Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

John Collins(Max)


TRW

Recommended Posts

Just to add on to what was said above I completely agree. We've let good players walk in the past like Al Horford, Paul Millsap and even Josh Smith I believe so that we could free up cap space. 

This will not be the case with John Collins because our cap space has mainly been used with the cap space to sign all of our free agents last yr (Bogi, Gallo and etc). We can afford John because of bird right rules (not getting too technical).

Most importantly all the players we let walk above were at the peak of their primes and aging. John is only 23 yrs old and nowhere near his prime. If we gave him a max and 5 yrs we'd be paying him around his best prime years (typically 26-28 in the nba).

Again like stated above their are too many reasons to keep him (chemistry, skill, age, his max isn't as high as other maxes and more). He's a restricted free agent so the ball is completely in our court.

Not too mention for us long time Hawks fans that remember, rebounding use to be our achilles heel. Tristan Thompson and so many others used to eat us up in the rebounding department. John has greatly improved that and the duo of him and Clint has turned us into one of the best rebounding teams.

Hopefully John, his agent and Travis can come to a reasonable agreement and make a deal that doesn't hinder the team moving forward to be able to keep our core together for a long time. 

Even if we have to pay John the max theirs absolutely no downside it's not like we need or can use that money elsewhere. He's not on the wrong side of age by any stretch. It helps us stay the course and run it back efficiently and if we have to trade him later he will have a contract that could land us something back of fair value.

We only lose if we refuse to play this scenario correctly and let him go but keeping him is a win all around. The leverage is ours and the ball is in our court.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Hawks should do everything in their power to keep him because there's no obvious answer to replacing his production.  So yeah, they need to keep him.  BUT.....I would caution anyone from just assuming he will be easily moveable on a max deal if it doesn't work out in Atlanta.  At least if you are expecting some equal return.  

Keep in mind that "not working out" in Atlanta would mean that he doesn't play well enough to be a max player and is holding the team back.  IF that were the case, why would any other team give up anything of value for an overpriced non-all star?  If you are in the "keep JC at all costs" camp, you are essentially saying you'd be ok with the Hawks letting Cam or Hunter walk in a couple years if they aren't competing for a title and Ressler decides he isn't going into the tax.  

I'd prefer not to lose JC, but I'd be very careful about just assuming signing him to a max deal will just work itself out in the long run without any ramifications on the Hawks.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

I think the Hawks should do everything in their power to keep him because there's no obvious answer to replacing his production.  So yeah, they need to keep him.  BUT.....I would caution anyone from just assuming he will be easily moveable on a max deal if it doesn't work out in Atlanta.  At least if you are expecting some equal return.  

Keep in mind that "not working out" in Atlanta would mean that he doesn't play well enough to be a max player and is holding the team back.  IF that were the case, why would any other team give up anything of value for an overpriced non-all star?  If you are in the "keep JC at all costs" camp, you are essentially saying you'd be ok with the Hawks letting Cam or Hunter walk in a couple years if they aren't competing for a title and Ressler decides he isn't going into the tax.  

I'd prefer not to lose JC, but I'd be very careful about just assuming signing him to a max deal will just work itself out in the long run without any ramifications on the Hawks.    

This isn't about not working out here. He's our longest tenured player who for 4yrs now we've seen he works out here. This is about the best move and leverage. If keeping John means we can't afford the others we can leverage him in a trade.

I don't understand the "working out talk" with John as if we just got him on the team. John has been improving in some aspect of his game ever since he got here and is still only 23.

Teams are already willing to give him a max now. A max in John's case is about 120 mil if I'm not mistaken. All max's are not equal (based on age, yrs in league, awards/accolades). Gallo just got 20mil a year. John at about 25mil is not a bad contract nor that hard to get off if necessary.

We are pass the working out here talk with JC. He works out here. Being on a good team alone will only raise trade value and I trust Schlenk to make the right moves if necessary.

I think some may just be fearful because this is not a situation we're used to in Atlanta. We're used to having owners that won't pay or in disarray or players that don't reach the levels we anticipate. Calm down we are no longer that organization. 

