Cap space article.

[Guest]

Interesting article regarding teams that have currently have cap space for 2013 holding out for 2014.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/why-cap-space-in-2014-is-important

[Guest]

That's what I'm saying...if u can't get Dwight or Paul...do one year deals again and try free agency next year.

[Buzzard]

That's what I'm saying...if u can't get Dwight or Paul...do one year deals again and try free agency next year.

I don't see Danny waiting that long to use all our cap. He may sign one prize this year and try one more the next but this year we are the cap darling. Come 2014 more teams should have cap. The price will go up for equal or lesser players than what is out there right now.

[Guest]

^{Ferry was quick to point out that a big score in free agency is only part of building a championship caliber team.}

^{"Going forward there are several roadmaps we can take and there's three ways to get players," Ferry said. "Strong drafts, free agency and trades. I think in all of those areas we're in a good position going forward to put ourselves in a situation where we can be good for a long time as well as win the NBA championship. That's certainly my focus."}

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/2012/9/27/3415160/hawks-training-camp-2012-danny-ferry

Edited May 13, 2013 by JayBirdHawk

[Admin]

Yep don't forget we could take a good player from another team looking to clear cap space and we wouldn't have to give up anything but cap space.

[coachx]

That's what I'm saying...if u can't get Dwight or Paul...do one year deals again and try free agency next year.

That is what I was saying too until reality slapped me in the face.

The best unrestricted free agent next year is Luol Deng. Now don't get me wrong. I like Deng but he is not a franchise saver. Sure you have Kobe Bryant and Dirk Norwitzki but they will be 36 years of age with tons of mileage from the playoffs and their national teams added to their career regualr season minutes.

The next great unrestricted free agent, who will still be in their prime, is Durant in 2017.

Edited May 13, 2013 by coachx

[coachx]

Yep don't forget we could take a good player from another team looking to clear cap space and we wouldn't have to give up anything but cap space.

We would need another James Harden situation to arise.

[Admin]

We would need another James Harden situation to arise.

To get a superstar type of talent yes, but there are players who aren't at Hardens level who we could look to acquire.

[Peoriabird]

Interesting article regarding teams that have currently have cap space for 2013 holding out for 2014.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/why-cap-space-in-2014-is-important

I looked at that 2014 free agent class and didn't see many opportunities for teams signing free agents from their original teams...Most are either restricted or on large market teams already. Who on this list worth anything could be convinced to come to play for Atlanta? And please, I don't want to hear about Rudy freaking Gay.

[thecampster]

Yep don't forget we could take a good player from another team looking to clear cap space and we wouldn't have to give up anything but cap space.

That's really what I'm seeing this offseason. When I put my list up a few days ago, a look at the bottom of the list shows a lot of teams in LT Hell.

(found here)

You can really pick some good talent from those teams desperate to get out of the Luxury tax. I can imagine us trading both of our firsts in 2 separate trades to acquire talent. Here are the teams at 72 million in committed salary or greater.

Denver - $72.6000

Boston $73.0650

Chicago $73.2030

Golden State $74.8850

Orlando $75.3540

New York $76.4050

LA Lakers $78.1870

Miami $85.6010

Brooklyn $89.5490

This is why I originally said it would make sense to execute a sign and trade Howard while sending Horford to the Lakers. The net difference to the Hawks is 6 million a year in salary while providing 6 million a season in LT relief to the Lakers. This would allow the Hawks to go the full five years for Dwight and allow the Lakers to save face in the situation.

On that subject, I did some research and yes the Lakers could sign and trade away Dwight but they couldn't trade their assets for a sign and trade. However the point is moot. The new CBA only allows for 4 year deals on sign and trades at 4.5% raises. It is the same as if the Hawks signed those players outright. So we won't be seeing much in the way of sign n trades anymore.

To clarify.

Old team resigns player - 5 years maximum of 7.5% raises

Old team signs player and trades him away - 4 years and 4.5% raises

New team signs player - 4 years and 4.5% raises.

So the only reason a team would do a sign n trade is if they need to drop assets to maintain roster flexibility. For example Atlanta could allow someone else to sign Pachulia in a sign and trade but take back their extra point guard to clear a roster spot/cap room for the team signing Pachulia. This would be rare.

Edited May 14, 2013 by thecampster

[Peoriabird]

Why on God Green earth are people on this board trying to get rid of Horford????????????

[thecampster]

Its a choice thing and for the record I don't want to get rid of Horford. But being realistic, Howard > Horford at the 5. Assuming Josh + Howard = defensive juggarnaut and a lesser 4 nets you a better SG/PG pairing...then yes you would move Horford. You make hard moves like that because team flexibility with the cap/LT is finite. Hard choices will be made. Not bringing back Smith is one possibility. Moving Teague is another. Pretending for a moment you could land Howard but it meant Mike Scott at the 4, Smith at the 3 but meant you could get absolute studs at the 1-2 (like Rondo and Reddick).

If moving Horford returned you a starting lineup of

Rondo (12 mil 2013)

Reddick (8 mil)

Smith (14 mil)

Scott (1 mil)

Howard (18 mil)

That's 53 million committed. You'd still have Lou, Jenkins, 2 draft picks eating up to about 62 million. 3 roster spots and 8 million to go. You aren't stuck with Scott starting in that lineup if you aren't impressed with him and can get a serviceable vet. But a starting lineup with Rondo, Smith, Howard is a defensive nightmare for almost every team in the league.

