Elton Brand to ATL.

[AHF]

Not sure if McGrady was a RFA when he left the Raptors or if he hit six All Star teams but he is the only name that comes to mind.

He was a RFA. Toronto wasn't willing to max him.

[Sothron]

He was a RFA. Toronto wasn't willing to max him.

I knew Toronto wouldn't give him a max deal but couldn't remember if he was RFA or UFA. I guess he is the only guy besides JJ to get six All Stars or close to it for other teams though.

[Plainview1981]

EVERY year for the past 3 years the overwhelming sentiment here at Hawksquawk has been something like the East has gotten stronger and the Hawks are probably going to struggle to get the 7th or 8th spot and every year we are better than that. Last year we probably beat the Pacers if Zaza and Lou were healthy and who knows what would have happened after that. I think we've gotten better this offseason simply by subtracting players who were negatives in key areas, especially Josh Smith. Assuming that we've actually upgraded our coaching, I think we're going to be in the mix for the #2 seed once we are done adding another quality player or two.

I think I said 42-43 wins or so. That didn't turn out to be the 7th spot though. But you're splitting hairs.

It's tough to say that the Hawks would have beaten Indy if they had been healthy. Truth is that the Hawks won the two home games largely because Indy wasn't prepared for the strong home crowds. You could tell by their body language and how they played. It was similar to how the home crowds worked in the Hawks favor in the Boston series in 2008.

This team is not better than a healthy Chicago team. Not better than the Nets either even thought the Nets might prove to be somewhat overrated. The 5 teams that finished ahead of the Hawks last year should all finish ahead of them once again this coming year.

[MaceCase]

Let's not obfuscate the issue here with conditional probabilities that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Currently: "The Grizz don't have a superstar and look at their level of success."-->"Hey the Grizz had a lot of luck involved in getting to said position in the playoffs. We should ignore them in this scenario because luck was involved""OK!" Argument dismissed because of luck. Parallel Paraphrased Universe: "Tanking and building through the draft in order to get a high pick is the best way to go"-> "But isn't there luck involved?""Shutup." Argument not dismissed when luck is brought up. See what is happening? To put probabilities into perspective, how many teams in the 1st round of the NBA playoffs had significant injuries on their team? I count OKC, LAL, Clippers, Denver, Chicago, Boston, and Golden State. That is 7 of 16. A greater percentage than the team with the worst record in the NBA has in winning the 1st pick in the NBA Draft. The second round had OKC, Chicago, Golden State. Last I checked, 3 of 8 teams is still a better chance than the worst team in getting the 1st pick. These two arguments are not substantially different in terms of luck. Yet you want me to believe they are. And then dismiss one in favor of the other.

No you can't avoid the conditions. You can't boil real life down to a simple probability otherwise the formula for success would have long been figured out. If you are saying there is a higher probability for injury then that includes your team too. It's not enough to say injury will occur but you must also avoid said injury too to take advantage of an opponent's misfortune.The Hawks alone took on a Boston team missing Allen and Rondo for stretches 2 seasons ago but alas, we were without Zaza and Al. This past season they took on a Pacer team without Granger but alas, they were dealing with Louis and Zaza again being out.Stop trying to strip the conversation down or put an argument in my mouth. You find a good player in the draft, guess what, he's bound to be good for a decade even if he spends at most 4 of those years with you. A fully healthy Grizzlies team proved only once that they can mow through two injured opponents on way to a WCF sweep. That simply is not a large enough sample for me to say "well f*** the lottery". Maybe it is for you but me? Nope, I like to see a tad more consistency before I establish a trend in which to duplicate.

[Plainview1981]

So you obviously think German Chocolate is chopped liver. In reality he could be an allstar for all we know. He is just 19 years old.

What about Nogueria ? He has all the tools to be amongst the shot block leaders and make and All Defensive Team.

John Jenkins looks like a good player to. Lets see what he does in year #2 before we forget about him.

If this team "gets the basketball right" / "starts playing the right way" then star veterans will take notice. Who do great players love to play with ? Smart coaches and smart PGs who are gifted passes that know when and where to feed them the rock. German Chocolate looks like he could be that guy.

