RealGM

Is it possible for the Hawks to take the money every one is talking about giving to Bibby(3 years 24-30 million)and just offer that to Ben Gordon while still keeping Marvin's rights?

No, it is not. If they renounced all other free agents (Bibby, Childress, Zaza, Flip, Solomon, Mario, Othello and Gardner) the cap hold on Marvin would still eat up enough cap room that wouldn't be able to make that offer to Ben Gordon. Marvin would have to be renounced as well or signed first to have any chance.

This article has the most in depth discussion of the Atlanta cap situation that I've found

http://nbaroundtable.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/2009-cap-space-atlanta/

The quick answer - prolly not. We have $40 mil in committed monies before cap holds to Marvin and Chills (both $10+ mil). I'm not sure what Marvin's cap hold would be, but it's higher than Chills' approximate $10.8 mil because of their respective draft positions. Considering that the rumored cap number next year is around $58 mil, we'd be only about $6 mil under the cap even if we renounced Chills - which is something I'd doubt we'd do for Gordon.

The flip side of this is why would we do it? We're a team that prides itself on an athletic and long D - attributes that Gordon isn't exactly known for. Also, Bibby's acquisition showed us that we absolutely must have a facilitator to go with our talent and ending our relationship with our current one to nab a high volume chucker isn't necessarily the direction I see Sund taking us.

That sucks. Gordon actually may be a better fit for the Hawks than Bibby given his age. I was thought he could be a realistic target considering it seems like there's no chance he goes back to Chicago. The only other options I've heard if we can't re-sign Bibby are Law and Iverson and both of those would be disasters.

The flip side of this is why would we do it? We're a team that prides itself on an athletic and long D - attributes that Gordon isn't exactly known for. Also, Bibby's acquisition showed us that we absolutely must have a facilitator to go with our talent and ending our relationship with our current one to nab a high volume chucker isn't necessarily the direction I see Sund taking us.

I want Ben Gordon because he's 5 years younger than Bibby and less likely to decline over the duration of his contract. You get a player who can create his own shot like Flip and still replace Bibby's ability to catch and shoot. Bibby may be a "facilitator" in your view but he only averages 5 apg and our backup pg averages less than 2. Will someone please kill the idea that you need a pass first pg to win? 4 of the top 5 teams in the NBA have score first point guards. The Hawks offense doesn't really need a traditional point guard because Joe is the facilitator if you haven't noticed. If you put Gordon next to someone like Roy/Joe/Iggy then he would thrive. I also wish Joe would go back to being a high volume chucker if it meant he was shooting 45 percent from the field and 40 percent from 3.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:

The flip side of this is why would we do it? We're a team that prides itself on an athletic and long D - attributes that Gordon isn't exactly known for. Also, Bibby's acquisition showed us that we absolutely must have a facilitator to go with our talent and ending our relationship with our current one to nab a high volume chucker isn't necessarily the direction I see Sund taking us.

I want Ben Gordon because he's 5 years younger than Bibby and less likely to decline over the duration of his contract. You get a player who can create his own shot like Flip and still replace Bibby's ability to catch and shoot. Bibby may be a "facilitator" in your view but he only averages 5 apg and our backup pg averages less than 2. Will someone please kill the idea that you need a pass first pg to win? 4 of the top 5 teams in the NBA have score first point guards. The Hawks offense doesn't really need a traditional point guard because Joe is the facilitator if you haven't noticed. If you put Gordon next to someone like Roy/Joe/Iggy then he would thrive. I also wish Joe would go back to being a high volume chucker if it meant he was shooting 45 percent from the field and 40 percent from 3.

Seems like a good discussion. Two things to continue it:
First is that it's Ben Gordon. More so than the offensive end, I worry about his D. In the games I've seen of him, he doesn't really play it. He lacks the athleticism to guard the point and the length (or height) to be useful elsewhere. He's a GREAT shooter but doesn't bring much else to the table. If you were talking about making a run @ Monta Ellis or somehow prying off Devin Harris, then I'd agree that the acquisition would make a lot of sense. But I really can't see Gordon as the guy to help with our problems defending the quick Gs that give us trouble (Barbosa and Robinson jump immediately to mind).

