HAWKS ARE NOT LOOKING TO TRADE!!

[Gray Mule]

WE'RE ON A ROLL! 

Why mess up a good thing!

Gloom, despair and agony on me.  Sound familiar?  Sure, it does.  When the Hawks are losing, this is our theme song.  We want to trade our entire team for future draft picks and use 15 players on 10-day contracts to finish the season.  Atlanta's front office refuses to give our players to whoever wants them, and we're upset.  

Sneaked up on us, didn't it.  We weren't expecting this win streak.  Now our rose-colored glasses fit much better.  Maybe some of our players are better than we thought.  Maybe Quin isn't as dumb as we thought.  Maybe our front office is right.  Our players are worth something after all.

Squawk posters are both happy and sad.  Can't be both, can we?  Sure, we can.  We're happy because we're winning.  We're sad because everything we thought bad about the Hawks wasn't exactly correct.  This Hawk team ain't great but it ain't terrible either!!

 

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

Gloom, despair and agony on me.  Sound familiar?

(Tragically, Gray, I suspect it does not sound familiar to very many of the congregation gathered here in 2024.... hehehe.)

 

[JayBirdHawk]

The FO should have a plan right. 

3 straight wins should not deviate from the plan, whatever it is. If it does, then they have no plan at all. 

Have a plan, implement plan, stick to the plan. They can't be reactionary.

[sturt]

11 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

WE'RE ON A ROLL! 

Why mess up a good thing!

Gloom, despair and agony on me.  Sound familiar?  Sure, it does.  When the Hawks are losing, this is our theme song.  We want to trade our entire team for future draft picks and use 15 players on 10-day contracts to finish the season.  Atlanta's front office refuses to give our players to whoever wants them, and we're upset.  

Sneaked up on us, didn't it.  We weren't expecting this win streak.  Now our rose-colored glasses fit much better.  Maybe some of our players are better than we thought.  Maybe Quin isn't as dumb as we thought.  Maybe our front office is right.  Our players are worth something after all.

Squawk posters are both happy and sad.  Can't be both, can we?  Sure, we can.  We're happy because we're winning.  We're sad because everything we thought bad about the Hawks wasn't exactly correct.  This Hawk team ain't great but it ain't terrible either!!

 

 

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The FO should have a plan right. 

3 straight wins should not deviate from the plan, whatever it is. If it does, then they have no plan at all. 

Have a plan, implement plan, stick to the plan. They can't be reactionary.

 

The difference in these two takes?

 

The first recognizes this thing is only a consumer entertainment choice... enjoy what you can while you can and don't apologize for that... even revel in it.

The second knows better with the frontal cortex, but the limbic system intervenes, and implicit in those words, wants so desperately for there to be some greater plan that actually holds winning... this season, next season, or some season someday... paramount. But alas... lucidity reminds... it's all about the spreadsheet 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

 

The difference in these two takes?

 

The first recognizes this thing is only a consumer entertainment choice... enjoy what you can while you can and don't apologize for that... even revel in it.

The second knows better with the frontal cortex, but the limbic system intervenes, and implicit in those words, wants so desperately for there to be some greater plan that actually holds winning... this season, next season, or some season someday... paramount. But alas... lucidity reminds... it's all about the spreadsheet 

 

 

 

One side... The other side... and the truth.

The truth is that the owner doesn't want to pay the luxury tax.. so somewhere between now and the offseason, somebody will be moved for a 20% off coupon for a bottle of Gain detergent. 

Fans want it to be based on a plan.  However, the truth says, the only plan is for the owner to make money. 

[Gray Mule]

14 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The FO should have a plan right. 

3 straight wins should not deviate from the plan, whatever it is. If it does, then they have no plan at all. 

Have a plan, implement plan, stick to the plan. They can't be reactionary.

We do have a plan.  Notice, I said that our front office isn't giving away our players.  