What scares star veterans away from you ? A team that plays sloppy ball. A team that lacks basic baskebtall IQ. A team who's incumbent "star" is Josh Smith and jacks up ill advised shots over and over throughout their career.

Considering a lot of people were not a fan of this draft the Hawks could have probably got Dennis one way or another. But I can accept that there was no superstar in this years draft. What about this coming year? You can say "So and so will notice this" but Utah has played this game for years and all of that.

The bottom line is this team has made the playoffs 6 years in a row, but that still isn't drawing stars. We have reports that MAYBE Paul and Howard might have came here, but no real proof of any of it.

From what we know... Some players wanted to play with JJ... And Al is not considered a dumb player. So basically you're saying nobody wanted to sign here because Josh Smith was on the roster. Sorry, I don't believe it.

It's a nice to say that stars will come to a team that plays hard and all of that. Sounds nice... But star players want to play with other star players right now. That is where the league is at right now.

The team should be interested in trying to get a piece to build around, and then you work from there. That's how the league currently is. Does Lebron go to Miami without Wade? Probably not. Does Howard go to Houston if Harden is not there? Probably not. it appears he wasn't interested last year in going there.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Hotlanta1981

[AHF]

Again, reread what I said. And then look up the definition of RFA. You basically put so many conditionals on your statement that it must be true. At the same time, you have shifted around what the original issue is. 7+ years is a gross misrepresentation of what a team can control. By the letter of the CBA, it is 5 years that are controllable in current times. That puts my previous 4 year statement as wrong, I would like to blame it on a typo but I am pretty sure I it was just a brain fart on my part.Even outside of this stupid side conversation, we still have one argument shot down due to luck. Another downplays/ignores luck. Why does luck work in one and not in the other? At least be consistent is all I am saying, the probabilities are not substantially different.

You and I agree on what the CBA says but I am focusing on the real life consequences that flow from that language rather than the theoretical statements. What I said is 100% true - the players that teams have wanted to keep have averaged 7+ years with the teams that drafted them (or if you prefer, the team that acquired their draft rights prior to their first game).

I can't think of any players off the top of my head who turned down multi-year, large dollar extensions after their rookie contract so they could take the QO and run. The discussion has related to stars acquired through the draft (or trading of draft rights) and so the practical impact is that a team is likely to control the rights for any stud young player for 7+ years unless they choose to let him go like Toronto did with McGrady.

Here are examples of the top players from 2004-2007 and what the practical impact was of the RFA for the studs of the draft. I don't see any that left their team after 5 years:

2007 - Top 3 picks plus young studs

Greg Oden - Bust. Dropped by POR. Medical.

Kevin Durant - 9 years by OKC (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Al Horford - 9 years by ATL (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Mike Conley - 9 years by MEM (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Joakim Noah - 9 years by CHI (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

(I'm not including non-stud young players like Rodney Stucky - 7 years; Thaddeus Young - 9 years; Tiaggo Splitter - 8 years; etc.)

Avg: 9 years

2006 - Top 3 picks plus young studs

Andrei Bargnani - 9 years by TOR (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

LeMarcus Aldridge - 9 years by POR (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Adam Morrison - Bust. Junk that CHA didn't want.

Brandon Roy - 9 years by POR (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Rudy Gay - 9 years by MEM (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Rajon Rondo - 9 years by BOS (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Avg: 9 years

2005 - Top 3 picks plus young studs

Andrew Bogut - Under contract by MIL for 9 years (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Marvin Williams - Under contract by ATL for 9 years (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Chris Paul - Under contract by NO for 7 years (4 year rookie deal; 3 year extension)

Deron Williams - Under contract by Utah for 7 years (4 year rookie deal; 3 year extension)

Andrew Bynum - Under contract by LA for 8 years (4 year rookie deal; 4 year extension)

Danny Granger - Under contract by IND for 9 years (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Avg: 8.167 years

2004 - Top 3 Picks plus young studs

Dwight Howard - Under contract by ORL for 9 years (4 year rookie deal; 4 year extension)

Emeka Okafor - Under contract by CHA for 10 years (4 under rookie deal; 6 under extension)

Ben Gordon - Let walk by Chicago. Not interested in extending him for $$$.

