Official Game Thread: Hawks at Jazz

[lethalweapon3]

Don't hold your head down, MD! That's our job!

~tankfans

[DBac]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

We were in the pole position and kept getting wins and people kept saying "no problem, we'll still end up worst."  Now we are saying "no problem surely we won't fall any more even if we keep picking up meaningless games, right?"

We were within 2 games of the #1 spot and 2 games ahead of Dallas.  Now we are 3 games back and can fall to a tie for 5th place with a single win.  With two wins we could be in a tie for 7th place which would put our draft range 1-3, 7-10.

This is like making a run for the playoffs and giving up a game to one of the dregs of the league.  Self-sabotage.

Every game counts at this point in the season.

I get all that. It's not good for us but not the end of the world either . We'll have our chance to move up. Suns play the Magic, Mavs, Kings again. Kings play Grizz and Mavs (and us) etc. Movement at the top nowhere near done and we don't need as much to go wrong as if we were in the same situation as when we were when we beat the Pacers a while back.

[JSmooooove]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Considering that the worse our record is, the harder it is going to be to bounce back and get back into the playoffs, I'd rather concentrate on winning.  

[EDIT: Sorry, JSmooooove! The T-Word is still a no-no 'round these parts! And no, I don't mean Tanking! ~lw3]

[buckyboy2]

6 hours ago, Guard said:

The pick will be between 4-7. Don’t expect anything different. They’re going to win against the Kings too.  

My worst nightmare...

[buckyboy2]

5 hours ago, hazer said:

I’mo stick with 3rd, thanks ;)

We better not go lower than 4th.......ugg

[thecampster]

16 hours ago, davis171 said:

This is ridiculous this is you not knowing NBA rules. There is a minimum amount of cap space NBA teams have to spend (almost certain it is 90%) every year 2.5 million if anything helps the hawks if they are trying to tank because it is less salary they have to add via FA.

1st things first.....you don't "have" to spend 90%.  If you fail to spend 90% you are taxed the difference. Technically you could field all $1 million contracts and spend only $15 million. You'd just get charged a tax of $72 million and get it distributed to the players.

2nd thing....the cap is both a short game and a long game.  We currently have 5 first rounders in 2 years. A 2018 top pick earns $5.8 million.  The difference between the 30th pick ($1.16 mil) and the 13th pick ($2.18 mil) is $1 million and by all standards negligible. But the difference between picks throughout the lottery goes up substantially.  If the Hawks had the #1, #15 and #30 picks this year, they would be spending $8.99 million. Contrast that with dropping 3 spots in the 1st and second picks (4,18,30) and they are spending $7.1 million, a difference of $1.9 million.  But 3 years from now when the players are in their contract years and the Hawks are trying to be competitive, #1,#15,#30 cost you $17,412790.4 per year while #4,#18,#30 cost you $13,956,854.7 ($3.46 million less). Now although 1 and 15 should turn out to be a better player than 4 and 18, that extra $3.46 million would/could have been the difference in retaining/getting that one extra free agent. $3.46 million more in room could be the difference between Gordon Haywood and Paul Millsap.

3rd thing and I can't say this enough.  More or less salary is two parts of the same coin. If you have "more salary" the rules are more generous to you swapping parts of higher level players but less generous in signing.  Less salary gives you flexibility (up to a point) to sign talent but less flexibility when making trades for top talent.  IE...Two LT teams can swap high salaries easier than 1 high and 1 low team because the low team usually ends up into the cap by making the swap and doesn't have the talent to send back to make those swaps work for the other team.  If you have 8 players on rookie contracts (very possible for the Hawks in 2 years), you have to send out 4 or 5 players to take back 1 star contract but you have to maintain a minimum number of players on the roster throughout the season. Large amounts of rookie salaries makes dealing complicated to say the least. "Salary" is by far the hardest part of this puzzle that is tanking and one completely lost on the average fan.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

1st things first.....you don't "have" to spend 90%.  If you fail to spend 90% you are taxed the difference. Technically you could field all $1 million contracts and spend only $15 million. You'd just get charged a tax of $72 million and get it distributed to the players.