A good organization wouldn't ever let a player of John's age and caliber walk when we have all the leverage. Let alone our team just made it to the ECF with the future only looking brighter ahead.

What kind of message would this organization be sending if we let John walk to our other young players? What would give them the motivation to improve every year if we're just going to get rid of them for nothing when they're contract is up? John is the 1st of the young core and believe they're all taking note and know what John brings to this organization. 

Learn from the past or history will repeat. We saw what happened to a young OKC team that didn't value their young stars enough and the ultimate dominoe affect it had. We are not trying to go that route.

It's a new day for us which means we have to have a new outlook. It's time we start getting used to what a title contending organization looks like.

Edited by sillent
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sillent said:

This isn't about not working out here. He's our longest tenured player who for 4yrs now we've seen he works out here. This is about the best move and leverage. If keeping John means we can't afford the others we can leverage him in a trade.

I don't understand the "working out talk" with John as if we just got him on the team. John has been improving in some aspect of his game ever since he got here and is still only 23.

We are pass the working out here talk with JC. He works out here. Being on a good team alone will only raise trade value and I trust Schlenk to make the right moves if necessary.

Well you are talking about different things.  The JC that we've seen the first four years IS NOT WORTH A MAX CONTRACT.  He's not consistent enough. He doesn't rank higher than 4th at his position in any statistical category.  The idea of him "working out" is how is he going to fit on a winning team and how much better can he be?  Can he continue to grow into a value that justifies a max contract.  

In this year's post season, JC got lost more times than he dominated or took over a game.  That's not to say he didn't have moments. He certainly did.  But you don't hand out max contracts to guys that only have moments.  You hand them out to guys that take over games.  JC was, for the most part, the 3th or even 4th option on most nights in the playoffs.  

26 minutes ago, sillent said:

I think some may just be fearful because this is not a situation we're used to in Atlanta. We're used to having owners that won't pay or in disarray or players that don't reach the levels we anticipate. Calm down we are no longer that organization. 

A good organization wouldn't ever let a player of John's age and caliber walk when we have all the leverage. Let alone our team just made it to the ECF with the future only looking brighter ahead.

What kind of message would this organization be sending if we let John walk to our other young players? What would give them the motivation to improve every year if we're just going to get rid of them for nothing when they're contract is up? John is the 1st of the young core and believe they're all taking note and know what John brings to this organization. 

Learn from the past or history will repeat. We saw what happened to a young OKC team that didn't value their young stars enough and the ultimate dominoe affect it had. We are not trying to go that route.

It's a new day for us which means we have to have a new outlook. It's time we start getting used to what a title contending organization looks like.

You can miss me with this condescending crap.  I know what this team is.  I know how good they are and that they still have room to grow.  I understand that this FO is different than the past circus side shows.  I also know they aren't replacing JC's production easily if they let him go. 

BUT, I also understand that they can't max out everyone.  Trae is obvious.  We all think Hunter is progressing toward that as well.  Cam, if he reaches his potential, is going to be better than JC.  So if you max JC just so he doesn't leave, you are screwing yourself down the road.  

Bottom line, if you rank the current roster in terms of their impact to the team over the next 5 years, where does JC rank?  If he's not 2nd or 3rd, at worst, impactful then he's not a max player.  And to me, Trae will absolutely have more impact, Hunter will absolutely have more impact, potentially Cam (as he progresses), potentially OO (as he progresses).  That's 4 that, to me, are highly likely to have more impact on the Hawks winning a title than JC if he doesn't keep getting better.  So stop with the he's already proven crap.  He's already proven he isn't a max player CURRENTLY.  

The hope is that he keeps improving and gets to that point.  If he does, then he'll justify the max contract and / or will have value in the market.  If he doesn't but the Hawks hand him a max deal just because they are scared of losing him, it will set the franchise back because they'll never get value for him in a trade AND could end up losing better players as cap casualties.  

This concept that they should just max him out so he doesn't leave is BAD business and is the quickest way to peaking at the ECF and never sniffing a title.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Well you are talking about different things.  The JC that we've seen the first four years IS NOT WORTH A MAX CONTRACT.  He's not consistent enough. He doesn't rank higher than 4th at his position in any statistical category.  The idea of him "working out" is how is he going to fit on a winning team and how much better can he be?  Can he continue to grow into a value that justifies a max contract.  