Luol Deng - 10 years and counting in CHI (4 year rookie deal; 6 year extension)

Andre Iguodala - 10 years by PHI (4 year rookie deal; 6 year extension)

Al Jefferson - 9 years by BOS/MIN (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Josh Smith - 9 years by ATL (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Kevin Martin - 9 years by SAC (4 year rookie deal; 5 year extension)

Avg: 9.5 years

So in the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, I am going to continue to state that for the top talent in the draft the reasonable expectation is that you will have them for 7+ years if you are willing to pay for them.

[AHF]

AHF at this point I have no idea what you are talking about. At the beginning, your argument dealt with being able to be *in the lottery* and retain a player for 7+ years. Now, I look at your new cherry picked post and you are referring to players outside of the lottery.

Which is it?

And why the hell does this matter?

The point is being able to control a player. You get them for 5 years guaranteed. Of which, how many are they actually a "superstar" and contribute to a big time winning team? This also ignores any tactics a player may have that forces a trade. I'm not going down that road or the road of this discussion because it does not matter. This is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down. Nor do I think you would want to.

This also keeps sidestepping that randomness is present in both arguments that I referenced earlier today. Again, only one of them is being recognized as a way to dismiss an argument. Be consistent. And the probabilities are not that different, so degree of randomness is not a rebuttal that is taken seriously by me.

There isn't a single stud player that has taken the QO and walked where the team was willing to pay. The lottery issue we have discussed in other areas deals with the likelihood of landing a superstar and whether the lottery is a key tool or not. Control is a different question. Once you are talking about control of your first round draft pick, the issue doesn't matter if someone is a lottery pick or not so the bigger pool gives a better perspective. What is important for consistency of discussion for control is that the player is highly regarded around the league and the team is willing to pay for that player. Under the CBA, you get the player for 5 years guaranteed and the point is that the practical reality extends beyond 5 years because there is a high degree of certainty that you get them for 7+ years of control. Since the expected duration for any high demand player is 7+ years and not 5 years, you can get a more meaningful idea of the impact of acquiring and retaining that player.

Where the big uncertainty opens up is after that first long extention runs its course. That is when players have forced trades or simply walked with the flexibility of UFA on their side. Some teams have held those players through their 7+ years (like Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc.) and others have dealt them while they still had control in order to get assets before the player is gone (Deron, Carmelo, Paul, etc.). In either case, the team enjoyed 7+ years of control over the stud young player.

Edited July 17, 2013 by AHF

[MaceCase]

Want me to look at the conditionals? That would be (7/16)*(3/8) = 16%. We can go back to previous years and it is going to be pretty consistent with that. Your original statement only had to do with facing 2 teams with injuries and there it is. Stop adding on ad hoc assumptions to this issue (oh but you might have injuries!) because the issue is "what is the probability that a team faces X then Y". Accounting for your injuries is not a part of the original statement.

I am not breaking down this into a mathematical formula to solve the equation and that is NOT what using probabilities and statistics does. For someone who has a reasonable knowledge of advanced stats, it is surprising for you to not recognize this. I am also not even focusing on modeling a team, I am just illustrating random error. White noise. Stochasticity. Luck.

***And should I include the Pacers as a team that has injuries? Sounds like I should. Which boosts the probabilities even more in favor of my original point. Be consistent and stop choosing when luck applies to an argument.

See, again you are trying to simplify my statements to justify your argument. Yes, my original response was in direct relation to modelling a team as the Hawks were being compared to two teams with a completely unrelated set of circumstance. Yes, my original response included the 2012-2013 Memphis Grizzlies specifically, a fully healthy 5th seed that happened to win not one but two series against opponents with HCA that just so happened to have their 2nd best players either entirely missing of hobbled. Considering that they were specifically used as a team that gave the Hawks "hope" then the exact conditions of their unprecedented run are therefore part of my argument and not simply "team x facing team y and then z". See, I'm not working in a vacuum here, I'm utilizing the exact examples that I was given rather than just working up a set of probabilities. I made no mention of drafting or the lotto either in my original response yet you managed to come up with that on your own so why is it that now I'm the one being accused of adding assumptions?