2nd thing....the cap is both a short game and a long game.  We currently have 5 first rounders in 2 years. A 2018 top pick earns $5.8 million.  The difference between the 30th pick ($1.16 mil) and the 13th pick ($2.18 mil) is $1 million and by all standards negligible. But the difference between picks throughout the lottery goes up substantially.  If the Hawks had the #1, #15 and #30 picks this year, they would be spending $8.99 million. Contrast that with dropping 3 spots in the 1st and second picks (4,18,30) and they are spending $7.1 million, a difference of $1.9 million.  But 3 years from now when the players are in their contract years and the Hawks are trying to be competitive, #1,#15,#30 cost you $17,412790.4 per year while #4,#18,#30 cost you $13,956,854.7 ($3.46 million less). Now although 1 and 15 should turn out to be a better player than 4 and 18, that extra $3.46 million would/could have been the difference in retaining/getting that one extra free agent. $3.46 million more in room could be the difference between Gordon Haywood and Paul Millsap.

3rd thing and I can't say this enough.  More or less salary is two parts of the same coin. If you have "more salary" the rules are more generous to you swapping parts of higher level players but less generous in signing.  Less salary gives you flexibility (up to a point) to sign talent but less flexibility when making trades for top talent.  IE...Two LT teams can swap high salaries easier than 1 high and 1 low team because the low team usually ends up into the cap by making the swap and doesn't have the talent to send back to make those swaps work for the other team.  If you have 8 players on rookie contracts (very possible for the Hawks in 2 years), you have to send out 4 or 5 players to take back 1 star contract but you have to maintain a minimum number of players on the roster throughout the season. Large amounts of rookie salaries makes dealing complicated to say the least. "Salary" is by far the hardest part of this puzzle that is tanking and one completely lost on the average fan.

Post of the freaking year.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, thecampster said:

1st things first.....you don't "have" to spend 90%.  If you fail to spend 90% you are taxed the difference. Technically you could field all $1 million contracts and spend only $15 million. You'd just get charged a tax of $72 million and get it distributed to the players.

2nd thing....the cap is both a short game and a long game.  We currently have 5 first rounders in 2 years. A 2018 top pick earns $5.8 million.  The difference between the 30th pick ($1.16 mil) and the 13th pick ($2.18 mil) is $1 million and by all standards negligible. But the difference between picks throughout the lottery goes up substantially.  If the Hawks had the #1, #15 and #30 picks this year, they would be spending $8.99 million. Contrast that with dropping 3 spots in the 1st and second picks (4,18,30) and they are spending $7.1 million, a difference of $1.9 million.  But 3 years from now when the players are in their contract years and the Hawks are trying to be competitive, #1,#15,#30 cost you $17,412790.4 per year while #4,#18,#30 cost you $13,956,854.7 ($3.46 million less). Now although 1 and 15 should turn out to be a better player than 4 and 18, that extra $3.46 million would/could have been the difference in retaining/getting that one extra free agent. $3.46 million more in room could be the difference between Gordon Haywood and Paul Millsap.

3rd thing and I can't say this enough.  More or less salary is two parts of the same coin. If you have "more salary" the rules are more generous to you swapping parts of higher level players but less generous in signing.  Less salary gives you flexibility (up to a point) to sign talent but less flexibility when making trades for top talent.  IE...Two LT teams can swap high salaries easier than 1 high and 1 low team because the low team usually ends up into the cap by making the swap and doesn't have the talent to send back to make those swaps work for the other team.  If you have 8 players on rookie contracts (very possible for the Hawks in 2 years), you have to send out 4 or 5 players to take back 1 star contract but you have to maintain a minimum number of players on the roster throughout the season. Large amounts of rookie salaries makes dealing complicated to say the least. "Salary" is by far the hardest part of this puzzle that is tanking and one completely lost on the average fan.

The cap space difference is insignificant compared to the expected value difference.  Salary in FA is very inefficient in the whole.  Salary on young players is far more efficient.  I'd take my gamble trying to free up space another way.

[davis171]

6 hours ago, thecampster said:

1st things first.....you don't "have" to spend 90%.  If you fail to spend 90% you are taxed the difference. Technically you could field all $1 million contracts and spend only $15 million. You'd just get charged a tax of $72 million and get it distributed to the players.

