Zach Lowe was not a fan of the Hawks summer moves

[Guest]

@MaceCase You're right on Horford for the most part but I think you missed the reason why he went to Beantown. Tom Brady was at the meeting and offered Gisele to Horford for one night if he signed and later rescinded. 

[MaceCase]

11 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

@MaceCase You're right on Horford for the most part but I think you missed the reason why he went to Beantown. Tom Brady was at the meeting and offered Gisele to Horford for one night if he signed and later rescinded. 

I don't know, Spud...

 

 

Unless he wanted to knock "Victoria's Secret supermodel" off the bucket list to go along with "Miss Universe" I think he's alright at home.  Then again, after Gisele it's slim pickins in Boston especially with that ahkcent.  Maybe Eliza Dushku was at the meeting too but I don't know if anyone would want Rick Fox's leftovers.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I don't know, Spud...

 

 

Unless he wanted to knock "Victoria's Secret supermodel" off the bucket list to go along with "Miss Universe" I think he's alright at home.  Then again, after Gisele it's slim pickins in Boston especially with that ahkcent.  Maybe Eliza Dushku was at the meeting too but I don't know if anyone would want Rick Fox's leftovers.

Nice! I personally like option one as well. Rick Fox...oh gawd lol

[Bankingitbig]

1 hour ago, MaceCase said:

You can't claim they "botched" negotiations  or "lowballed" Horford by refusing to go well above and beyond what any other team could offer him.  You also can't have the opinion that it wasn't about money but then chastise the front office for your belief that they "lowballed" him... that doesn't add up.  All I know and all the available evidence demonstrates is that they offered him his market value and the opportunity to be beside the type of player he'd spent many moons clamoring for and he balked, he wanted more or maybe perhaps something else entirely that we've all yet to glean.  You would think that that offer and that opportunity would have been enticing enough to secure a signature but no, it wasn't for some reason.  Perhaps it was an ego thing but when the Hawks compromised and came back with a lengthier offer Horford still claimed dissatisfaction that the word Max wasn't attached and left.

First of all.. I never said the Hawks should have gone well above and beyond what anyone offered. Don't try and put words in people's mouths. That part about lowballing is in regards to insulting Horford, which as I have stated before I think had more to do with him leaving then a few million $ difference. And if it REALLY was about the $ difference then why wouldn't the Hawks just offer ~$5M/5years to make up the difference and appease him. Who knows? Maybe the $136M/5years isn't even accurate. Maybe the Hawks didn't even offer that much.. idk. What I do know is that Al Horford never gave any indication that he wanted to leave whatsoever. He is known to be a very classy guy, but showed no class to us the day it was announced that he was signing with the Celtics for some reason. His sister (who as I said before that I despise, but think she has some credibility) has said "Why don't you stop and ask yourself why on earth someone absolutely loyal to a team for 9 years walks away?" and that "there is more to a story than you think" which I think is valid. Maybe it was because he wanted to be considered a "max" player or maybe it was because he didn't get that extra $5M or whatever, but I don't think so. You're entitled to your own opinions on it, as am I.

1 hour ago, MaceCase said:

That isn't on the Hawks and the Hawks, and every other NBA team for that matter, don't operate underneath your myopic view that you either "contend or rebuild".  That view, quite frankly, is nonsense and doesn't take into account the myriad of factors of how the NBA operates.  You and anyone else cannot say with any guarantee that the pairing of a player that has proven and continues to prove to be woefully inadequate against the Cavaliers and a player that was considered to be damaged goods by the league elevates your team to contention so why then would a front office invest entirely in such an uncertainty?  That their final compromise was for 5 years in the end could be justified by the moral and monetary victory that it wasn't for $153 million and that $136 still offered them some flexibility but also they still had the potential of a Millsap trade in their back pocket to afford them even greater flexibility.  That's a full-assed plan.  That in the event that Horford left they'd still have a dynamic duo capable of matching previous seasons' success while shoring up the major weakness that they demonstrated against the Cavaliers is also a full-assed plan.  Full-assed plans have contingencies, that you can't comprehend their existence even as they are laid out before you is a failing on your part, not the front office's.  They can't be held accountable for your own black and white views of team building.

I agree you should always have contingencies, but I don't see why/how signing Howard, while losing Horford is a good contingency plan. If you want to remain mediocre, then sure it is a good plan. But I don't agree with it when your best player has one year left on his contract and will be 32 going into free agency.