Edited July 17, 2013 by MaceCase

[AHF]

I'm giving this part of the argument up at this point even though I could point out that the first couple of years with those "superstars" they were pretty average. Sure, OK it is a 7 year process. Even though looking at your numbers, they are clearly wrong. Okafor and Paul really jump out to me. Okafor was with his original team for 5 years and you listed 10. But whatever.

The numbers are right. Okafor was signed for 10 years. He completed his original contract for 4 years and then signed a 6 year extension. Then his team chose to deal him - which means that they could have held him for 10 years but decided on their own to ditch him. That is a team's choice to dump him or deal him -- not a problem that the team couldn't have controlled him for those 10 years.

You have some other examples along the same lines but where we are talking about a team's control then I view part of that control being the right to flip the player or not while they are under contract. If the player is a FA and leaving, you can't do that. If he is under contract, you can keep him or flip him for KG, etc. or whatever you choose to do and the period of time you have for making that choice is the period of control -- which for Okafor was 10 years.

[AHF]

Still. The randomness is present when you refer to "hey this team got to X because of luck". It is also present when you say "let us tank to get a random draft pick". They are roughly equal in magnitudes. If you want to dismiss arguments against tanking that are based on the probabilities involved, then you should not be running around to other arguments and saying "NOPE! that was just lucky so it doesn't count" especially when the randomness involved is comparable. Now if the dismissal of luck was on a statement of finding an all-star caliber player in the 2nd round, that would not be comparable. But committing to dismissing randomness as a reason not to tank, you need to be consistent and not dismiss similar arguments of events that occur at similar or greater likelihood.

I don't think anything should be dismissed. My point on luck in those two situations is one is a known variable that can be planned and accounted for in developing a strategy and the other is something you can't really control or do much to prepare for. Hence, I view one as a factor that should be accounted for in evaluating whether a team is using a viable strategy (lottery odds) and the other as being much less useful for evaluating team building strategy except as noted below (whether a key player in a particular playoff series is suffering from injury).

Where I think you reach the random injury issue for team building strategy is when you talk about team depth and the vulnerability that a roster might have if it has a player with a high injury risk or a lack of a fall-back option should a key player get injured. For example, if you are debating whether you'd rather have Yao Ming or Omer Asik and Samuel Dalembert it makes sense to talk about the pro's and con's of potential injuries. If you are talking about a team's chances for a championship, however, I find it less useful to say "well, if our team is perfectly healthy with our key players and we line up Chicago in the first round and Rose if out; and we get Boston when Rondo is out; and then we get Miami when Lebron is out; and we get San Antonio when Parker is hurting in the finals, can we move from non-viable contender to true contender status?" It makes sense to take injury risk into the equation where it is predictable (Curry hurting himself is not a surprise for GS and Bynum getting hurt is the rule rather than the exception) but for players like Russell Westbrook I don't find much utility for team building purposes in evaluating our team building approach based on the hope that Westbrook might be hurt.

To me, the playoff injury issue is more read and react. If you are a viable contender and lose Carlos Boozer leading up to the trade deadline, you might look to obtain a replacement. If you are a good team and lose David Robinson for the year when Tim Duncan, Chauncey Billups, Keith Van Horn, etc. are going to be in the draft, then maybe you reverse course and decide to tank for the year instead of scrapping for the playoffs without your star all season. If Westbrook hurts himself before the playoffs, you revise your gameplan to account for Derek Fisher in the rotation instead or revise it to try to cover for his lose. Etc.

With the lottery, you take into account a known random variable and examine ways that you might influence your odds and then weigh the pros and cons of tanking, trading for more picks/ping pong balls, trying to finish near the playoff teams, etc. and you have a known random event that is predictable in terms of the timing (draft), risks and cost/benefit profile for a given draft.

They are both relevant and should be considered, but the significance of the randomness for each team is different depending on the context (once you are in the playoffs the randomness of the lottery is meaningless and the importance of random injuries is huge), etc. Injury is just a different animal from playoff injuries as far as where the significance in the context of off-season team building strategy and in-season playoff strategy even through both are random.