2nd thing....the cap is both a short game and a long game.  We currently have 5 first rounders in 2 years. A 2018 top pick earns $5.8 million.  The difference between the 30th pick ($1.16 mil) and the 13th pick ($2.18 mil) is $1 million and by all standards negligible. But the difference between picks throughout the lottery goes up substantially.  If the Hawks had the #1, #15 and #30 picks this year, they would be spending $8.99 million. Contrast that with dropping 3 spots in the 1st and second picks (4,18,30) and they are spending $7.1 million, a difference of $1.9 million.  But 3 years from now when the players are in their contract years and the Hawks are trying to be competitive, #1,#15,#30 cost you $17,412790.4 per year while #4,#18,#30 cost you $13,956,854.7 ($3.46 million less). Now although 1 and 15 should turn out to be a better player than 4 and 18, that extra $3.46 million would/could have been the difference in retaining/getting that one extra free agent. $3.46 million more in room could be the difference between Gordon Haywood and Paul Millsap.

3rd thing and I can't say this enough.  More or less salary is two parts of the same coin. If you have "more salary" the rules are more generous to you swapping parts of higher level players but less generous in signing.  Less salary gives you flexibility (up to a point) to sign talent but less flexibility when making trades for top talent.  IE...Two LT teams can swap high salaries easier than 1 high and 1 low team because the low team usually ends up into the cap by making the swap and doesn't have the talent to send back to make those swaps work for the other team.  If you have 8 players on rookie contracts (very possible for the Hawks in 2 years), you have to send out 4 or 5 players to take back 1 star contract but you have to maintain a minimum number of players on the roster throughout the season. Large amounts of rookie salaries makes dealing complicated to say the least. "Salary" is by far the hardest part of this puzzle that is tanking and one completely lost on the average fan.

So you really think they are trying to get a pick between 3-8 over 1-2 over a slight cap difference when history says the most talent is selected with the #1 pick. This maybe the most ludicrous argument I've ever seen. Why not hypothetically trade back? I'll be waiting......

Edited March 22, 2018 by davis171

[davis171]

24 minutes ago, AHF said:

The cap space difference is insignificant compared to the expected value difference.  Salary in FA is very inefficient in the whole.  Salary on young players is far more efficient.  I'd take my gamble trying to free up space another way.

Thank you! they say they want to bring Sap back at 30 million a season and want to save 3 million by dropping in the draft what? I can tell you no gm ever has thought the way they are now if you really want to pick 3+ trade back.

Edited March 22, 2018 by davis171

[davis171]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Post of the freaking year.

Just because a post is long doesn't mean he is right. If the Hawks REALLY wanted to draft lower to save cap (still the stupidest thing I've ever read) we trade back and acquire more assets for the future.

[Peoriabird]

27 minutes ago, davis171 said:

So you really think they are trying to get a pick between 3-8 over 1-2 over a slight cap difference when history says the most talent is selected with the #1 pick. This maybe the most ludicrous argument I've ever seen. Why not hypothetically trade back? I'll be waiting......

You will hear it all from Hawk fans my brother!

[Peoriabird]

17 minutes ago, davis171 said:

Just because a post is long doesn't mean he is right. If the Hawks REALLY wanted to draft lower to save cap (still the stupidest thing I've ever read) we trade back and acquire more assets for the future.

I think he was being sarcastic...At least I hope so.

[Diesel]

On 3/21/2018 at 0:20 PM, lethalweapon3 said:

Don't hold your head down, MD! That's our job!

~tankfans

He's still collecting a check... so it's all good. 

[thecampster]

On 3/22/2018 at 8:35 AM, davis171 said:

So you really think they are trying to get a pick between 3-8 over 1-2 over a slight cap difference when history says the most talent is selected with the #1 pick. This maybe the most ludicrous argument I've ever seen. Why not hypothetically trade back? I'll be waiting......

If you were right no team would ever trade back.....queue mic drop in 3, 2, 1....boom/whine.

 

I am not advocating trading back or forward or not. What I am doing is arguing against your very simplistic view of the cap.