2nd, I agree that you can win without a pass 1st PG, but with the athletes we have on the floor, it would be nice. Bibby does push the ball up the court and does get the other athletes the ball in good position to score. These are things that JJ doesn't really do, so I can't simply agree with the comment that JJ is a facilitator and could be fine playing PG the bulk of the minutes. He's a 1-on-1 player that can score in bunches and will find the open man when the double team comes - a playmaker, yes, someone who you can build on Offense around, yes, but not really the facilitator who finds the player who can get the easy points in transition or when the D is standing around. With finishers like Smith, Marvin, and Horford - even a bomber like JJ, someone like that is worth their salary with us. Do I want a Jason Kidd in his prime? Sure, but I understand that isn't realistic. I do see what Kidd did for the likes of Jamal Mashburn, Jim Jackson, Kenyon Martin, and Richard Jefferson - all players considered stars to superstars with Kidd and they never reached that level again without him - and think what if we had someone like that for Marvin and Josh specifically. It could be an extra bucket or 2 per game for both of them which would push them from the overrated and bust labels that are settling on them right now. Is it a necessity? No, but it would be nice...

Seems like a good discussion. Two things to continue it:
First is that it's Ben Gordon. More so than the offensive end, I worry about his D. In the games I've seen of him, he doesn't really play it. He lacks the athleticism to guard the point and the length (or height) to be useful elsewhere. He's a GREAT shooter but doesn't bring much else to the table. If you were talking about making a run @ Monta Ellis or somehow prying off Devin Harris, then I'd agree that the acquisition would make a lot of sense. But I really can't see Gordon as the guy to help with our problems defending the quick Gs that give us trouble (Barbosa and Robinson jump immediately to mind).

I disagree with Gordon being a bad defender. You can ask any Bulls fan and they will tell you his defense is significantly improved since he came into the league. He is actually much better at guarding point guards than Rose. Bibby isn't exactly Mookie Blaylock on defense either.The biggest problem with Ben Gordon is that you need to pair him with someone who is a better passer and some one who can defend shooting guards. The Hawks(along with a few other teams like Miami/Philly/Portland/LA)fit both of those criterias.

2nd, I agree that you can win without a pass 1st PG, but with the athletes we have on the floor, it would be nice. Bibby does push the ball up the court and does get the other athletes the ball in good position to score. These are things that JJ doesn't really do, so I can't simply agree with the comment that JJ is a facilitator and could be fine playing PG the bulk of the minutes. He's a 1-on-1 player that can score in bunches and will find the open man when the double team comes - a playmaker, yes, someone who you can build on Offense around, yes, but not really the facilitator who finds the player who can get the easy points in transition or when the D is standing around.

I see what you are saying but the Hawks don't run a point guard oriented offense. The idea of our point guard pushing the ball up the floor and finding our athletes sounds nice but Bibby is not that pg and Woodson's "system" doesn't work that way. Bibby's assist numbers are about the same as AJ's and our pace is slow as ever. The truth is that the Hawks are a half court team who runs a ton of isolation plays for Joe Johnson. Joe might not be the point guard by title....but his job is to score AND create shots for others. That's why Bibbys shooting/scoring is way more valuable than his passing IMO. I don't think Gordon is as good of a passer but he's just as good of a shooter and better at getting his own shot off. The key is that Gordon is 25 and Bibby is 30. I'd rather have Gordon from here on out if both are going to make similar money.

With finishers like Smith, Marvin, and Horford - even a bomber like JJ, someone like that is worth their salary with us. Do I want a Jason Kidd in his prime? Sure, but I understand that isn't realistic. I do see what Kidd did for the likes of Jamal Mashburn, Jim Jackson, Kenyon Martin, and Richard Jefferson - all players considered stars to superstars with Kidd and they never reached that level again without him - and think what if we had someone like that for Marvin and Josh specifically. It could be an extra bucket or 2 per game for both of them which would push them from the overrated and bust labels that are settling on them right now. Is it a necessity? No, but it would be nice...

