Filling out the roster


sturt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

2 way deals need to be finalized at the start of the seaon.

They do, and/but correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that's specifically if you're going to move an E10 player into a two-way contract... that is, that's important to this situation with Etienne, but otherwise, if you want to let go of a 2-way player and replace him with someone who isn't otherwise under contract, that's all legal.

But yeah... would need to assess BogBog's status right before the season started as to his ETA, if not already back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
18 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

You want me to quit my day job? 

Nah. In this case, what's a matter of quitting your day job for you would just be a matter of top-of-her-head knowledge for Jay. Let her take this one.

 

😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Nah. In this case, what's a matter of quitting your day job for you would just be a matter of top-of-her-head knowledge for Jay. Let her take this one.

 

😉

Doesn’t matter who takes it, we’ve all Frederick Weis’d you at one time or another. :approved: 💯 

image.gif.eb8c75fca8f207483020f1bb3dc3c4ac.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

 

image.gif.eb8c75fca8f207483020f1bb3dc3c4ac.gif

 

Whoa. That's rich considering that source... hehe

In other news, Richard Nixon has announced

 

richard-nixon-republican.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the exact date for being over or under the tax comes, this team will make moves.  They will not be just a few dollars over.  They will be over a large amount, or they will be under.  Not that the tax would be a lot if they are just over.  It would not be.  However, they would put themselves in a position of being repeat offenders and they would miss out on the payoff for being under, which is a hefty amount.

Don't lose a pocket full of money when you don't have to!

😎

Edited by Gray Mule
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
18 hours ago, sturt said:

A response from Ressler might go something like,

 

"A player of Kevin's caliber isn't a difference maker, at least not yet. And we're not yet prepared to pronounce this team a 'contender,' at least not yet. Had either one of those conditions been different, and most certainly if both had, we'd be 'in hard'."

I think that is a fair reading but I also think the same logic applies to whether we end up in the tax.  If Ressler thinks the team is a contender then that door is open.  If he isn't ready to pronounce the team a contender, then we avoid the tax and delay the repeater penalties by a year when we (presumably) go in next year.  By your logic, Ressler doesn't view the team as a contender today so it would take them changing his mind for us to end up in the tax.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, AHF said:

Ressler doesn't view the team as a contender today so it would take them changing his mind for us to end up in the tax.  

This is what I think right now.  I think this year is the year Trae/Murray/Hunter/OO have to prove that they can be core pieces of a championship squad, and only then will Ressler dig into his pocketbook.  I don't include JC/Capela there because I think they are the most likely trade pieces when making moves to get more talent on board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think that is a fair reading but I also think the same logic applies to whether we end up in the tax.  If Ressler thinks the team is a contender then that door is open.  If he isn't ready to pronounce the team a contender, then we avoid the tax and delay the repeater penalties by a year when we (presumably) go in next year.  By your logic, Ressler doesn't view the team as a contender today so it would take them changing his mind for us to end up in the tax.  

We will get under i'm sure of it.   I don't think he even said contender.  I think it was even more specific.   I think if we aren't 1 or 2 in the conference then he isn't all in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
27 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

We will get under i'm sure of it.   I don't think he even said contender.  I think it was even more specific.   I think if we aren't 1 or 2 in the conference then he isn't all in. 

For clarity - Tony's comments on 'The Tax'

Quote

 

“We’re going to pay what we have to pay,” Ressler said. “Sometimes owners set a tone — and I’m trying to set a very clear tone — sometimes we say some things one season that may not pertain to the next. Going into the tax doesn’t scare us. Obviously, you want to spend money intelligently. Obviously, you want to run a good business. For whatever it’s worth, I do not look at going into the tax as only possible if we’re competing for a championship that season. Our job is to go into the tax when it’s good business, to position ourselves for greatness. We do not fear the tax. We do not fear spending money. We fully expect Atlanta to be a truly attractive marketplace for (whoever) considers playing here. Money is not going to be our obstacle.”

If we are going into the tax this year, we'd be really 'going into the tax' to make it worthwhile to pay the repeater the following year.  Being a couple million over this year does not make good business sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

For clarity - Tony's comments on 'The Tax'

If we are going into the tax this year, we'd be really 'going into the tax' to make it worthwhile to pay the repeater the following year.  Being a couple million over this year does not make good business sense.

Wow that's a different quote than i've seen before.   I have no idea what I saw reported but anyway I guess i'll say to Tony

tenor.gif 

 

There's really not much justification to trading Kev if you're ready to go into the tax.   There is some in order to get a pick back or maybe setup some other moves but right now you can't really convince me that if money was truly no object that we do that trade. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, AHF said:

By your logic, Ressler doesn't view the team as a contender today so it would take them changing his mind for us to end up in the tax.  

Right.

 

Today = current roster.

 

Of course, a new assessment, potentially different but not necessarily, would be made if the roster in one of the rotation slots changed tomorrow... or, say September 1 when camp's earlier suggestion of what Schlields could be pursuing could actually come to fruition finally.

In other words, if you were able to make a deal for anyone in this range of players who the front office considered a difference maker above what Huerter was likely to be... ie, making something in the range of the low-to-mid teens, and no more than $17,421,775, then perhaps there's some reassessment.