You would have to consider that. That team would be so incredible defensively and you'd still have money for a bench.

[Peoriabird]

Its a choice thing and for the record I don't want to get rid of Horford. But being realistic, Howard > Horford at the 5. Assuming Josh + Howard = defensive juggarnaut and a lesser 4 nets you a better SG/PG pairing...then yes you would move Horford. You make hard moves like that because team flexibility with the cap/LT is finite. Hard choices will be made. Not bringing back Smith is one possibility. Moving Teague is another.

A possibility? Who in their right mind would keep Josh Smith over Horford and would pay him more money?

[DrReality]

Think Josh would be attractive to teams that need a flashy player He probably wouldn't want to go there but in such a situation they would see him through less critical eyes than we have for nine years

[macdaddy]

The other thing we have to remember is that the owners are bleeding money. Serious folding money. So they need to start making money soon.

[Buzzard]

Its a choice thing and for the record I don't want to get rid of Horford. But being realistic, Howard > Horford at the 5. Assuming Josh + Howard = defensive juggarnaut and a lesser 4 nets you a better SG/PG pairing...then yes you would move Horford. You make hard moves like that because team flexibility with the cap/LT is finite. Hard choices will be made. Not bringing back Smith is one possibility. Moving Teague is another. Pretending for a moment you could land Howard but it meant Mike Scott at the 4, Smith at the 3 but meant you could get absolute studs at the 1-2 (like Rondo and Reddick).

If moving Horford returned you a starting lineup of

Rondo (12 mil 2013)

Reddick (8 mil)

Smith (14 mil)

Scott (1 mil)

Howard (18 mil)

That's 53 million committed. You'd still have Lou, Jenkins, 2 draft picks eating up to about 62 million. 3 roster spots and 8 million to go. You aren't stuck with Scott starting in that lineup if you aren't impressed with him and can get a serviceable vet. But a starting lineup with Rondo, Smith, Howard is a defensive nightmare for almost every team in the league.

You would have to consider that. That team would be so incredible defensively and you'd still have money for a bench.

We would also be the worse free throw shooting team in the history of the playoffs. Howard and Josh are good buddies and I understand this is your wet dream, but Ferry is all about being efficient. Don't count on it, unless of course Ferry's long range plan is to sign Smith and then move him for more pieces to put around Howard ;)

[GameTime]

We would also be the worse free throw shooting team in the history of the playoffs. Howard and Josh are good buddies and I understand this is your wet dream, but Ferry is all about being efficient. Don't count on it, unless of course Ferry's long range plan is to sign Smith and then move him for more pieces to put around Howard

The "hack a-?" usually never works. The player develops a rhythm more when he is hacked. No way Josh Smith should be starting at the 3 though with that lineup. the 2-3 position have to be good shooters in that lineup for it to have the proper spacing needed for Rondo to work.

[Buzzard]

The "hack a-?" usually never works. The player develops a rhythm more when he is hacked. No way Josh Smith should be starting at the 3 though with that lineup. the 2-3 position have to be good shooters in that lineup for it to have the proper spacing needed for Rondo to work.

Pop is using the hack a Bogut and it worked in both their wins. Bogut when he is in the game is killing Duncan and the Spurs; Pop is doing everything he can to get him out of the game for good reason.

And you only need to hack Josh when he shoots in the paint. One out of four shots maybe.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Buzzard

[JETSET]

Its a choice thing and for the record I don't want to get rid of Horford. But being realistic, Howard > Horford at the 5. Assuming Josh + Howard = defensive juggarnaut and a lesser 4 nets you a better SG/PG pairing...then yes you would move Horford. You make hard moves like that because team flexibility with the cap/LT is finite. Hard choices will be made. Not bringing back Smith is one possibility. Moving Teague is another. Pretending for a moment you could land Howard but it meant Mike Scott at the 4, Smith at the 3 but meant you could get absolute studs at the 1-2 (like Rondo and Reddick).

If moving Horford returned you a starting lineup of

Rondo (12 mil 2013)

Reddick (8 mil)

Smith (14 mil)

Scott (1 mil)

Howard (18 mil)

That's 53 million committed. You'd still have Lou, Jenkins, 2 draft picks eating up to about 62 million. 3 roster spots and 8 million to go. You aren't stuck with Scott starting in that lineup if you aren't impressed with him and can get a serviceable vet. But a starting lineup with Rondo, Smith, Howard is a defensive nightmare for almost every team in the league.

You would have to consider that. That team would be so incredible defensively and you'd still have money for a bench.

It's true that Howard is a better C than Horford, but it is also true that Horford is a better PF and overall player than Josh. It's also true that Horford will cost less than Josh.

[Buzzard]

It's true that Howard is a better C than Horford, but it is also true that Horford is a better PF and overall player than Josh. It's also true that Horford will cost less than Josh.

People here think Josh is the key to getting Howard, and it has some merit maybe. But I think if that was the real case, Howard would have added us to his list of teams to be traded to two seasons ago, during the D12 soap opera in Orlando.

Instead he totally ignored his hometown and his hometown buddies team. Teaming up with CP3 and Horford is probably more enticing if winning is his agenda.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Buzzard