Edited July 17, 2013 by AHF

[terrell]

Dalembert signed with Dallas. Glad we snagged Brand when we did. Not much left.

[mattlanta]

I'm so late on my initial thoughts on this signing, but I like it. Elton Brand is an above average veteran big man who can come in here and provide solid minutes off the bench and perhaps mentor some of our younger bigs. I would like it even better if we signed one more big -- and I mean a big big like someone who can provide more legitimate minutes at the 5 to allow Horford to slide to his more natural position. I read that Ferry views Brand as more of a 5 "at this point of his career" but I just don't see it seeing that he's only 6'9". This is also a bitter sweet signing because this probably marks the last we see of Ivan Johnson in Atlanta. But realistically, I would rather have Brand than Johnson... Although we WILL miss Ivan's mean streak.

[AHF]

So now we have one person who agrees on the magnitudes of randomness in injuries and picks in the lottery. This is a start.

I still don't think yall see what I have been trying to get through. When I say a reason not to tank is to look at probabilities, the response I saw was to either downplay it or dismiss it. OK fine, you have given me a baseline of how much luck/randomness you are willing to accept. Apparently it is a lot compared to me. And correct me if I am wrong, yall do downplay my arguments of that, right?

Now, we have a scenario where a poster claims that we should look at the Grizzlies as hope for reaching the Conference Finals. That was dismissed because:

For me, I would be willing to accept this as a response. I already used probabilities involved in tanking as a reason to not tank. We have just agreed that the probability of the injuries involved in the Grizzlies getting to the Conference Finals was pretty similar to tanking (as if that was the only way the Grizz would even get there). That seems to jive. But, I just thought someone was willing to accept a certain amount of luck to take on tanking. And similar randomness is involved in what the Grizzlies undertook. So shouldn't the Grizz reaching the Conference Finals due to luck still be acceptable as a degree of success?

So it seems we have gotten to a perspective where you are telling me the tanking situation is different because you can make contingency plans based on the event. OK. [insert treadmill]. Done with that tangent.

see where you think they are different now, I still think it is ridiculous for option A to have a 25% chance of occurring and accepted. Then option B is presented with a 25% chance of occurring and is declined. I just think someone willing to quickly dismiss the Grizz should be honest enough to say, welp yeah tanking does have a similar amount of luck involved. Maybe arguments against it based on probabilities should not be dismissed.

[insert new tanking argument] and then I fade away into the internet as I don't want to get in a new tanking argument.

Bear in mind that if you tank this year and have the lowest record that your odds aren't 25% of getting a great pick - they are 100% that you will land a 1-4 draft in a draft where at least the industry experts think there are more than 4 franchise building blocks (compared to zero in the 2013 draft). (Which doesn't guarantee you anything but gives you great opportunity that you can still screw up like Detroit in the Lebron, Darko, Melo, Bosh, Wade draft).

Just like it makes more sense to shoot for an NBA title when your competition is down, it makes more sense to tank when the rewards are higher. When you combine that with a 2014 FA class that is pretty much devoid of elite talent (at least as we see it today), I think that adds up to a point in time right now where the incentives to tank are higher and the disincentives are lower than we see in many other years (2013 is a great contrast).

I agree we can drop the tanking argument since I don't think anyone is moving on this one at the end of the day and I am pretty sure Danny Ferry couldn't care less what we have to say!

Edited July 18, 2013 by AHF

[hazer]

I'm so late on my initial thoughts on this signing, but I like it. Elton Brand is an above average veteran big man who can come in here and provide solid minutes off the bench and perhaps mentor some of our younger bigs. I would like it even better if we signed one more big -- and I mean a big big like someone who can provide more legitimate minutes at the 5 to allow Horford to slide to his more natural position. I read that Ferry views Brand as more of a 5 "at this point of his career" but I just don't see it seeing that he's only 6'9". This is also a bitter sweet signing because this probably marks the last we see of Ivan Johnson in Atlanta. But realistically, I would rather have Brand than Johnson... Although we WILL miss Ivan's mean streak.

Just read an ESPN piece someone else posted on HS raving about Bebe's length, wingspan, long arms. Elton Brand has the same freakish wingspan (7'6") as Bebe. 6'9" doesn't matter...