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, Gray Mule said:

We do have a plan.  Notice, I said that our front office isn't giving away our players.  

Lol, true....and to stay out of the tax.

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, Diesel said:

The truth is that the owner doesn't want to pay the luxury tax

 

[sturt]

18 minutes ago, Diesel said:

somebody will be moved for a 20% off coupon for a bottle of Gain detergent. 

Hold out for Tide, Landry!!! None of that cheap stuff! The equipment manager is beggin ya.

[BrazilianHawk]

20 minutes ago, Diesel said:

One side... The other side... and the truth.

The truth is that the owner doesn't want to pay the luxury tax.. so somewhere between now and the offseason, somebody will be moved for a 20% off coupon for a bottle of Gain detergent. 

Fans want it to be based on a plan.  However, the truth says, the only plan is for the owner to make money. 

Sad... but so true. 

 

We're delusional if we think this messed up ownership and FO will ever lead us to a title. We'd better enjoy while we can.

[Diesel]

18 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

Yeah, Sturt, I see you have made this point a few times but it doesn't hold water NOW.

The facts are:

• We have never paid he Luxury Tax under this owner.  Despite the claims of the owner that he will pay it for a winning team. 

What exactly does that mean?  Does that mean that he expects the teams to go out and put themselves in a position to win the chip before he thinks about paying the LT?  If that's the case then he has admitted that he will not pay the LT for players that potentially can put us in that position.   He's saying that for him to pay the LT, we will have to already be there.  So he has bitten down hard on this Golden State Philosophy where they built a team through the draft and cheap FAs... and then won a chip and after they won a chip, they were rewarded by the owners by keeping the high priced team together. 

I hate to tell him but Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are not walking through that door.  Team building is an art.   Part of it is that you have to have some financial resources in order to facilitate winning. 

• For the past few seasons, we have pawned off established players for cap space and replaced them with rookie contracts.

So we trade for DJ... Good Job!  Immediately, we trade Kev.    We trade Cam.   We start to dismantle all of our depth.  What was the point of trading Kev?  Was there something that we needed for him?  He's not a world beater.. I got that but what was it that we wanted in that trade?    Then we did something similar with JC?  What was it that we needed?    We traded JC for a lack of FrontCourt Depth.   The tell tell sign of most trades is what did you get back?  We didn't get anything back in both of those cases.  And we did it because we had other players we expected to step up that would be Cheaper (Hunter, JJ).  If you say Cap flexibility, then you need to be slapped.   It's easier to trade experienced players than it is to bring in good FAs...IN Atlanta.

• We have money from JC's deal that we are not going to spend.

Right now, we have a whole lot of exemptions that can make our team better.  We're not going to spend any of it.   Let me know when we do. 

• We advertise trading our best player for Expirings and Picks.

This is the last evidence of an owner whose marching orders involve running the team on the cheap.  It's a slap in the face what we want for DJ.  We don't want salary back.  Honestly, there's not much wrong with DLo.. (I don't want him) but the only thing wrong with him from a trade standpoint is that he's signed for the next 2 years.   I don't want him but he shoots well from 3.   I don't want him but he plays decent defense.  I don't want him but he averages 17 ppg.  Instead, we would consider a sad player like Grimes because his contract is cheaper and will keep us out of the LT.

 

 You can try to argue that it's financially responsible.   But the truth is that it's not going into the LT for the sake of not going into the LT... It does nothing to help the product on the floor.   It actually hurts the product on the floor.   It's the living example of Penny wise and Pound foolish because the team  will get no closer to a championship and eventually, the moves will bring the end closer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

You can try to argue that it's financially responsible.   But the truth is that it's not going into the LT for the sake of not going into the LT... It does nothing to help the product on the floor.   It actually hurts the product on the floor.   It's the living example of Penny wise and Pound foolish because the team  will get no closer to a championship and eventually, the moves will bring the end closer. 

Weird.