[thecampster]

But now let me "explain" my position.  The Hawks have positioned themselves "under" the cap. This limits their ability to improve significantly via trade. However, they have accumulated picks. Those picks are expensive against the cap.

The cap is around $100 million and there are 15 slots on a roster. That is an average salary of about $7 million / player. If you have vet minimum/2nd rounders occupying 5 slots, the average for the other slots goes up to about $9 million / player. Now we know that 5 of those players in 3 years are going to be first round picks. That's $90 million for 10 players, 5 will be on rookie deals. If the average salary for those players is $3 million each, we can then afford about $15 million per player for the other 5 slots. If the average salary goes up to $5 million per player, we then only have $13 million.  If you break down the moving parts there, Giving a player $20 million means giving another player either $10 million each or $6 million depending on how the average salary for the rookies went.

 

So what I'm saying is, if you are trying to sign a free agent in 2 years and you can't offer $20 million because you gave Mike Muscala $9 million per year, yes the rookie contracts matter. If the rookie contracts are slightly less expensive at the top, the $17 million dollar Bazemore mistake is more forgiving.  Don't fall in love with players but with slotting when looking at the cap. Certain players slot at X, others slot at Y and still others at Z. You can only afford less X's if your rookies creep into Z category.  For every Karl Anthony Towns, there is an Anthony Bennett. For every Marvin Williams taken with the 3rd pick, there is a Jimmy Butler taken at 30.

[davis171]

47 minutes ago, thecampster said:

If you were right no team would ever trade back.....queue mic drop in 3, 2, 1....boom/whine.

 

I am not advocating trading back or forward or not. What I am doing is arguing against your very simplistic view of the cap.

Why couldn't we trade 

 

33 minutes ago, thecampster said:

But now let me "explain" my position.  The Hawks have positioned themselves "under" the cap. This limits their ability to improve significantly via trade. However, they have accumulated picks. Those picks are expensive against the cap.

The cap is around $100 million and there are 15 slots on a roster. That is an average salary of about $7 million / player. If you have vet minimum/2nd rounders occupying 5 slots, the average for the other slots goes up to about $9 million / player. Now we know that 5 of those players in 3 years are going to be first round picks. That's $90 million for 10 players, 5 will be on rookie deals. If the average salary for those players is $3 million each, we can then afford about $15 million per player for the other 5 slots. If the average salary goes up to $5 million per player, we then only have $13 million.  If you break down the moving parts there, Giving a player $20 million means giving another player either $10 million each or $6 million depending on how the average salary for the rookies went.

 

So what I'm saying is, if you are trying to sign a free agent in 2 years and you can't offer $20 million because you gave Mike Muscala $9 million per year, yes the rookie contracts matter. If the rookie contracts are slightly less expensive at the top, the $17 million dollar Bazemore mistake is more forgiving.  Don't fall in love with players but with slotting when looking at the cap. Certain players slot at X, others slot at Y and still others at Z. You can only afford less X's if your rookies creep into Z category.  For every Karl Anthony Towns, there is an Anthony Bennett. For every Marvin Williams taken with the 3rd pick, there is a Jimmy Butler taken at 30.

Then trade back if you don't like the top guys like the celtics this year gosh you are [EDIT: See below! ~lw3]. There is 0 value in dropping in your draft pick wow you are [EDIT: Play nice, davis! If you can't argue without words like that... don't! ~lw3]. I can't argue with you when saying the hawks are going to pay moose 9 mil. Historically #1 produces the most talent And all data shows it. I'm done arguing with you when you know If we won the lottery and got 1 we could easily trade back and acquire more assets. Rookie deals are only guaranteed 2 years easy contracts to move.

[davis171]

I 100% understand the cap stay in your lane. Please explain what your genius idea of managing the cap is. Drop in the draft I'm seriously crying

[davis171]

49 minutes ago, thecampster said:

If you were right no team would ever trade back.....queue mic drop in 3, 2, 1....boom/whine.

 

I am not advocating trading back or forward or not. What I am doing is arguing against your very simplistic view of the cap.

http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-history-picking-1-8-nba-draft-percentage-all-stars-1980

Edited March 25, 2018 by davis171

[davis171]

I'll just leave this here and it is over! http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm