Hawks furiously attempting to create leverage where there is none

[DJlaysitup]

Roughly 24 hours before the 2013 NBA trade deadline, Hawks GM Danny Ferry desperately tries to create leverage in a Josh Smith deal having previously lost all leverage.

For the past week, all we've heard from every reporter covering the story is that Josh Smith will definitely be traded before Thursday's deadline. As a result, apparently the Atlanta Hawks are getting some terrible offers. And so, the next step in this annual dance is ... the team's GM (Danny Ferry) telling everyone he totally won't trade Smith unless the offers get better.

Take it away, CBS Sports' Ken Berger:

Hawks GM Danny Ferry has told prospective trade partners he is not interested in taking back future salary and he won't do a deal "just to do it," one person familiar with the discussions said.

[DrReality]

Desperate is not good

[GST]

I think we are about to find out the market price for Josh Smith, and we are not going to like it.

[NekiEcko]

and that how Danny needs to do that, besides if we need to blame for this is the former GM before Ferry. If u dont get any thing good then dont get it.

[Jody23]

I absolutely hate this stuff is so publicized, mainly because it works to the disadvantage of the Hawks. But those who's main concern is keeping Josh in Atlanta are probably pleased because it's looking like he stays put.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Jody23

[yungsta]

no wonder all these teams were "interested" in him. They were all low balling the shit out of ferry. If ferry was willing to trade smoove for evan turner and spencer hawes then I bet the other teams offers were awful.

[AHF]

This sounds like basic logic. "If I don't get something better than cap space and the possibility of using Josh to lure Dwight, then I am not going to trade him. Future salary on older, non-impact players isn't something I'm interested in."

I don't get the attitude of Berger that comes through in this article. If Ferry can't beat cap space and a possible Dwight lure, then we hold Smith. It is really that simple.

[DJlaysitup]

This sounds like basic logic. "If I don't get something better than cap space and the possibility of using Josh to lure Dwight, then I am not going to trade him. Future salary on older, non-impact players isn't something I'm interested in."

I don't get the attitude of Berger that comes through in this article. If Ferry can't beat cap space and a possible Dwight lure, then we hold Smith. It is really that simple.

Exactly...I do think there will be an improved offer or two at the last minute, but whether they are improved enough for DF to say yes is anybody's guess.

[Wretch]

This is why you have to be proactive. Folks went bananas when I suggested this change 2 years in advance, but this is why you do it. You don't wait for your guys to get injured, lower their value by exposing their ceiling, or waiting until their contract is set to expire. At the latest, we should have done this deal right after we dealt Joe.

Just for the record, not that it's going to do any good, when the team hits a plateau, we need to make a significant change and we need to make it right then. The time for change was three years ago when Olando blew us out in four games by a record margin. Dealing Josh with 2 years left and *potential* still hanging over his head is a whole different thing than trying to create leverage while begging for scraps.

But whatever....

[coachx]

This sounds like basic logic. "If I don't get something better than cap space and the possibility of using Josh to lure Dwight, then I am not going to trade him. Future salary on older, non-impact players isn't something I'm interested in."

I don't get the attitude of Berger that comes through in this article. If Ferry can't beat cap space and a possible Dwight lure, then we hold Smith. It is really that simple.

Here is my logic.

While we may pitch playing with Josh Smith and Al Horford as a reason for Howard to come to Atlanta.........other franchises will pitch Josh Smith as a reason for Howard not to come to Atlanta.

1.) Its no secret Howard is at his best when he is surrounded by shooters and is allowed to dominate the paint on offense. Well have a starting SF, in Josh Smith, is not the best kind of player to have playing along side Dwight Howard as either a PF or a SF b/c we all know Josh is a below average shooter.

2.) Dwight and Josh are both horrific free throw shooters. You can't have a championship team who's two highest paid players cannot be trusted to close out games due to being bad free throw shooters.

That is the logic I would use to recruit Dwight Howard away from the Hawks.

Edited February 20, 2013 by coachx

[Guest]

Financial leveraging, mortgage backed securities, expirings, mutual funds...More buzzwords, this time let's borrow some from the financial literature! This is also the annual dance of bullshit rumors.

[coachx]

This is why you have to be proactive. Folks went bananas when I suggested this change 2 years in advance, but this is why you do it. You don't wait for your guys to get injured, lower their value by exposing their ceiling, or waiting until their contract is set to expire. At the latest, we should have done this deal right after we dealt Joe.

I agree totally and was preaching it right with you.