I may never have read a response in all my years that was more divorced from the (vivid, or so I'd thought) point of the post it was supposedly responding to.... hehe.

You appear to think I'm saying something, Dies, that I'm absolutely not saying. Whatever you took from the "point made a few times"... it somehow wasn't the point intended in any of those few times.

 

Is it financially responsible, yes. 

But it's not avoiding the LT for the sake of avoiding the LT... as was mentioned in another thread, that's one part of a larger equation... a bigger picture... ie, avoiding going into the red, and to the contrary, working the NBA revenue sharing equation in every facet of that complicated equation (including but not limited to the LT) to maximize profit.

I propose that conventional wisdom would suggest that 2023 revenues are more likely than not, down... and so, even avoiding the LT isn't, on its own, meaningful to the bigger picture.

And that means, it may not be enough to have already shed two contracts in consecutive years with no on-court benefit. More spreadsheet decisions may be necessary even still.

Plausibly. We can't know that for a fact, but if you're not winning at some level that inspires post season hope, it's unlikely that revenues from tix, merch and anything else is going to be inspiring, either... and perhaps even more depressing... the plan for the next season almost has to be affected as well.

 

Eat drink and be merry, folks. Savor every win in the time you get to savor it. This owner isn't going away unless he comes to believe it's a drag on his overall portfolio.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The frontcourt is still the major weakness of this team.  We still have a size issue and a talent issue.

If our backcourt ( Trae - Murray - Bogi ) aren't playing at All-Star / All-NBA levels, we're in trouble.

JJ is a great piece, but it's too much to ask of him to consistently play at the same level that Trae - Murray - Bogi play at.

We need more help.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Weird.

I may never have read a response in all my years that was more divorced from the (vivid, or so I'd thought) point of the post it was supposedly responding to.... hehe.

You appear to think I'm saying something, Dies, that I'm absolutely not saying. Whatever you took from the "point made a few times"... it somehow wasn't the point intended in any of those few times.

 

Is it financially responsible, yes. 

But it's not avoiding the LT for the sake of avoiding the LT... as was mentioned in another thread, that's one part of a larger equation... a bigger picture... ie, avoiding going into the red, and to the contrary, working the NBA revenue sharing equation in every facet of that complicated equation (including but not limited to the LT) to maximize profit.

I propose that conventional wisdom would suggest that 2023 revenues are more likely than not, down... and so, even avoiding the LT isn't, on its own, meaningful to the bigger picture.

And that means, it may not be enough to have already shed two contracts in consecutive years with no on-court benefit. More spreadsheet decisions may be necessary even still.

Plausibly. We can't know that for a fact, but if you're not winning at some level that inspires post season hope, it's unlikely that revenues from tix, merch and anything else is going to be inspiring, either... and perhaps even more depressing... the plan for the next season almost has to be affected as well.

 

Eat drink and be merry, folks. Savor every win in the time you get to savor it. This owner isn't going away unless he comes to believe it's a drag on his overall portfolio.

 

The predicted owner's income from NBA from 4-2022..

 

The average turned out to be 205 Million in 2022.   So Ressler is a little under the predicted average.  

Your statement was " conventional wisdom would suggest that 2023 revenues are more likely than not, down... and so, even avoiding the LT isn't, on its own, meaningful to the bigger picture."

So, let's say that his revenue is down.  Say instead of 199 Million, we're talking 150 Million.   The Luxury tax adds another monster coming to eat away at his revenue.   What I am saying and I think you're agreeing is that Ressler doesn't want to take a LT hit so he thinks more of his profits than he does with whatever we're putting on the floor.    Now if you're saying something different.. let me know. 

 

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

The frontcourt is still the major weakness of this team.  We still have a size issue and a talent issue.

If our backcourt ( Trae - Murray - Bogi ) aren't playing at All-Star / All-NBA levels, we're in trouble.

JJ is a great piece, but it's too much to ask of him to consistently play at the same level that Trae - Murray - Bogi play at.

