't even factoring 1st round pick holds, just minimums. I guess they'd have to hope that Bayless and Speights decide to opt out and rescind their Bird rights. Wrong

Golden State will be 4.4 million above this year's tax value next season, a mere minuscule 400k above the apron to 11 players. They can shed close to million off that by waiving Tyler and whoever the hell Bazemore is even after the capholds factor back in and I think Utah owns their first anyway but no way in hell are Richard Jefferson, Andris Biedrins, Landry and a coming off of major knee injury Rush deciding to opt out of 11 million, 9 million and 4 million x2 respectively. You just squak by from being wrong here.

The Celtics stand at 1.3 million above the tax and 2.4 mil below the apron before two min roster holds. Congratulations, you finally got one right. The Celtics are in play especially if they decide to cut ties with their longest tenured player's, Pierce, non guaranteed deal.

So besides whiffing on the numbers you are now asserting that these teams will begin dumping assets to free up more cap space under the apron and tax to chase after Josh. Question, if your whole stance is that the trade market becomes greater for Josh in the offseason, how does teams relieving themselves of assets before free agency somehow increase their ability to offer Hawks top packages during? Add that to the fact you've yet to present a historical precedent for your idea and I'll hope you'll see that you are floating rudderless on this one.

[thecampster]

Didn't forget any of that....renouncings, other signings and amenstys change the landscape much more than you are giving them credit.

Simple answer is no team can offer Josh Smith more than Atlanta next season from a complete destination point of view.