In this year's post season, JC got lost more times than he dominated or took over a game.  That's not to say he didn't have moments. He certainly did.  But you don't hand out max contracts to guys that only have moments.  You hand them out to guys that take over games.  JC was, for the most part, the 3th or even 4th option on most nights in the playoffs.  

You can miss me with this condescending crap.  I know what this team is.  I know how good they are and that they still have room to grow.  I understand that this FO is different than the past circus side shows.  I also know they aren't replacing JC's production easily if they let him go. 

BUT, I also understand that they can't max out everyone.  Trae is obvious.  We all think Hunter is progressing toward that as well.  Cam, if he reaches his potential, is going to be better than JC.  So if you max JC just so he doesn't leave, you are screwing yourself down the road.  

Bottom line, if you rank the current roster in terms of their impact to the team over the next 5 years, where does JC rank?  If he's not 2nd or 3rd, at worst, impactful then he's not a max player.  And to me, Trae will absolutely have more impact, Hunter will absolutely have more impact, potentially Cam (as he progresses), potentially OO (as he progresses).  That's 4 that, to me, are highly likely to have more impact on the Hawks winning a title than JC if he doesn't keep getting better.  So stop with the he's already proven crap.  He's already proven he isn't a max player CURRENTLY.  

The hope is that he keeps improving and gets to that point.  If he does, then he'll justify the max contract and / or will have value in the market.  If he doesn't but the Hawks hand him a max deal just because they are scared of losing him, it will set the franchise back because they'll never get value for him in a trade AND could end up losing better players as cap casualties.  

This concept that they should just max him out so he doesn't leave is BAD business and is the quickest way to peaking at the ECF and never sniffing a title.  

I agree with the bold statement definitely. Point is John is worth 25mil and if we have an opportunity to keep and/or leverage an asset. You don't let them walk for nothing. Nobodies paying John 200mil for 5yrs. His max caps off around 130mil. That's less than Siakim and a crew of other people I'd rather have John over.

People hear the word max and shiver. No matter what happens with John if he gets his max or not 25mil is still very moveable. You know what's not moveable? Letting John go for nothing. Sure Knight and possibly Bruno could be decent cheaper replacements. For the intangibles John brings on and off the court you can't replace that.

Chemistry is vital in the nba. Moral can easily change the reflection of wins and losses.

Moral at any job for that matter. I know as someone that has been a hard worker everywhere I've been but on top of that I bring a certain moral and atmosphere to each company. When I left so did the moral, service and some companies even had to sell off. You never know how important somebody is until that energy is no longer there.

Either way point is 25mil is very moveable. We missed the finals by 2 games with an unhealthy team and we'd be foolish not to run it back with our core in place. 

Miss me with your misunderstandings of our leverage. Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us. 

We know Trae, Hunter and Cam are our highest priorities but we can't undervalue John either. Maxing John will not stop our flow it will only mean a trade may be coming when it's time to max Hunter and Cam. It's still a win.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sillent said:

I agree with the bold statement definitely. Point is John is worth 25mil and if we have an opportunity to keep and/or leverage an asset. You don't let them walk for nothing. Nobodies paying John 200mil for 5yrs. His max caps off around 130mil. That's less than Siakim and a crew of other people I'd rather have John over.

People hear the word max and shiver. No matter what happens with John if he gets his max or not 25mil is still very moveable. You know what's not moveable? Letting John go for nothing. Sure Knight and possibly Bruno could be decent cheaper replacements. For the intangibles John brings on and off the court you can't replace that.

Chemistry is vital in the nba. Moral can easily change the reflection of wins and losses.

Moral at any job for that matter. I know as someone that has been a hard worker everywhere I've been but on top of that I bring a certain moral and atmosphere to each company. When I left so did the moral, service and some companies even had to sell off. You never know how important somebody is until that energy is no longer there.

Either way point is 25mil is very moveable. We missed the finals by 2 games with an unhealthy team and we'd be foolish not to run it back with our core in place. 