We need more help.

I can't disagree.  We tend to let OO off the hook in these type discussions.   OO had a good game against the Suns.  His good play makes a difference.. because it covers for Murray's bad game yesterday.   We have a fine balance.  With Hunter out, the balance becomes much more fine.  We have to play almost perfect when Hunter is not suited up.  That is the root of our problem. 

If we are win now, then we can't wait for OO and JJ to step up when there is no sign of Hunter.   Every other player can play within their role and expectation.. but OO and JJ has to have good games for us to win. 

 

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, Diesel said:

What I am saying and I think you're agreeing is that Ressler doesn't want to take a LT hit so he thinks more of his profits than he does with whatever we're putting on the floor.    Now if you're saying something different.. let me know. 

Someone might have to mediate. I'm evidently really bad at this communication thing.

 

I'm agreeing that Ressler doesn't want to take a LT hit.

I'm agreeing that Ressler's profits is his paramount concern. (Honestly, wasn't I the first one to conclude that and lay out the evidence here... to a point of ad nauseum as far as some were concerned?)

 

The LT is one part of the equation. See Coon FAQ question/answer #21. It's an important part. It's not the only part. And so, it's not the bottom line.

 

10 minutes ago, Diesel said:

 

What is this? And what is the source for this? Dunno.

[Gray Mule]

Hawks have their rookies "down on the farm" and learning.  They will be ready if and when they are called to replace whoever is traded away.  Too many injuries have messed up our season so far.

Owner wants to be in position so that, if this team is pretty good and there is a player or two available that would push us over the top, he can pounce.  There's no need to grab high priced players just so we can brag that we have them.  Leave this to the Lakers!

[deester11]

2 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

Hawks have their rookies "down on the farm" and learning.  They will be ready if and when they are called to replace whoever is traded away.  Too many injuries have messed up our season so far.

Owner wants to be in position so that, if this team is pretty good and there is a player or two available that would push us over the top, he can pounce.  There's no need to grab high priced players just so we can brag that we have them.  Leave this to the Lakers!

Gray...I love your eternally young optimism...but this reeks of drinking the kool aid...

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

What is this? And what is the source for this? Dunno

Like I said, it's a prediction from 2022. 

LT still eats into BRI for a team/owner.   Even with a prorated revenue share.  Hence, the prorated revenue share is more of a Constant and is calculable in the defining of how much the owner looks to make.  That's because the market size is not going to change drastically.  If Ressler is counting the amount that is going out.. he already knows about the prorated revenue share and that's already factored into his count.   So the Constant is somewhat insignificant in the application. 

It's what you do as a homeowner if you have a gas bill that you have told the gas company (or power company) that you want to make equal payments.   The gas company figures out how much your bill should be per month and you pay that.   However, it doesn't mean that you can't figure out how much you have to spend on groceries because you have this gas bill.   Your gas bill is not going to fluctuate with the season any more.. so you know how much it should be..  It's constant.   Therefore,  That $55.00 steak that you were going to buy.. you need to figure out if it's in your budget ..   The gas bill is not the major factor.   The grocery budget is. 

 

[sturt]

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

Like I said, it's a prediction from 2022. 

Thanks for the link. (You may have said something somewhere, but wherever that was, it wasn't a post I read... or, naturally, I wouldn't ask).

Next question. Why do you call it a "prediction?" The author of the write-up you're citing says flat out...

Quote

we can make suggestions based on other information available publically and make a good guess of how much NBA owners really make.

That line alone in my book, Dies, should compel any ordinarily intelligent person to wonder about the confidence one should place in the author... and the reliability of his information. And when I looked, I found a young man (by virtue of his graduation photo) who claims to have an MBA... from where, he doesn't choose to say. Pardon my skepticism, but when I was in grad school, we spoke routinely about drawing inferences from other information available. And we spelled publicly without the A and extra L. Perhaps the claim to having an MBA is valid. But to wonder about the reputation of the institution that granted the degree is altogether reasonable.

Junaid goes on to say...

Quote

Their net income is following:

... which is different from what you said, that it was a prediction... not sure where you got that idea, but whatever.

Then, as for his source for asserting the numbers he asserted... the main thing I was trying to decipher all this time... here's what young Junaid Waqar points to...

Quote

Team Turn over source (statista.com)

Big problem.

(But only if one bothers to go there and look for that, of course. Not a problem at all if you're the kind of person who subscribes to the premise "if it's on the internet, it must be true.")

There is no such "team turn over" information on statista.com. (At least, none that I could uncover, but feel free to have at it.)

So did our young blogger just make up numbers? Well, for now, that's as good of a theory as any. My general preference is to give people a benefit of a doubt until they prove they're not worthy of that benefit. So, maybe just maybe he found some other numbers that he used to try to deduce a number. I'd like to think he, at least, had that much integrity, so I'm going to be satisfied with it.

But the point remains. We have no clue where these numbers came from, and no reason to presume they hold up to scrutiny... especially since he misled readers to believe that he was providing the explicit source for his numbers, when he did not.

(What does he even mean by "team turn over?" I'm assuming he means the amount that teams turn over to the league, but not 100% on that.)

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

LT still eats into BRI for a team/owner.   Even with a prorated revenue share.  Hence, the prorated revenue share is more of a Constant and is calculable in the defining of how much the owner looks to make.  That's because the market size is not going to change drastically.  If Ressler is counting the amount that is going out.. he already knows about the prorated revenue share and that's already factored into his count.   So the Constant is somewhat insignificant in the application. 

It's what you do as a homeowner if you have a gas bill that you have told the gas company (or power company) that you want to make equal payments.   The gas company figures out how much your bill should be per month and you pay that.   However, it doesn't mean that you can't figure out how much you have to spend on groceries because you have this gas bill.   Your gas bill is not going to fluctuate with the season any more.. so you know how much it should be..  It's constant.   Therefore,  That $55.00 steak that you were going to buy.. you need to figure out if it's in your budget ..   The gas bill is not the major factor.   The grocery budget is. 

Let's use your analogy... that's fine.

At the end of the year, you're trying to have brought home more than you spent... actually, more than that... to profit as much as you can profit. Can we agree?

So. The gas bill may be mostly a constant, sure. And thus, if you see a decrease in takehome pay (revenue), there's not a lot you can do to impact that bottom line by cutting back on that. Even the budget for eating isn't terribly flexible, though there may be some wiggle room there, especially if you've been eating out a lot.

The significant issue, if your income is down year over year, is to reduce the most significant discretionary numbers in the household budget. For that, you're going to consider the practicalities of downsizing. The house? Probably not, but maybe. More analogous to this situation you and I are discussing, though, are the 15 cars you have in your driveway... sure you need them all to run your business, but do you really need all those sports cars... can your business survive better if your monthly payments were for less valuable cars but ones that would get the job done?

 

And here's the rub, then. How much you're going to profit under a situation when income has decreased is most dependent on how you're dealing with the biggest numbers in that expense column.

I'm not really sure why we even are having to have this conversation, just candidly. This is pretty simple stuff once you agree... and you and I appear to agree... that the owner's paramount concern is maximizing profits... and that, even the pursuit of winning is somewhat driven by ego but also largely driven by what he understands winning does to drive revenue, and related, maximize profit.

So, yes, it isn't difficult to figure out APR's allergy to the LT. But where this current situation is concerned, that's like talking about paying the state big-ticket taxes on the cars he's never bought yet. It's not relevant. He's never paid that anyhow, even when his revenues were better.

 

What he has to think about right here and now is how to downsize, period. And downsizing salaries is the logical area to look for that... thus, the reported interest to move DJM, and perhaps others like Bogi.