Bucks @ Sixers 1/30/08

Post #21 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:23 pm

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the Hawks have just 1 more win than us?? Shouldn't the Hawks be on the phone doing whatever it takes to get either Kidd, Miller, or Bibby???

UptownPhilly · Post #22 » by **UptownPhilly** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:36 pm

I think they're content. They'll win more games than they did last year.

Post #23 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:20 pm

Wait... how can a team that is 18-23 with no first round pick and no signs of cap space be content?? Actually, that would explain a lot. If it weren't for the Clippers, the Hawks would easily be the worst franchise in the NBA.

Sixersftw · Post #24 » by **Sixersftw** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:46 pm

the knicks have something to say about that.

UptownPhilly · Post #25 » by **UptownPhilly** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:47 pm

The Guilty Party wrote:Wait... how can a team that is 18-23 with no first round pick and no signs of cap space be content?? Actually, that would explain a lot. If it weren't for the Clippers, the Hawks would easily be the worst franchise in the NBA.

The Hawks Ownership is all screwed up. I think that as long as they win more than 30 games this season(an improvement over last year) the owners will be satisfied.

Worst Franchise ever, perhaps?

The current Sonics are an abomination to the NBA. These guys have lost like 14 straight. ATL isn't that bad.

Sixersftw · Post #26 » by **Sixersftw** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:49 pm

worst franchise ever... thats the clips in a walk. the hawks are however very bad. I thought you where talking about recent history.

Post #27 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:00 pm

The Sonics have been bad the past couple of seasons but they won a championship in the 70s, were one of the more dominant teams in the 90s and have made the playoffs a couple of times this decade.

The Hawks, on the other hand, do not own a championship and while they've had a good year here and a good year there... overall, they haven't been a consistent playoff team since the late 80s when Dominique was in his prime and that's a LOOOONG time ago.

My point is that I believe that if the Hawks traded for Kidd or Miller or Bibby that they would assure themselves of not only making the playoffs this year but they could set themselves up for strong playoff runs for the next 3-4 years.

SendEm · Post #28 » by **SendEm** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:13 pm

I can understand why the Hawks wouldn't want to trade for any of those PG's. They have a young bad team, they have been bad for this long why get impatient now? They are atleast slowly moving in the right direction. They have a legit elite player in Joe Johnson and a big man that will be amongst the best in the league in Horford. They should just keep moving along as they are with no quick fixes.

Post #29 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:24 pm

Didn't Joe Johnson come out earlier in this season and talk about how he's tired of losing and possibly wanting to move to another team???

Patience is a virtue but at somepoint, don't the Hawks have to try to win?? What happens next season when the team doesn't add a first round pick and loses either Childress or Josh Smith via free agency?

Either way, I'm glad I'm not a fan of the Hawks because I don't know that there is light at the end of that tunnel.

SendEm · Post #30 » by **SendEm** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:59 pm

The Hawks have a legitimate Big, there is light. They should have drafted Chris Paul or D. Williams instead of 24 inch vertical leap Marvin Williams, but there is light...Is there a reason why some people on thsi Philly board feel as though the Hawks will "lose" one of their restricted free agents? WHo has ANY money besides the Sixers? We already have two small forwards...

Post #31 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:17 pm

SendEm wrote:Is there a reason why some people on thsi Philly board feel as though the Hawks will "lose" one of their restricted free agents?

Wait... did the Hawks' ridiculous ownership group change??? Is Billy Knight still the GM??? As long as this group of individuals remain in control of this team, I see no reason to believe that they will do/spend what it takes to become competitive.

Wasn't it just this last summer when the Hawks F.O. told Josh Smith straight up that they had no desire to discuss a contract extension with him and that they would wait until he becomes a RFA to talk dollars??

Wasn't it the Hawks who had one owner take the other owners to court about the Joe Johnson trade??

SendEm · Post #32 » by **SendEm** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:29 pm

The Guilty Party wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Wait... did the Hawks' ridiculous ownership group change??? Is Billy Knight still the GM??? As long as this group of individuals remain in control of this team, I see no reason to believe that they will do/spend what it takes to become competitive.