Miss me with your misunderstandings of our leverage. Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us. 

We know Trae, Hunter and Cam are our highest priorities but we can't undervalue John either. Maxing John will not stop our flow it will only mean a trade may be coming when it's time to max Hunter and Cam. It's still a win.

🤦‍♂️

Your posts are so inconsistent.  An hour ago you literally stated, "Teams are already willing to give him the max now."

And now you say, "Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us.

So which is it?  Because I'm talking about a MAX contract.  I've said all along that they should try to keep him.  But he's not a MAX player.  And by the way, his MAX deal from another team is somewhere in the 4 - $123M range which is $30.7M per year on avg.  That ain't $25M per year.  His MAX would place him in the Top 40 contracts in all the NBA.  His max puts him with Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donavon Mitchell, Branden Ingram, and Jaylen Brown among other all star and all nba players.  Is that really JC comps?   

If you want to talk about bringing him back on a less than Max deal, fine.  I keep saying they need to bring him back on a reasonable deal.  I'm simply also saying that those of you who just assume a max contract for a non-max player is "easily moveable" are being foolish.  Would any of the above teams trade those similar salaried players for JC?  

You speak as if all Travis will have to do is make a phone call and any team will be willing to take JC at 30 million.  That's laughable unless JC gets a lot better and more consistent.  

If the Hawks and JC can work a deal in the 4-$100M or 5-$120 range then great.  Sign him up.  But what happens if SA who has $60M+ to spend throws 4-$123M out there?  What do you think the Hawks should do?  That's the question.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hawkmoor said:

Can the Hawks max Collins and win a NBA Championship with the exact same top 9 or 10 players?

If the young players progress to where we all hope they do, then I think yes. But that's a big ? at this point.  That means Hunter stays healthy and keeps improving. Cam develops into an elite player. Trae stays healthy. OO continues to develop.  JC gets better. All of those things would have to happen, imo.  

The problem I think some folks don't want to see is that if all that happens, one of the young guys is going to walk due to lack of money as the Hawks aren't going to max out Trae, JC, Hunter, and Cam.  Not possible. My problem with this whole max argument is JC is, at best, probably the 4th best guy on the team once everyone reaches their "prime."  You can't pay your 4th best player like he's the 2nd best player and expect to keep the rest. 

And if he's really a number 4 guy but paid like a 2, his trade value will be squat.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

🤦‍♂️

Your posts are so inconsistent.  An hour ago you literally stated, "Teams are already willing to give him the max now."

And now you say, "Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us.

So which is it?  Because I'm talking about a MAX contract.  I've said all along that they should try to keep him.  But he's not a MAX player.  And by the way, his MAX deal from another team is somewhere in the 4 - $123M range which is $30.7M per year on avg.  That ain't $25M per year.  His MAX would place him in the Top 40 contracts in all the NBA.  His max puts him with Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donavon Mitchell, Branden Ingram, and Jaylen Brown among other all star and all nba players.  Is that really JC comps?   

If you want to talk about bringing him back on a less than Max deal, fine.  I keep saying they need to bring him back on a reasonable deal.  I'm simply also saying that those of you who just assume a max contract for a non-max player is "easily moveable" are being foolish.  Would any of the above teams trade those similar salaried players for JC?  

You speak as if all Travis will have to do is make a phone call and any team will be willing to take JC at 30 million.  That's laughable unless JC gets a lot better and more consistent.  

If the Hawks and JC can work a deal in the 4-$100M or 5-$120 range then great.  Sign him up.  But what happens if SA who has $60M+ to spend throws 4-$123M out there?  What do you think the Hawks should do?  That's the question.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=max+contract+for+john+collins&oq=Max+contract+for&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.8911j0j7&client=ms-android-mpcs-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Do your research 

 

End of conversation in bold. John can't get 123mil because he can't go over 28+ via the max rules for a player his age and eligibility. If he got 30mil I completely understand but under rules his max can't go that high. If I'm mistaken please show facts but as far as I've researched it's under 29mil. More importantly he never asked for a max only a near max contract.

