If you were the GM......?
Moderators: dms269, HMFFL, Jamaaliver
If you were the GM......?
-
basic21
- Banned User
- Posts: 366
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 16, 2011
If you were the GM......?
If you were the GM, would you use amnesty on Joe Johnson?
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
azuresou1
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,444
- And1: 1,095
- Joined: Jun 15, 2009
-
Re: If you were the GM......?
No. Amnesty means I'll be paying him the money anyways, he's still a good player, and I sure as hell am not letting him go to another team for cheap now that he's still getting his money. Can you imagine if he went to the Heat or Magic?
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
dms269
- Forum Mod - Hawks
- Posts: 8,745
- And1: 1,727
- Joined: Jun 27, 2005
-
Re: If you were the GM......?
Definitely not. You don't dump someone like JJ now while he is still a very good player. You amnesty him, he bolts to another team. Does he want a ring? Go to Chicago. Does he want to get paid even more, he goes to another team. Not a good decision.
The moderator formerly known as uga_dawgs24
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
Superiorblogman
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,173
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 21, 2011
- Location: The Transplant Capital
Re: If you were the GM......?
No. I would look to make trades.
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
ATL Boy
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,959
- And1: 4,005
- Joined: May 15, 2011
- Location: Atlanta GA
-
Re: If you were the GM......?
No, if I'm going to use the amnesty cause I'd use it on Marvin.
SichtingLives wrote:life hack:
When a man heaves a live chainsaw towards you from distance, stand still. No one has good accuracy throwing a chainsaw.
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
raj33
- Ballboy
- Posts: 3
- And1: 0
- Joined: Oct 10, 2011
Re: If you were the GM......?
I wouldn't use the amnesty at all this year. But I'll be looking to buy up all the draft picks I could.
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
evildallas
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,412
- And1: 1
- Joined: Aug 11, 2005
- Location: in the land of weak ownership
- Contact:
Re: If you were the GM......?
No. I wouldn't use the amnesty at all this year holding on to it for later usage. I'd look to replace Crawford on the cheap and not make any moves until closer to the trade deadline. What I'm looking for is the ball in Jeff Teague's hands while Joe and Marvin both have bounce back years. Marvin's is due to surgery and I'd be hoping he shows enough life for some trade value or to be serviceable. Joe is due to him working hard and having time to heal from the midseason surgery he rushed back from.
Buying Marvin out only helps resign Crawford because it wouldn't take the team far enough below the cap to matter. As much as I like what Crawford brings on the offensive end he's got a lot of negatives as well including defense and age. We weren't a title contender with him, so I don't see a drastic move to keep him.
Buying out Joe is just too financially burdensome and if he bounces back like I think he will there might be 1 or 2 teams willing to take on his contract because of their own situations (either desperate to keep their own star (Orlando) or a good fit with cap room for the next several years (Cleveland)).
The amnesty clause only helps if you can afford to pay off your mistakes. Like I said I wouldn't use it this year. Now if surgery doesn't fix Marvin Williams then I'd have no problem using the clause on him next summer to get beneath the cap.
The thing I said about the trade deadline earlier is I've got a wait and see attitude with this current roster. If we look hot midseason then maybe I chance it for a playoff run even considering adding a piece at the deadline. If we look lost at midseason then I look to move Joe, Kirk's expiring deal, Marvin if possible and even Josh Smith because he'll be in the last year of his contract.
By the end of this year (if not sooner) we need to decide whether Joe can be moved or he'll be here long time. That also leads to the question of who is the SF in 2013-1014 and beyond? Joe transitioning to a new position or Josh moving there full time or Marvin in the last year of his contract or someone new? The answers are mutually exclusive meaning that if it's Joe then we to deal Josh before losing him in free agency. If it is Josh then we need to cut ties with Marvin and possibly Joe as well, etc.
I don't like talking about rebuilding, so until otherwise I'm assuming we'll be on fire at the trade deadline and enjoy a run in a shortened season due to familiarity in the lineup. Probably not the best long term, but I'd prefer it to gutting this team and starting over.
Buying Marvin out only helps resign Crawford because it wouldn't take the team far enough below the cap to matter. As much as I like what Crawford brings on the offensive end he's got a lot of negatives as well including defense and age. We weren't a title contender with him, so I don't see a drastic move to keep him.
Buying out Joe is just too financially burdensome and if he bounces back like I think he will there might be 1 or 2 teams willing to take on his contract because of their own situations (either desperate to keep their own star (Orlando) or a good fit with cap room for the next several years (Cleveland)).
The amnesty clause only helps if you can afford to pay off your mistakes. Like I said I wouldn't use it this year. Now if surgery doesn't fix Marvin Williams then I'd have no problem using the clause on him next summer to get beneath the cap.
The thing I said about the trade deadline earlier is I've got a wait and see attitude with this current roster. If we look hot midseason then maybe I chance it for a playoff run even considering adding a piece at the deadline. If we look lost at midseason then I look to move Joe, Kirk's expiring deal, Marvin if possible and even Josh Smith because he'll be in the last year of his contract.
By the end of this year (if not sooner) we need to decide whether Joe can be moved or he'll be here long time. That also leads to the question of who is the SF in 2013-1014 and beyond? Joe transitioning to a new position or Josh moving there full time or Marvin in the last year of his contract or someone new? The answers are mutually exclusive meaning that if it's Joe then we to deal Josh before losing him in free agency. If it is Josh then we need to cut ties with Marvin and possibly Joe as well, etc.
I don't like talking about rebuilding, so until otherwise I'm assuming we'll be on fire at the trade deadline and enjoy a run in a shortened season due to familiarity in the lineup. Probably not the best long term, but I'd prefer it to gutting this team and starting over.
Going to donkey punch a leprechaun!
Re: If you were the GM......?
-
Ruhiel
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,502
- And1: 45
- Joined: Dec 28, 2010
Re: If you were the GM......?
RE: hoping he shows enough life for some trade value or to be serviceable?
Marvin has been serviceable for the past 4 years but he hasnt been strong enough scorer to overcome the weakness of a small frontline. We get outrebounded on one end then Marvin stands on the other end and is unnassertive.
Marvin has been "serviceable" for years.
Trade value? What Horford+Smith need is a shooting PF/C a David West type Power forward. And Okur is aging with little to no window of opportunity, and he and West are unavailable to the Hawks is all likelihood.
Marvin would be lucky to garner Darko Milicic currently and if he returns to 2008-2009 level you'd be overpaying for Milicic.
Marvin has been serviceable for the past 4 years but he hasnt been strong enough scorer to overcome the weakness of a small frontline. We get outrebounded on one end then Marvin stands on the other end and is unnassertive.
Marvin has been "serviceable" for years.
Trade value? What Horford+Smith need is a shooting PF/C a David West type Power forward. And Okur is aging with little to no window of opportunity, and he and West are unavailable to the Hawks is all likelihood.
Marvin would be lucky to garner Darko Milicic currently and if he returns to 2008-2009 level you'd be overpaying for Milicic.