Wasn't it just this last summer when the Hawks F.O. told Josh Smith straight up that they had no desire to discuss a contract extension with him and that they would wait until he becomes a RFA to talk dollars??

Wasn't it the Hawks who had one owner take the other owners to court about the Joe Johnson trade??

Where are the other suitors? :lol:

Post #33 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:31 pm

Right now, there aren't any suitors besides us but that could change as the deadline approaches and teams start trading for expirings and unloading salary. As John Hollinger has pointed out a number of times on espn.com... it's not as though it'll take a huge offer to steal Childress. If the Hawks ownership does pay Josh Smith $11MIL per, It may only take an offer of $8MIL for a team to sign Childress away which is why Childress may become the most targeted RFA this summer.

SendEm · Post #34 » by **SendEm** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

The Guilty Party wrote:Right now, there aren't any suitors besides us but that could change as the deadline approaches and teams start trading for expirings and unloading salary. As John Hollinger has pointed out a number of times on espn.com... it's not as though it'll take a huge offer to steal Childress. If the Hawks ownership does pay Josh Smith $11MIL per, It may only take an offer of $8MIL for a team to sign Childress away which is why Childress may become the most targeted RFA this summer.

You may be right about Childress being the most sought after RFA. It will be because teams might be able to overpay for him. But again, no one has any money... :lol:

I think that Atlanta will match anything up to $9 million average per. Anything over that is absolutely insane for J. Chill. Personally I believe that he would do well to receive a little above MLE.

Post #35 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:00 pm

Switching things up....

Apparently Charlie V doesn't see himself staying in Milwaukee long-term. My guess is that the guy wants to start and doesn't believe he'll get that chance over Yi or Bogut. If that's the case, I don't have interest in him.

I don't think Charlie V is the long-term answer at PF for us (hopefully the long-term answer is acquired this summer) and so I believe we would be in the same boat with Charlie this time next year.

Anyone here think much of this guy??

SendEm · Post #36 » by **SendEm** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:14 pm

CV knows that he doesn't have much value on that Bucks team, so when contract time comes around he will not get paid like a 6'10 former lottery pick that once scored 48 points in a game. If a team trades for him and starts him his value would automatically go up with that team. That team will have his bird rights and he'll be able to sign a deal for $9-10 million per season. Right now he doesn't look like that kind of player on the Bucks.

The Sixer Fixer · Post #37 » by **The Sixer Fixer** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:17 pm

The Guilty Party wrote:Anyone here think much of this guy??

Is Charlie an upgrade over what we have now? Absolutely
Is Charlie the long term answer to our PF hole? Highly unlikely

Based on that, I would not give up that much to get him. His salary for next year is only around 3.5 mil, then he becomes a RFA, so he's not that expensive from a $$ standpoint right now. If we could get him cheap, I might take a shot, but I doubt we could get him that cheap. Long term, if he was happy playing about 30-32 MPG backing up the PF and SF spots I think he might fit well long term. He could fill the role of a scorer off the bench. Basically if he was content playing the role that Childress currently plays with the Hawks, I think he could be a nice asset.

Post #38 » by **tk76** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:21 pm

If he is a RFA next year he will have a big (10M?) cap hold which could hold back what we do in free agency that summer (when Millers contract expires.)

Johnny Broad-Street · Post #39 » by **Johnny Broad-Street** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:22 pm

He's a real capable guy, but he won't set the world on fire. I'd like to get him in a fair deal, because if we trade even talent for even talent he's pretty versatile and doesn't make major mistakes

The Sixer Fixer · Post #40 » by **The Sixer Fixer** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:26 pm

tk76 wrote:If he is a RFA next year he will have a big (10M?) cap hold which could hold back what we do in free agency that summer (when Millers contract expires.)

I think that concern is too far down the road. So many other things can change between now and then. And if he doesn't work out over the next year and half, we can just renounce him and use the money on another FA (or look for S/T deals with him that offseason). I was just saying if he comes cheap, he's worth taking a look at over the next year + and see how he fits in (or doesn't).