I've stayed consistent but I'm starting to think/know that points aren't always understood in writing. 

My main point is John at 25mil or under doesn't hurt us. Spurs are more than likely the only organization that can cough that up and willing to go that far. Knowing that we are in good shape to have our cake and eat it too. The leverage is in our hands. If we have to give him 28mil which is the "max" he can get it still wouldn't kill us. 

My personal max I would have paid him is 130mil knowing that we still have flexibility. If it was 160mil or something like his peers was getting I'd completely feel you. I'm hoping 120mil or less but if I gave John that it would be with the understanding that his contract more than likely would mean he won't be spending that contract his full time in Atlanta.

If he gave me something reasonable like from 90-110mil he might last. Either way it's affordable and we still hold leverage regardless. The price is just an indication of how long he truly wants to be here. If he really wants to ride it out with us he'll give us a comfortable discount. Either way he's a very capable player and can be moved to get other very capable players. We win regardless.

Edited by sillent
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want JC back.  I want him on a reasonable contract.  I don't see him as a maximum, elite player.  Now, watch some team try to sign him to a max contract, if for no other reason than to mess up everything about the Atlanta Hawks.  

He and his agent should come to terms with the Hawks.  Team mustn't sell him short.  He, on the other hand, mustn't rob the Hawks blind.  

:smug:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

🤦‍♂️

Your posts are so inconsistent.  An hour ago you literally stated, "Teams are already willing to give him the max now."

And now you say, "Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us.

So which is it?  Because I'm talking about a MAX contract.  I've said all along that they should try to keep him.  But he's not a MAX player.  And by the way, his MAX deal from another team is somewhere in the 4 - $123M range which is $30.7M per year on avg.  That ain't $25M per year.  His MAX would place him in the Top 40 contracts in all the NBA.  His max puts him with Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donavon Mitchell, Branden Ingram, and Jaylen Brown among other all star and all nba players.  Is that really JC comps?   

If you want to talk about bringing him back on a less than Max deal, fine.  I keep saying they need to bring him back on a reasonable deal.  I'm simply also saying that those of you who just assume a max contract for a non-max player is "easily moveable" are being foolish.  Would any of the above teams trade those similar salaried players for JC?  

You speak as if all Travis will have to do is make a phone call and any team will be willing to take JC at 30 million.  That's laughable unless JC gets a lot better and more consistent.  

If the Hawks and JC can work a deal in the 4-$100M or 5-$120 range then great.  Sign him up.  But what happens if SA who has $60M+ to spend throws 4-$123M out there?  What do you think the Hawks should do?  That's the question.  

I'll leave it alone but all those players made an allstar team maybe except for Ingram. When you make an allstar team, all nba or anything of that caliber or in the contract than yes the max cost a whole lot more. Thankfully for us JC did not and therefore under nba rules cannot receive what they are getting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

I think the Hawks should do everything in their power to keep him because there's no obvious answer to replacing his production.  So yeah, they need to keep him.  BUT.....I would caution anyone from just assuming he will be easily moveable on a max deal if it doesn't work out in Atlanta.  At least if you are expecting some equal return.  

Keep in mind that "not working out" in Atlanta would mean that he doesn't play well enough to be a max player and is holding the team back.  IF that were the case, why would any other team give up anything of value for an overpriced non-all star?  If you are in the "keep JC at all costs" camp, you are essentially saying you'd be ok with the Hawks letting Cam or Hunter walk in a couple years if they aren't competing for a title and Ressler decides he isn't going into the tax.  

I'd prefer not to lose JC, but I'd be very careful about just assuming signing him to a max deal will just work itself out in the long run without any ramifications on the Hawks.    

John's skill set is not that of a high flyer or a guy who gets by on Athleticism.  His game is built on efficiency and effort.   He's a very young guy... if he's not working out... next year, there will still be people interested in the efficiency and effort guy.  It's like Ben Simmons.  In comparison he has gaping Holes in his game... but people see the positives and the youth and are willing to give him a shot. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, sillent said:

I agree with the bold statement definitely. Point is John is worth 25mil and if we have an opportunity to keep and/or leverage an asset. You don't let them walk for nothing. Nobodies paying John 200mil for 5yrs. His max caps off around 130mil. That's less than Siakim and a crew of other people I'd rather have John over.