[MaceCase]

2 hours ago, Bankingitbig said:

First of all.. I never said the Hawks should have gone well above and beyond what anyone offered. Don't try and put words in people's mouths. That part about lowballing is in regards to insulting Horford, which as I have stated before I think had more to do with him leaving then a few million $ difference. And if it REALLY was about the $ difference then why wouldn't the Hawks just offer ~$5M/5years to make up the difference and appease him. Who knows? Maybe the $136M/5years isn't even accurate. Maybe the Hawks didn't even offer that much.. idk. What I do know is that Al Horford never gave any indication that he wanted to leave whatsoever. He is known to be a very classy guy, but showed no class to us the day it was announced that he was signing with the Celtics for some reason. His sister (who as I said before that I despise, but think she has some credibility) has said "Why don't you stop and ask yourself why on earth someone absolutely loyal to a team for 9 years walks away?" and that "there is more to a story than you think" which I think is valid. Maybe it was because he wanted to be considered a "max" player or maybe it was because he didn't get that extra $5M or whatever, but I don't think so. You're entitled to your own opinions on it, as am I.

 

I agree you should always have contingencies, but I don't see why/how signing Howard, while losing Horford is a good contingency plan. If you want to remain mediocre, then sure it is a good plan. But I don't agree with it when your best player has one year left on his contract and will be 32 going into free agency.

I feel that you're chasing your tail around a bit here.  If Horford had an expectation or better yet felt entitled to a full 5 year offer after all of his "class" and "loyalty" to the organization and they came out and offered only 4 he would feel insulted, right? 

He would feel insulted about...the money, correct? 

So...it's about money, no? 

That is the stem of the perceived insult so coming around later and still not offering him the desired amount of money (because he did get the years) or even the particular lower amount that he perhaps broke his back to settle on would still be an insult.... over money. 

Why exactly is the onus solely on the Hawks to offer 5 more million but not Horford to take 5 less million?

If not just the money then why is there suspicion solely over what perceived slight the Hawks committed against Horford?  Why aren't you questioning that perhaps, given the genetic stock he was birthed from and raised with whom you despise, that he too may possess a conniving and duplicitous nature himself?   

 

This will be the second time that a poster will point out that your agenda is showing with these conspiracy theories though.

Here:

That was a recap of Koonin's weekly radio show where he confirmed the reported ~136 million offer.  There are no sources that refute that amount, you are literally the 2nd person to respond after that post yet even you did not question the validity of the amount offered but here we are.  You've questioned Koonin's credibility in this thread as a "PR guy" but you want to hang some sort of credibility on Anna Horford...really?  I don't care how you try to disguise your agenda by prefacing you "despise" her but you are still lending more credence to her tweets while questioning an NBA executive's word and the facts surrounding this case.

 

Well let me not be accused of "putting words in your mouth" again and just tell you what I think to be true of your argument.  You've put your finger on the scale (there that goes again) by painting the Hawks management to be "horrible" or "half-assed" by convincing yourself that re-signing Horford somehow elevated the Hawks to contention and failing to do so left them as merely mediocre.  You've come to this conclusion despite questioning Koonin but additionally failing to realize that Sap's trade value would be largely unchanged with or without Horford and that regardless, his contract would nevertheless expire in a year yet....to you the Hawks management showed incompetence by quibbling over the amount to pay Horford well beyond this year. 

I don't believe you can offer a critique on Hawks management if your opinion on what they've done and will do is so malformed.  Even if your final decision is that the team is merely mediocre you can't attempt to claim that they half-assed or mismanaged their way there.  The majority of the East outside of Cleveland is mediocre so I can't see how that serves as a negative connotation for the Hawks either.  The Hawks key offseason acquisition however, that they very deliberately went out and signed (with or without Horford), just so happens to be a key component for them against Cleveland.

It's all been laid out before you.

[Bankingitbig]

7 hours ago, MaceCase said:

I feel......

Left out your full quote because this post would have been massive then.

You don't think that it is possible that the Hawks perhaps lowballed Al Horford initially, which upset him and made him not feel valued? If your employer that you have worked at for 9 years where you are a key reason (if not the main reason) for its success during those years, offers you a deal that you think is far below your value and what other company's are offering, wouldn't you be somewhat insulted? Then they have an "oh shit" moment and realize that you will leave and try and make it up to you by giving you a better offer... Aren't you a little more likely to leave because of the disrespect and lack of value they showed? I think that could be one possibility, you apparently don't, which is fine. I don't classify that necessarily about money since the money in the end wasn't far off, but just more about lack of respect shown. You can classify it as a money issue if you want, that's fine by me.

I agree I think the onus is on both of them to find compromise in a deal. But I do think the front office has more responsibility in the matter. The front office should be doing their due diligence to know the player, his market value and what they think they can get away with. Again, I would have be fine if the front office didn't sign Horford because they didn't think he was worth the extra $5M/5years, but then not have signed Howard and dealt Millsap.

Me questioning the $136M offer was more of a way to just say who knows what really happened. Apparently you know everything that happened from what Koonin said though. I think Koonin is credible, but I can also see that the man has made his career off of marketing companies and obtaining positive PR for companies. So yea I think he is going to do and say everything that makes the Hawks sound good and possibly leave out the stuff that doesn't shine the best light on the organization. If you don't think so, then I don't know what to tell you... I do think questioning why a guy who gave no intention of leaving a team and a city he was with for 9 years decided to leave when the offers were fairly similar is a valid question. If you don't, then again I don't know what to tell you.

Again you have failed to understand anything I have said and are nitpicking small things. I am getting tired of having to write books. You would rather just attack me than to actually consider other possible outcomes that could have happened this offseason. Do I think the Hawks would be contenders with Millsap, Horford and Howard - yes. I think that makes the only sense as to why the Hawks should sign Howard. I don't think I need to convince myself that not resigning Horford, but signing Howard anyways leaves the team as mediocre. The stats/record show this. If you think we are contenders, then good for you - you are more optimistic than me and every other somewhat informed NBA fan.

I definitely didn't fail to realize anything about Millsap's trade value in relation to Horford considering no one brought up Millsap's value in relation to Horford until you did. I obviously realize that Millsap's contract expires in a year. It's kind of a big point in all of what I have been saying in terms of direction.

I can obviously give any critique I please of how the Hawks handled this past offseason. I am fully aware that we most likely don't know all the facts (though for some reason you think we do). Nothing about what I have said has been proven to be "malinformed". You just don't want to hear a different opinion than your own. I don't see how the majority of the East has anything to do with how the Hawks handled this past offseason. I want the Hawks to win a championship, not be better than the majority of the East. I obviously agree with you that Howard is a key component in defeating Cleveland, but like I have said numerous times, getting Howard and losing Horford isn't going to win you a 7-game series against Cleveland. I agree there may not have been anything that the Hawks could have done this offseason to beat Cleveland in a 7-game series, but then why not get younger and give more playing time to guys like Prince and Bembry instead of Thabo and now Dunleavy. Be focused on the future. I will say that I do think having Howard can be used as an asset in a trade and just signing him for that may be worth it, but that's somewhat questionable.

Again, nothing has been "laid out before" you or me... We don't know all the facts. You choose to believe that a guy, who spent 9 years in a city/with a team and gave zero indication that he wanted to leave, chose to leave over ~$1M+/year difference (roughly 3-4% of annual salary; actually probably equal after factoring in cost of living). That is fine and you are by all means welcome to believe that. I happen to think there may be more to the story than just that.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Just now, kg01 said:

Is that Damon Dash? The idiot who somehow dated princess Aliyah?

[Bankingitbig]

13 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I know this GIF was directed at me, but I got a good laugh out of it. I appreciate your posts and GIF usage. I need to up my GIF game.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

I know this GIF was directed at me, but I got a good laugh out of it. I appreciate your posts and GIF usage. I need to up my GIF game.

Oh, it totally was.

Option 2 would've been ...

[Guest]

Why is this so hard...Al wanted to be a called a 'MAX PLAYER' - the Hawks said NO.  We'll give you this amount and a center, he said NO.

[AHF]

40 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Again, nothing has been "laid out before" you or me... We don't know all the facts. You choose to believe that a guy, who spent 9 years in a city/with a team and gave zero indication that he wanted to leave, chose to leave over ~$1M+/year difference (roughly 3-4% of annual salary; actually probably equal after factoring in cost of living). That is fine and you are by all means welcome to believe that. I happen to think there may be more to the story than just that.

Agree we don't know all the facts but I think a lot of people see several indicators that Al gave that he wanted to leave:

(1)  IT bragged about (and Horford confirmed in large part) how he was already working Horford and Horford was receptive to it as early as midway through last season.  

(2)  Al made no sign that he was committed to staying for a fair price other than a max deal.

(3)  He mailed it in the last year compared to prior years and you could see the safer, less energetic play and people commented on it way before he was a FA.  This led a lot of people to think he was already partially checked out.

[macdaddy]

[MaceCase]

@Bankingitbig

Do you see that I'm not the only one noticing you're chasing your tail again?

Quote

You don't think that it is possible that the Hawks perhaps lowballed Al Horford initially, which upset him and made him not feel valued? If your employer that you have worked at for 9 years where you are a key reason (if not the main reason) for its success during those years, offers you a deal that you think is far below your value and what other company's are offering, wouldn't you be somewhat insulted? Then they have an "oh shit" moment and realize that you will leave and try and make it up to you by giving you a better offer... Aren't you a little more likely to leave because of the disrespect and lack of value they showed? I think that could be one possibility, you apparently don't, which is fine. I don't classify that necessarily about money since the money in the end wasn't far off, but just more about lack of respect shown. You can classify it as a money issue if you want, that's fine by me. [/quote]

 

There are a thousand *possibilities* of what could have occurred in the negotiating room I just don't think to settle on the one of which no evidence backs up but fits my bias.  You apparently have no such reservations.  There has been no evidence that Horford was "lowballed" outside of he wanted a 5th year and the Hawks were reluctant to give it to him.  You cannot be "lowballed" if your expectation was to be blown far away from anything else the market could give you.   Well, sorry, yes you can feel you were "lowballed" but that onus is solely on you.  Not the market.  And not your employers.

 

Quote

Me questioning the $136M offer was more of a way to just say who knows what really happened. Apparently you know everything that happened from what Koonin said though. I think Koonin is credible, but I can also see that the man has made his career off of marketing companies and obtaining positive PR for companies. So yea I think he is going to do and say everything that makes the Hawks sound good and possibly leave out the stuff that doesn't shine the best light on the organization. If you don't think so, then I don't know what to tell you... I do think questioning why a guy who gave no intention of leaving a team and a city he was with for 9 years decided to leave when the offers were fairly similar is a valid question. If you don't, then again I don't know what to tell you.

No, you questioning the offer was just a way for you to feed your agenda.  I don't know everything that happened from what Koonin said,  I know everything that happened from what outside sources said and what inside sources confirmed.  You OTOH want to disregard that and instead glean from the ethereal.  After all, a close family member would have no reason to say or do everything that makes Horford sound good and possibly leave out the stuff that doesn't shine the best light on their son/brother.  But if it fits your bias then surely it has credibility.

 

Quote

Again you have failed to understand anything I have said and are nitpicking small things. I am getting tired of having to write books. You would rather just attack me than to actually consider other possible outcomes that could have happened this offseason. Do I think the Hawks would be contenders with Millsap, Horford and Howard - yes. I think that makes the only sense as to why the Hawks should sign Howard. I don't think I need to convince myself that not resigning Horford, but signing Howard anyways leaves the team as mediocre. The stats/record show this. If you think we are contenders, then good for you - you are more optimistic than me and every other somewhat informed NBA fan

 

I haven't failed to understand anything, we all already read the title of your manifesto: Questioning Why a Guy Who I Think Gave No Intention of Leaving a Team and a City He Was With For 9 Years Decided to Leave When the Offers Were Fairly Similar is a Valid Question..... So It Must Be the Hawks Fault -a short fiction novel by Bankingitbig.

Your agenda is clear, which is fine.  You can be of the opinion that the Hawks moves don't move the needle for you, it takes a bit more than that to claim the front office is incompetent though.  But I like the strawman about me at the end.

 

Quote

I definitely didn't fail to realize anything about Millsap's trade value in relation to Horford considering no one brought up Millsap's value in relation to Horford until you did. I obviously realize that Millsap's contract expires in a year. It's kind of a big point in all of what I have been saying in terms of direction.

......But you definitely did fail to realize.  Because you, as you are so stuck in your agenda and quick to point out how others can't think of other possibilities, failed to consider the role Millsap and his contract status played in the Hawks negotiations with Horford.  Let me try and be as concise as possible on this point:

 

Even if you accept that Horford, Millsap and Howard are a contender you only have that certainty for one year.  Given that you only have that certainty for one year why would you not "lowball" over a commitment for 4 more years?

Your agenda is half-assed, not the Hawks.  That your focus is narrow does not mean that they share that same viewpoint.

 

Quote

I can obviously give any critique I please of how the Hawks handled this past offseason. I am fully aware that we most likely don't know all the facts (though for some reason you think we do). Nothing about what I have said has been proven to be "malinformed". You just don't want to hear a different opinion than your own. I don't see how the majority of the East has anything to do with how the Hawks handled this past offseason. I want the Hawks to win a championship, not be better than the majority of the East. I obviously agree with you that Howard is a key component in defeating Cleveland, but like I have said numerous times, getting Howard and losing Horford isn't going to win you a 7-game series against Cleveland. I agree there may not have been anything that the Hawks could have done this offseason to beat Cleveland in a 7-game series, but then why not get younger and give more playing time to guys like Prince and Bembry instead of Thabo and now Dunleavy. Be focused on the future. I will say that I do think having Howard can be used as an asset in a trade and just signing him for that may be worth it, but that's somewhat questionable.

 

You don't contend in a vacuum.  To win you need only do better than your opponent. If you make moves that do not place you behind your peers while giving you an advantage against your greatest obstacle, most would call that a direction.  You can have the opinion that you don't like the front office moves but you will have to come up with a bit more than half-assed conspiracy theories if you are going to question their competency particularly if your only solution is quoting the great Ricky Bobby "if you're not first you're last".

Quote

Again, nothing has been "laid out before" you or me... We don't know all the facts. You choose to believe that a guy, who spent 9 years in a city/with a team and gave zero indication that he wanted to leave, chose to leave over ~$1M+/year difference (roughly 3-4% of annual salary; actually probably equal after factoring in cost of living). That is fine and you are by all means welcome to believe that. I happen to think there may be more to the story than just that

More has been laid out before you to counter your opinion than you have presented yet you still want to hold steadfastly to your "belief".  There was equally no indication that he wanted to stay to use the opposite as the crux of your whole argument.  As AHF has pointed out there were rumblings of him searching elsewhere, there were questions over his effort, he played diplomatic in front of the cameras and microphones with "class" while his closest family members publicly played armchair GM and chastised the Atlanta fanbase.  He was slow to rebuke his family's remarks and any dealings he had with the front office should not have influenced his behavior towards Atlanta fans.  In the end his goodbye came weeks after the maelstrom with an ad not even a tenth the size of this post.  Clearly this must be BudCox's fault.