I find only three wings who meet that criteria:

- OG Anunoby ($17.4m)

- Jordan Clarkson ($13.3m)

- Josh Hart ($13.0m)

So, theoretically, if you could replace Justin Holiday with any one of those three, paying tax would be a serious consideration. Of those, both Anunoby and Hart at one time were considered on the block, but those rumors died a long time ago. And that leaves Clarkson... on a team that, if anyone is expected to deal before the season, it's his.

That would almost have to be the target, then.

(And/but you could make that trade w/o flipping your $3.6m trade exception for an asset like Sterling Brown as a component.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

They will be over a large amount, or they will be under. 

I believe the tiers are in $5m increments, fwiw. If they were to lose JDay and Mo and get Clarkson in return, that puts them right at $5m-ish over the threshold, with 13 players under contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Being a couple million over this year does not make good business sense.

 

If there's one reliable thing on the Squawk it's that Jay almost never conflicts with AHF's comments, and as often as possible, rushes to support his assertions in whatever ways imaginable.

I'm. Just. Sayin. A lot threads over a lot posts over a lot of years stand in support of that observation.

Free country. You're allowed to be that way. It's fine.

As is... your interpretation of Ressler's words, Jay, is fine,

But let's just be clear... them's your words... your interpretation.

Not a crazy interpretation. Reasonable. But not quite so absolute as the way you wrote that sentence.

To wit...... one should be able to imagine a scenario when a deal would make sense, even if it puts you a couple of million over... ie, can't leave the player--his talent level, his contract, his age/health--and what it costs you to get him out of that equation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, macdaddy said:

There's really not much justification to trading Kev if you're ready to go into the tax.   There is some in order to get a pick back or maybe setup some other moves but right now you can't really convince me that if money was truly no object that we do that trade. 

I had that same reaction, and said as much in multiple posts.

But what camp offered about a month (?) ago (ie, that they were still considering ideas for upgrade) had me reconsidering. And now that I realize that we're literally a week away from actually being able to deal Mo and JDay, I'm intrigued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, sturt said:

 

If there's one reliable thing on the Squawk it's that Jay almost never conflicts with AHF's comments, and as often as possible, rushes to support his assertions in whatever ways imaginable.

I'm. Just. Sayin. A lot threads over a lot posts over a lot of years stand in support of that observation.

Free country. You're allowed to be that way. It's fine.

As is... your interpretation of Ressler's words, Jay, is fine,

But let's just be clear... them's your words... your interpretation.

Not a crazy interpretation. Reasonable. But not quite so absolute as the way you wrote that sentence.

To wit...... one should be able to imagine a scenario when a deal would make sense, even if it puts you a couple of million over... ie, can't leave the player--his talent level, his contract, his age/health--and what it costs you to get him out of that equation.

 

...and I stand by my assessment of the Luxury Tax as it relates to the Hawks this season with the players we currently have on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, sturt said:

As is... your interpretation of Ressler's words, Jay, is fine,

Actually, Let me clarify....my posting of Resslers actually comments and my statement below it was not a direct interpretation of what I think Ressler means, but rather my general thoughts about how teams operate that are a 'few' million over the tax. It most instances teams try and get under the tax to avoid repeater penalties.

Hawks have been a Luxury Tax payer for 2 years, for $4.3 million over the last 21 years. Good for 27th in league total payments.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markdeeks/2022/07/01/a-complete-history-of-nba-luxury-tax-payments-20012022/?sh=32a81c81432f

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
18 hours ago, sturt said:

Right.

 

Today = current roster.

 

Of course, a new assessment, potentially different but not necessarily, would be made if the roster in one of the rotation slots changed tomorrow... or, say September 1 when camp's earlier suggestion of what Schlields could be pursuing could actually come to fruition finally.

In other words, if you were able to make a deal for anyone in this range of players who the front office considered a difference maker above what Huerter was likely to be... ie, making something in the range of the low-to-mid teens, and no more than $17,421,775, then perhaps there's some reassessment.

I find only three wings who meet that criteria:

- OG Anunoby ($17.4m)

- Jordan Clarkson ($13.3m)

- Josh Hart ($13.0m)

So, theoretically, if you could replace Justin Holiday with any one of those three, paying tax would be a serious consideration. Of those, both Anunoby and Hart at one time were considered on the block, but those rumors died a long time ago. And that leaves Clarkson... on a team that, if anyone is expected to deal before the season, it's his.

That would almost have to be the target, then.

(And/but you could make that trade w/o flipping your $3.6m trade exception for an asset like Sterling Brown as a component.)

I see two paths to us paying the tax:

  1. We Land a Stud.  Anunoby might be scraping the bottom of the barrel for this or would be too little.  This path sees us landing someone the front office believes could transform us from non-contender into contender.
  2. We Are Already Contenders.  This is the only way I could see us flipping for someone like Josh Hart who is a nice add to your rotation.  If we are already looking like a top team and Ressler is convinced we are already contenders then adding someone like Clarkson or Hart might be possible. 

I don't think we pull the trigger if we are on pace to win say 48 games or something (i.e., not a clear elite team) like that unless it is for a stud (think names like Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, Ben Simmons, etc. more than Josh Hart and Jordan Clarkson).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.