Sund did try to trade Smith on draft night 2011 but there were no takers.

I can see Ferry's logic why he held on to Josh. He wanted to see if playing at an increase tempo, without Joe Johnson to hold the ball and take the majority of the shots, would allow Josh to improve his offense. In theory one would think it just might work........but it did not.

[coachx]

This sounds like basic logic. "If I don't get something better than cap space and the possibility of using Josh to lure Dwight, then I am not going to trade him. Future salary on older, non-impact players isn't something I'm interested in."

I don't get the attitude of Berger that comes through in this article. If Ferry can't beat cap space and a possible Dwight lure, then we hold Smith. It is really that simple.

I totally get what he is saying and believe it is ALMOST that simple.

The only exceptions I see are a young, up and coming center like D. Jordan, young prospects on cheap rookie contracts that would not hurt our cap space, or a fairly young center on a cap friendly contract like Gortat.........only 1 year left on his deal at $7.6 mill which is a major bargain and is easily tradeable if we luck out with Dwight.

I would be fine with just expiring contracts and a 1st round pick for Josh.

I just don't see Josh Smith as a cornerstone building block for a championship caliber team and I don't think Ferry does either.

I also believe Josh will hurt us, more then help us, in bringing Dwight Howard here.....for obvious reason I stated in a thread above.

If Ferry does resign Smith I would be shocked if we don't do what Denver did with NeNe and trade Josh by next years trade deadline... just as Denver sent NeNe to Washington 4 months after they resigned him.

Edited February 20, 2013 by coachx

[Wretch]

I agree totally and was preaching it right with you.

Sund did try to trade Smith on draft night 2011 but there were no takers.

I can see Ferry's logic why he held on to Josh. He wanted to see if playing at an increase tempo, without Joe Johnson to hold the ball and take the majority of the shots, would allow Josh to improve his offense. In theory one would think it just might work........but it did not.

Yeah...there's been some talk of trading Smoove for a couple of years, but you have to wonder how serious those discussions were. Judging by how we refused to go in to the LT, how we hired the cheapest coach possible, and flat out refused to change any part of the core...I would say we weren't pushing very hard.

On the subject at hand though, I don't hate the NJ deal. I actually like Marshon Brooks. Humphries is an expensive pile of nacho cheese, but it's only a season and a half. I know were adamant about not taking back salary, but if we could facilitate that thing with a 3rd team, I think that's the deal to take.

If we're really not going to bring Smoove back, then we need to pick up something for him. No need to throw him away and we're not going to get a ton of value for him. Hell, look at what Orlando got for a marquee player. It's tough when you put yourself in a situation like this.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Refusing to take on salary is a DUMB strategy by Ferry. I mean, what do you think he's going to do in free agency? Take on salary. Of course you don't take on a bad contract. But we could take on salary, then trade that contract in the summer in a package deal for a better player.

No matter what people think about Ferry, this is STILL ATLANTA. A place where big time free agents aren't necessarily breaking down the door to come to play here. Even the beloved Kyle Korver wasn't necessarily overjoyed when he heard that he'd gotten traded to the Hawks. And this was after he KNEW that Chicago didn't want him anymore.

So until we can prove that Atlanta is a destination in which players WANT to play for, we have to assume that we're going to have to overpay for somebody to come here.

Ferry could do a mix of things or all 3 of these things . . 1) get a 1st round pick . . 2) get a young player . . 3) take on a contract that has no more than 2 years on it.

The other thing may be this:

If Ferry isn't wanting to take on any salary, that to me is an indication that he wants to bring some of the current players on the team back in 2013 - 14. This means that some of these guys do not get renounced and the Hawks don't get that almost 40 million under the cap figure that people in the media keep throwing around.

Remember, these are our cap holds:

Smith: 16.4 mill

Harris: 12.75 mill

Korver: 9.5 mill

Zaza: 7.87 mill

Morrow: 7,6 mill

Petro: 6.67 mill

Teague: 6.08 mill

1st round pick ( 2013 ): 1.37 mil . . if we stay at #16

Ivan: 1.25 mill

If we renounce everybody but the people highlighted in red, our cap holds + guaranteed contracts will be somewhere around 34 million, which means about 26 million in cap space. That's still enough to be a major player in free agency. And we'd need to fill at least 7 more roster spots.

With the new CBA, I think the minimum salary we can have as a team is a little above 50 million

Edited February 20, 2013 by northcyde

[DrReality]

We do have the shooters that reminds me of the magic when they were so tough w DH. Is that a coincidence?