I agree that the Hawks could really use a great pass 1st pg but it's too late for that. We only have Bibby,Acie Law,a 1st round pick and the MLE to work with barring a trade. Now that I think about it...there is a slight chance that Gordon really may not get more than the MLE in this economy. He would be a huge steal for that price.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:I disagree with Gordon being a bad defender. You can ask any Bulls fan and they will tell you his defense is significantly improved since he came into the league. He is actually much better at guarding point guards than Rose. Bibby isn't exactly Mookie Blaylock on defense either.The biggest problem with Ben Gordon is that you need to pair him with someone who is a better passer and some one who can defend shooting guards. The Hawks(along with a few other teams like Miami/Philly/Portland/LA)fit both of those criterias.

I admit that I haven't watched any Bulls games this year due to being in ATL (and caring more about a Hawks game than a CHI game) and CHI's fall from national exposure (and less nationally televised games for them). In the past, his D wasn't even passable, but he could have improved. I'm not so sure that I'd think that it's a great compliment to be a better defender than a 19 year old rookie (regardless of how good the rookie is otherwise), but it definitely shows improvement from him. Is he good enough to at least slow down even the Robinsons and Barbosas - so forth the Ellises and Harrises? Considering the athleticism I've seen from him, I doubt it.
I also agree that Bibby isn't necessarily a defensive stopper either, but to sign Gordon to replace Bibby in the scenario presented would also require us to renounce Chills (at a minimum). That's my biggest peeve about the scenario. If we're going to renounce another asset that should bring us at least a decent role player or 2, then I'd want a very round peg into the round hole and I still don't see Gordon being that player.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:I see what you are saying but the Hawks don't run a point guard oriented offense. The idea of our point guard pushing the ball up the floor and finding our athletes sounds nice but Bibby is not that pg and Woodson's "system" doesn't work that way. Bibby's assist numbers are about the same as AJ's and our pace is slow as ever. The truth is that the Hawks are a half court team who runs a ton of isolation plays for Joe Johnson. Joe might not be the point guard by title....but his job is to score AND create shots for others. That's why Bibbys shooting/scoring is way more valuable than his passing IMO. I don't think Gordon is as good of a passer but he's just as good of a shooter and better at getting his own shot off. The key is that Gordon is 25 and Bibby is 30. I'd rather have Gordon from here on out if both are going to make similar money.

1st, we do try to get into transition some, and if we run Bibby is generally the one pushing the ball. I've seen Horford lead the break more than JJ. In the cases where we are running, we do need someone to push that, and I can't see Gordon or JJ being that person, and I don't want to see Marvin, Josh, or Horford attempting to do that except in rare cases where they are simply not being covered.
As for the 1/2 court O, maybe I've already given up in thinking that Woodson is here for the long term, so I'm not tied to the O he runs. Even so, Chills was able to see the opening in opponents D in the 1/2-court and would move without the ball to get there. Hence, the opportunity is there for better passing toward the rim to improve the O. The thing about passing like this is that it tends to become infectious. If a player without the ball knows that if he can find an opening to the rim then he'll get the ball there, that player is more likely to look for that opening. If a player with the ball knows that others are attempting to get to the rim, then that player is more likely to look for players making that cut. That's what I'm looking for as for the pass 1st PG rather than just someone who's willing to run and find a finisher.
This is why I can't see JJ running the point. He's more of someone who'll try to break down a defender and will pass out of a double team rather than someone who'll look for the cutter to the lane. From what I've seen of Gordon is that, at his best, he's much of the same. I can't say Bibby has been much better @ this either, but he is a little better than either of the other 2. Acie has at least shown the desire to do this and looks to have the most potential for doing this on the team, but the rest of the team isn't looking for the cuts yet - especially for the 3rd string PG.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:I agree that the Hawks could really use a great pass 1st pg but it's too late for that. We only have Bibby,Acie Law,a 1st round pick and the MLE to work with barring a trade. Now that I think about it...there is a slight chance that Gordon really may not get more than the MLE in this economy. He would be a huge steal for that price.

Don't forget about Chills. He might be our biggest asset in the trade market this off-season - hence, a trade may be a very realistic possibility. Also, the 1st (at least at this point) could yield a very nice PG prospect. This might be the best PG draft in the last 4-5 years - both in terms of top end prospects and depth.
If Gordon comes in @ the MLE, then I'd agree that he'd be a coup. At that price, I could see moving JJ to SF, Marvin to being a versatile 6th man, and seeing if we could acquire a PG from one of the above assets for someone that could at least guard those quick Gs...