People hear the word max and shiver. No matter what happens with John if he gets his max or not 25mil is still very moveable. You know what's not moveable? Letting John go for nothing. Sure Knight and possibly Bruno could be decent cheaper replacements. For the intangibles John brings on and off the court you can't replace that.

Chemistry is vital in the nba. Moral can easily change the reflection of wins and losses.

Moral at any job for that matter. I know as someone that has been a hard worker everywhere I've been but on top of that I bring a certain moral and atmosphere to each company. When I left so did the moral, service and some companies even had to sell off. You never know how important somebody is until that energy is no longer there.

Either way point is 25mil is very moveable. We missed the finals by 2 games with an unhealthy team and we'd be foolish not to run it back with our core in place. 

Miss me with your misunderstandings of our leverage. Take max out the contract and put a number on it. Total max for John is 28mil. More than likely 25mil may be the max offered. That's reasonable for John and moveable for us. 

We know Trae, Hunter and Cam are our highest priorities but we can't undervalue John either. Maxing John will not stop our flow it will only mean a trade may be coming when it's time to max Hunter and Cam. It's still a win.

I would actually take the max off and add a 5th year.   I think I said 5 years 133 starts at 21 Million.  This opens the door for us to sign him for less than the max.  I would also give him a 4th year opt out.   In the case that he believes that he can get more than we're offering then. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sillent said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=max+contract+for+john+collins&oq=Max+contract+for&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.8911j0j7&client=ms-android-mpcs-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Do your research 

 

End of conversation in bold. John can't get 123mil because he can't go over 28+ via the max rules for a player his age and eligibility. If he got 30mil I completely understand but under rules his max can't go that high. If I'm mistaken please show facts but as far as I've researched it's under 29mil. More importantly he never asked for a max only a near max contract.

I've stayed consistent but I'm starting to think/know that points aren't always understood in writing. 

My main point is John at 25mil or under doesn't hurt us. Spurs are more than likely the only organization that can cough that up and willing to go that far. Knowing that we are in good shape to have our cake and eat it too. The leverage is in our hands. If we have to give him 28mil which is the "max" he can get it still wouldn't kill us. 

My personal max I would have paid him is 130mil knowing that we still have flexibility. If it was 160mil or something like his peers was getting I'd completely feel you. I'm hoping 120mil or less but if I gave John that it would be with the understanding that his contract more than likely would mean he won't be spending that contract his full time in Atlanta.

If he gave me something reasonable like from 90-110mil he might last. Either way it's affordable and we still hold leverage regardless. The price is just an indication of how long he truly wants to be here. If he really wants to ride it out with us he'll give us a comfortable discount. Either way he's a very capable player and can be moved to get other very capable players. We win regardless.

 

1 minute ago, sillent said:

I'll leave it alone but all those players made an allstar team maybe except for Ingram. When you make an allstar team, all nba or anything of that caliber or in the contract than yes the max cost a whole lot more. Thankfully for us JC did not and therefore under nba rules cannot receive what they are getting.

I've done the research.  I'm still not sure you know what you are talking about.  From what I can find, as a player with under 6 years experience, he can "max" at 25.5% of the Salary Cap.  At a projected cap of $112,000,000, that's a starting salary of $28,560,000. If he signed with the Hawks, he can do 5 years with 8% bumps which equates to 5-$167M or an avg annual of $33.5M.  If he signed with another team or Hawks match another offer, the "max" is 4yrs with 5% bumps which equates to 4-$123M or an avg of $30.7M per year.  

That's the same Max neighborhood that those other all star and all nba players are living in.  JC ain't that.  

You keep saying $25M and then say he can get the max but $25M isn't the max.  I don't know where you getting that but it's not true.  

Here's an excerpt from an article by The Ringer talking about JC...