 

[Bankingitbig]

@MaceCase

This will be my last post on this because it is getting completely sidetracked from my initial point, which is that we have no clear direction.

I honestly am not "settled" on any possibility in regards to Horford because I truly don't know what all went down. There has been just as much evidence that Horford was possibly lowballed as there was that he gave an indication that he wanted to leave. The "rumblings" was only one instance where he asked IT "hey.. what's it like playing in Boston?". Our front office is notorious for asking too much in trades, as has been reported numerous times. So I wouldn't be surprised if that translated into their negotiations as well. Also, Woj reported that Horford and us were a total of $6M off. This means Horford wanted $142M/5years. This also happens to be exactly the same average annual salary as a non-Bird rights offer ($113M/4years), which I think is safe to say is his "market value" as it was well known he would get this offer from other teams. Now use some reasoning and understand that their final offer was $136M/5years; thus they most likely initially offered an even lower average annual salary and with only 4 years. I think that could be considered a lowball in my opinion when his market value is $113M/4years and you know he is going to get offered that.

Nah - my manifesto has been to try and figure out what direction the front office is trying to take this team in order to win a championship... You just got caught up on the whole Horford thing. By the way, it's not just my opinion that the front office had a poor offseason... Go look at any NBA reporter's grades on this past offseason. No one said we had a good offseason. Majority of our grades were well below average.

You're right - we most likely wouldn't be able to resign Millsap after this year, but at least we would have gone full out to be a true contender. How is that situation any different than where we are now? We most likely lose Millsap in both situations unless we choose to near-max him this offseason, which I hope not given how the current roster is constructed. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we did, as it isn't a good look to have two players of that caliber leave back-to-back. 

Obviously I agree that you don't contend in a vacuum. And the context going into this past offseason was that our best player (Millsap) has one year left on his contract and will be 32 this coming offseason, along with the fact that Horford (2nd best player) was a UFA. Seems like a pretty cut-and-dry decision to me (and apparently also to all the NBA writers that gave us poor grades)... You either go all out and contend NOW (sign Dwight, Horford and Baze) or you retool/rebuild. Now I will say I do think that ownership/management and the huge marketing campaign the Hawks are going through could have played into this decision somewhat. But who knows.

Fully agree with you that Horford had a horrible exit and showed no-to-veryyyy-little class in his exit. Like I said before though, isn't that kind of out of his character? He is well regarded around the league by players and journalists as a player with a lot of class. Just seems like a strange response to have if he truly wanted to leave Atlanta......

Edited January 21, 2017 by Bankingitbig

[MaceCase]

2 hours ago, Bankingitbig said:

@MaceCase

I honestly am not "settled" on any possibility in regards to Horford because I truly Also, Woj reported that Horford and us were a total of $6M off. This means Horford wanted $142M/5years. This also happens to be exactly the same average annual salary as a non-Bird rights offer ($113M/4years), which I think is safe to say is his "market value" as it was well known he would get this offer from other teams. Now use some reasoning and understand that their final offer was $136M/5years; thus they most likely initially offered an even lower average annual salary and with only 4 years. I think that could be considered a lowball in my opinion when his market value is $113M/4years and you know he is going to get offered that.

 

There goes your inventiveness again.  The initial reports were that Horford was seeking a 5th year but that the Hawks were reluctant to give that.  The final report was that the Hawks relented on the 5th year but the giveback was a lower annual salary.  Most would interpret that as negotiating 101, you know, you get what you want and we get what we want, both sides finding a respectable middle.  You OTOH want to run off and say that surely the Hawks must have both not offered the 5th year but now also offered less on the 4 year deal...Really, this is the apex of your reasoning?

5 years $136 million is still $23 million more than any other team.  That's simple math.  What is the certainty that a 34 year old will be able to recoup that amount in a single year?  The NBA and PA already have forecasts for the cap all the way through 2021 and there's surely no evidence of a cap spike anywhere close to the one that led to the windfall that players such as Horford were able to take advantage of last summer.

You've become so dead set in your bias against the front office that it's clouded your entire reasoning.  Simple reasoning would suggest that after all of the given evidence, not the pretend theories but the summations based on facts, that if you have a player:

-who supposedly never gave an indication he wanted to leave..

-yet upon reaching free agency quickly makes a 5th year a sticking point of remaining..

-and upon being offered the 5th year makes $6 million a sticking point of leaving...

-coupled with his and his family's reaction towards the fans upon leaving...

That perhaps the player wasn't really interested in staying to begin with unless they were blown away by tremendous monetary compensation...if even that.

I mean, he'd spent his entire professional career here, right?  He'd experienced success here, right? The Hawks added the precise type of big man he wanted, right? 

But

anyone could offer him $113 million however the Hawks price is $141 million...

 

hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

I don't care how nice of a guy you think he is, that doesn't really matter, actions matter.  All the players want to hang with LeBron, they speak highly of LeBron, and they want to play with LeBron.  Dan Gilbert gave him, his family and friends every luxury there was and had no indication he'd leave yet ole Gilbert found himself typing an angry letter the night of "The Decision".  Westbrook talked of his relationship with Durant being like family yet he didn't find out about his decision to leave until everyone else did.  Mark Cuban thought he'd signed a star center until it was brought to his attention something odd was trending on twitter, when DeAndre wasn't answering or returning his calls is when he knew it was all over. 

Point being, players do shitty things to GMs, teammates, coaches, owners and fans all the time despite being "classy" so why is Al any different?  Why do you have such a strong certainty that the Hawks bungled this or that they lowballed him and not consider that perhaps this was a man who simply wanted a change of scenery? 

I know.

Because it fits your narrative of the front office.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

 

 

 

 

 

As for the actual topic . . .

 

Hawks record after 43 games in 2015 - 16:   26 - 17

Hawks record after 43 games in 2016 - 17:   25 - 18

Record wise at this point in the season, there's virtually no difference between the 2016 Hawks and the 2017 Hawks.  The 2016 Hawks, however, would go on to lose 5 of their next 6 games, and go into the All-Star break with a 31 - 24 record.  So let's see where the 2017 Hawks stand at that point in a few weeks.

 

What Zach Lowe and others need to understand, is that the Hawks were getting MURDERED on the boards last year.  And a big reason for that was the lackluster play of Horford, from a toughness standpoint, around the rim.   While the Cavs killed us with 3s last season, they also got a lot of 2nd chance points off of offensive rebounds.  And it became even more pronounced in the playoffs.

The most telling game of the Cleveland series last year in the playoffs, was Game 3.   Horford had an outstanding shooting game ( 11 - 15 FG . . . 2 - 4 3FG ), and scored 24 points.  The Hawks played very well for about 40 minutes in that game, before melting down in the 4th quarter.  

 

But Horford was a whopping ( -26 ) for the game.

Why?

The barrage of 3s, especially in the 4th quarter, didn't help.  But he only grabbed 1 REBOUND the entire game.  You just can't have a situation in which your starting center is playing more like a 2 guard, and not doing the dirty work around the rim.

To put that rebounding situation in its proper perspective, the duo of Millsap (8) and Horford (1) only grabbed 9 total rebounds.

The duo of Love and Thompson grabbed 13 OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS and 28 TOTAL REBOUNDS.

 

That's unacceptable.  All of those offensive rebounds, especially a few of them in that 3rd quarter when we were threatening to push that lead into double digits, kept the Cavs in the game.  And once they got hot in the 4th, and we went cold, it was GAME OVER.

Horford's averages for that series?  15 ppg . . 51% FG . . 39% 3FG . . . . . and 3.5 rebs

Horford proved two things in that series:  (1) He wanted to play more on the outside . . . (2) There's no way in HELL the Hawks could fully Max him out, if he wasn't committed to hitting the boards.  

That's why when the opportunity to get a rebound monster like Dwight Howard arose, the Hawks jumped at the chance to get him.  We had to do it, to shake up the identity of the team.  We just couldn't afford to be soft on the interior like that.   Betting that Horford would elevate his game with a new contract, and give us more of what we needed from a rebounding standpoint, would've been a bad bet.

The Hawks played the free agency game right.  They got the key asset that they needed in Howard.  They refused to max out Horford with the 5th year.  And they held onto Millsap, just in case things didn't work out.

For all of the people who hate the Hawks "mediocrity" so much, that they can't stand to see us not blow things up, we're still here.  The Hawks, like the other 14 teams in the East, may not beat the Cavs with 3 potential Hall of Famers, but we're still here.  And why should we sell off everyone or tank the season for the hope of getting better, while the East may be on lock for the next 5 years anyway?

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by TheNorthCydeRises

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on Hawks tickets every season.  Why should we watch and pay for a bad product, just because the "experts" say we should sell off everyone?  The East is a Lebron James turned ankle or sprained knee away in the playoffs, from being wide open.   And the teams good enough to at least stay close to the Cavs, shouldn't just roll over and die, because we can't beat them while healthy.

It's one thing if we show no signs of being nothing but a .500 or below team.   But a squad that can win 50 games in a season should NEVER blow things completely up.

Even this offseason, the play the Hawks may make this year, is to do the same thing.  You go to the offseason with Millsap testing the market, and you see what his value is to the rest of the league, while also having in mind a number you want to pay him and the amount of years to keep him.   If you lose him for nothing, so be it.  If you re-sign him to a great contract for him and the organization, that's great.

Millsap, unlike Horford last season, has stated that he doesn't want to go anywhere.   Even if that's a ploy to just stay on this team right now, and not go to a non-playoff team, you have to take him on his word.  We'll just have to see what happens during the offseason.

 

What you don't do, is sell off a real good player, and take back mediocre assets and non-lottery picks, just for the sake of not losing that player.

 

[Bankingitbig]

13 hours ago, MaceCase said:

5 years $136 million is still $23 million more than any other team.  That's simple math.  What is the certainty that a 34 year old will be able to recoup that amount in a single year?  The NBA and PA already have forecasts for the cap all the way through 2021 and there's surely no evidence of a cap spike anywhere close to the one that led to the windfall that players such as Horford were able to take advantage of last summer.

You're right that's very simple math. Maybe that's the kind of math the Hawks front office was doing? Just simple math with no reasoning behind it. Why didn't they just offer him $114M/5years and call it a day, pat themselves on the back and say they offered the most out of anyone? Now let's do some "complex" math... Horford has a player option after 3 years he will have just turned 33 in the offseason and will most likely exercise that option. Maybe we should ask our 32 year old Paul Millsap how likely it is to recoup that amount? (Hint: Paul's deal will likely be starting at $35M/year). Obviously barring any major injuries... But it's a pretty worthwhile gamble for Horford to get a deal quite far above the $23M and that will most likely be his last, major long-term deal.

Also, you still haven't discussed anything in regards to the direction of the team. You seem pretty happy with the Howard signing and Horford leaving.. What do we do this offseason? Pay Millsap his near max and lock into an aging player with our largest contract or just let the man walk since we most likely won't get true value for him now that the year is halfway through (unless TOR becomes desperate)? You seem pretty happy that the Hawks saved some $ on Horford and got Howard. How will you feel if the Hawks pay a LOT more for Millsap, who is older, than what they could have paid Horford? What if he just walks for nothing? Will you just find satisfaction that we saved some money? The only positive route I see is if Millsap takes a huge discount, which is very unlikely. I just think the Hawks front office have walked themselves into a corner waiting not really making any decisive moves.

4 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

What Zach Lowe and others need to understand, is that the Hawks were getting MURDERED on the boards last year.  And a big reason for that was the lackluster play of Horford, from a toughness standpoint, around the rim.   While the Cavs killed us with 3s last season, they also got a lot of 2nd chance points off of offensive rebounds.  And it became even more pronounced in the playoffs.

That's why when the opportunity to get a rebound monster like Dwight Howard arose, the Hawks jumped at the chance to get him.  We had to do it, to shake up the identity of the team.  We just couldn't afford to be soft on the interior like that.   Betting that Horford would elevate his game with a new contract, and give us more of what we needed from a rebounding standpoint, would've been a bad bet.

The Hawks played the free agency game right.  They got the key asset that they needed in Howard.  They refused to max out Horford with the 5th year.  And they held onto Millsap, just in case things didn't work out.

For all of the people who hate the Hawks "mediocrity" so much, that they can't stand to see us not blow things up, we're still here.  The Hawks, like the other 14 teams in the East, may not beat the Cavs with 3 potential Hall of Famers, but we're still here.  And why should we sell off everyone or tank the season for the hope of getting better, while the East may be on lock for the next 5 years anyway?

 

I think Zach Lowe and everyone else fully understands this, as evident by the criticism of Boston right now with their lack of rebounding. As I stated earlier, Howard was a great signing to compete against Cleveland in the present, but losing Horford as well then it is kind of a head scratcher since we can't truly contend as presently constructed. I think you're missing my point by making it a Horford vs. Howard thing.... I wanted both or neither. How did the Hawks play the free agency game right? They got no better, as you have pointed out based on records. And they got older (replacing Howard with Horford). Maybe they might win one game in a series against Cleveland. I guess that is getting better technically, but still the same end result in my book.

You're right.. The Cavs probably have the East on lock-down for next 3-4 years. Shouldn't we be looking to try and get it after those years? Teams like Philly, Boston and Milwaukee are looking like they will have it after that, even Washington still has a really good young core of Wall, Beal and Porter. All we have right now is Schröder and some unproven rookies that we really don't have a large of sample size to know what to expect from thanks to playing people like Dunleavy over them. Sure we have accumulated some draft picks, but nothing crazy that will be a lottery pick. Now I am not sure whether or not the Hawks should tank now given that the season is halfway over and we are probably getting offered pennies for Millsap. But my point was that it was a pretty clear decision on what to do in the offseason in my opinion (and apparently many others that gave us a poor grade) and we chose to remain mediocre.

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Even this offseason, the play the Hawks may make this year, is to do the same thing.  You go to the offseason with Millsap testing the market, and you see what his value is to the rest of the league, while also having in mind a number you want to pay him and the amount of years to keep him.   If you lose him for nothing, so be it.  If you re-sign him to a great contract for him and the organization, that's great.

What you don't do, is sell off a real good player, and take back mediocre assets and non-lottery picks, just for the sake of not losing that player.

I agree somewhat... But you're looking at it from the perspective of current time.. I am talking about this past offseason and even others before it in regards to planning. If we lose ALL 5 starters (4 allstars lol - but seriously really only 2) from a 60-win team in JUST two seasons, and only have Prince and a 2019 1-10 protected first round pick to show for it, then in my opinion that is a world class mismanagement. I can already tell you what the market is for Millsap - it's going to be near $154M/4years. The guy is a top 5 free agent this coming offseason. I sure as hell hope our front office doesn't need to wait and see what his market is to know what they want to do with him (kind of my point will Al Horford and letting him walk for nothing if you are hoping he takes a discount without the assurance that he will)..... This isn't freaking THJ we are talking about where who truly knows how some teams will value him...

Agreed on not trading him for mediocre assets just for the sake of it, but I think the Hawks have walked themselves into a corner and into this position where they are now only getting lousy offers since his contract is almost up. Who knows what trade offers were for Millsap this offseason and prior to that even. I have heard the Faried and picks offer from DEN, which I think is fairly mediocre. But lets not forget that this past offseason, the Magic (who highly coveted Millsap and offered him a max offer only a year and half ago) traded the 11th pick, Oladipo and Ilyasova for Ibaka. I would consider that a decent return for Millsap. Now who knows if the Magic would have offered that for Millsap (I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't unless they REALLY valued Ibaka's youth to Millsap), but I think it is likely.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Bankingitbig

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, Bankingitbig said:

You're right that's very simple math. Maybe that's the kind of math the Hawks front office was doing? Just simple math with no reasoning behind it. Why didn't they just offer him $114M/5years and call it a day, pat themselves on the back and say they offered the most out of anyone? Now let's do some "complex" math... Horford has a player option after 3 years he will have just turned 33 in the offseason and will most likely exercise that option. Maybe we should ask our 32 year old Paul Millsap how likely it is to recoup that amount? (Hint: Paul's deal will likely be starting at $35M/year). Obviously barring any major injuries... But it's a pretty worthwhile gamble for Horford to get a deal quite far above the $23M and that will most likely be his last, major long-term deal.

 

Careful now, you might be accused of being surly, certainly will say that you are being purposefully obtuse.  Let me do a similar dumb argument I'm sure that you're sure that the Hawks made "Oh if Horford is so concerned about the 5th year then just give him 5 years $50 million hyuk hyuk".  You are tap dancing on your argument now by bringing up option years, because I'm sure you're going to say that the Hawks refused those too because they lack lawyers, accountants, and cap-analysts with any reasoning skills.

Millsap at 32 is, yet again, taking advantage of the last cap spike from the TV deal much like Horford did last summer but this is it, the cap smooths out from here.  You want to get "complex"?  Sure.

-The cap in 2015-2016 was $70 million

-The cap in 2016-2017 is $94 million

that's a $24 million increase in case the math escapes you.

-The cap projection for 2017-2018 is predicted to be $102 million

that's only a $8 million increase, certainly more conservative than the jump from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 but combined, the league's salary cap increased $32 million in only two seasons which created a windfall for many players lucky enough to be free agents during these two summers as compared to players signed 2015 and before.  However:

-The cap projection for 2018-2019 is $108 million

-The cap projection for 2019-2020 is $109 million

-The cap projection for 2020-2021 is $114 million

So in only two seasons the cap jumps $32 million but in the 3 seasons following is only expected to rise $12 million.  Given that contracts of course do have limits on their length, by 2019 you are going to start to see the last of players signed underneath the "value" of the old $70 million and below cap expiring and their new contracts becoming comparative with others in the new cap era with teams no longer magically lucking their way into maximum amounts of cap space.  These guys will be Horford's competition come his option year with 90% of the league no longer having the free availability of cap and having to manage their salaries like the good ole days.  I'd say that's a gamble.  

3 hours ago, Bankingitbig said:

Also, you still haven't discussed anything in regards to the direction of the team. You seem pretty happy with the Howard signing and Horford leaving.. What do we do this offseason? Pay Millsap his near max and lock into an aging player with our largest contract or just let the man walk since we most likely won't get true value for him now that the year is halfway through (unless TOR becomes desperate)? You seem pretty happy that the Hawks saved some $ on Horford and got Howard. How will you feel if the Hawks pay a LOT more for Millsap, who is older, than what they could have paid Horford? What if he just walks for nothing? Will you just find satisfaction that we saved some money? The only positive route I see is if Millsap takes a huge discount, which is very unlikely. I just think the Hawks front office have walked themselves into a corner waiting not really making any decisive moves.

 

I have, you're just not satisfied with the answers.  You already painted your position for all to see with your "Contend or Rebuild" statement and everything else is just "mediocre" to you.  I already pointed out the folly in your reasoning.  I've already pointed out the front office's reasoning.  I don't need hyperbole, hypotheticals, or pure imagination I can just look at the facts with an unbiased eye and feel confident that the Hawks already have a number in their head and if both parties can't reach on that they have contingencies in place much like just last offseason where they managed to swap out Horford for Howard and maintain the same record with flexibility for the future.