"Walking away from a number that big certainly raised some eyebrows, but the logic underpinning it is simple: Collins has said plainly that he “definitely” feels like he’s “in max contract contention,” in line for the kind of full-freight deal that draft classmates Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donovan Mitchell, and De’Aaron Fox got. Rather than taking the eight-figure deal Atlanta offered and leaving money on the table, he decided to bet on himself balling out hard enough in Year 4 to entice some team into tendering a max offer sheet when he hits the restricted market."

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/3/22/22343534/john-collins-atlanta-hawks-trade-deadline

 

You can't agree that he's not in the class of Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, Mitchell, etc.... AND say he should get a max deal.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

If the young players progress to where we all hope they do, then I think yes. But that's a big ? at this point.  That means Hunter stays healthy and keeps improving. Cam develops into an elite player. Trae stays healthy. OO continues to develop.  JC gets better. All of those things would have to happen, imo.  

The problem I think some folks don't want to see is that if all that happens, one of the young guys is going to walk due to lack of money as the Hawks aren't going to max out Trae, JC, Hunter, and Cam.  Not possible. My problem with this whole max argument is JC is, at best, probably the 4th best guy on the team once everyone reaches their "prime."  You can't pay your 4th best player like he's the 2nd best player and expect to keep the rest. 

And if he's really a number 4 guy but paid like a 2, his trade value will be squat.  

Besides OO John Collins will still have great value because of position. Most of our other players do not and cannot play his position. You don't make trades based on what number of ranking you are on the team. 

You make trades based on positions of need. No team is going to be like we really need an athletic guy who can rebound well, shoot 3's, improve every year but we need Trae in the trade because we don't want your 4th best player. He's the 1st and could possibly be the second best at his position on our team if you're trying to use that logic. Just like if I need a wing or guard I'm not looking JC. 

People trade because they value what you have and have a need for them. It doesn't matter where they rank on your team. If you got a contending team you could have 5 - 10 good players. That doesn't mean the 10 guy doesn't have high value. The 10th guy is typically the 2nd guy at his position.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

 

I've done the research.  I'm still not sure you know what you are talking about.  From what I can find, as a player with under 6 years experience, he can "max" at 25.5% of the Salary Cap.  At a projected cap of $112,000,000, that's a starting salary of $28,560,000. If he signed with the Hawks, he can do 5 years with 8% bumps which equates to 5-$167M or an avg annual of $33.5M.  If he signed with another team or Hawks match another offer, the "max" is 4yrs with 5% bumps which equates to 4-$123M or an avg of $30.7M per year.  

That's the same Max neighborhood that those other all star and all nba players are living in.  JC ain't that.  

You keep saying $25M and then say he can get the max but $25M isn't the max.  I don't know where you getting that but it's not true.  

Here's an excerpt from an article by The Ringer talking about JC...

"Walking away from a number that big certainly raised some eyebrows, but the logic underpinning it is simple: Collins has said plainly that he “definitely” feels like he’s “in max contract contention,” in line for the kind of full-freight deal that draft classmates Jayson Tatum, Bam Adebayo, Donovan Mitchell, and De’Aaron Fox got. Rather than taking the eight-figure deal Atlanta offered and leaving money on the table, he decided to bet on himself balling out hard enough in Year 4 to entice some team into tendering a max offer sheet when he hits the restricted market."

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/3/22/22343534/john-collins-atlanta-hawks-trade-deadline

 

You can't agree that he's not in the class of Tatum, Brown, Adebayo, Mitchell, etc.... AND say he should get a max deal.  

 

Check the date. What is the max for John right now?

Writers get paid for articles meaning they need to write frequently right or wrong. What are the actual numbers? It's no more than a little over 28mil. You can't claim facts from an article written mid-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sillent said:

Check the date. What is the max for John right now?

Writers get paid for articles meaning they need to write frequently right or wrong. What are the actual numbers? It's no more than a little over 28mil. You can't claim facts from an article written mid-season.

Point is Trae Young's max in 4 years can reach 160 + because he's reached certain criteria (allstar and other record breaking numbers). John didn't reach criteria for his max to be that high which leaves John closer to a 120mil max. That's why I said take "max" out the picture because all max's are not the same.

If Trae young makes an all nba team his max could go to 200mil. John didn't make any of that and his contract is up so his max is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...