Kirk Needs to be Traded Just like Jamal Should Have Been

Superiorblogman · Post #1 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:34 am

I did not post on this site during last year when I was screaming to get something out of Jamal before the deadline because I like most knew we were not going to go over luxury to re-sign him. Look at our payroll for next year and it is easy to see the same scenario. We are not going to re-sign Kirk. We have right at $61 million on the books for next year with 6 guys guaranteed. That means 7 players have to be picked up for $9 million. Thats about $1.28 million per player or better put that is our 1st round pick, 2 2nd rd picks and 4 vet minimum players. If we offered Kirk the mid level next year that would mean we would be left needing 6 players with only $4 million left. That means about $666,000 per player. That would mean a bunch of 2nd round picks and rookie free agents not even minimum level players. If we offered Kirk mid level next season we would have likely chosen him over our 1st round pick also since paying Kirk $5 million and our 1st $1 million or so would mean we would have 3 million left and need 5 players.

Honestly, face it. We are not re-signing Kirk so we need to trade him or mess up our future again by trading our 1st round pick and signing a bunch of minimum level, 2nd rd, or undrafted players. Kirk bringing back cheap quality players is the key.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/atlanta.htm Next years cap.

Superiorblogman · Post #2 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:07 am

The problem is there is not really a team with a bunch of good young pieces. The Hawks will have to settle for a upgrade to the team for this shortened season.

Kirk, Zaza, and a 2nd rd pick for Chris Kaman and Willie Warren.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachi ... Id=cgg6ajy

Take Zaza's salary from next year and we are under the salary cap not just luxury, but we are under the cap. $55.67 We have almost $15 million to work with. We could re-sign Kaman and go from there. One thing is for sure we would have a better 6 under contract and we would be under the salary cap. We could actually amnesty Marvin at that point and get to $47 million which would be $11 million under and think about a big time pick up. This would be a great trade.

evildallas · Post #3 » by **evildallas** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:31 pm

You are preaching to the choir. The Hawks have a history of letting contracts end and having decisions forced upon them rather than operate from a foward looking plan. Al Harrington was kept until he expired even though he was not in long term plans and he took valuable minutes away from Marvin Williams and Josh Childress. Then Childress was held until expiring because the team didn't decide who it wanted to keep between him and Williams even though it was clear they couldn't afford both. Jamal was kept until expiring because of short-term need (even though he was played out of position most of the year). The team knew it could afford to bring him back, but chose to stick with short-term hope over long-term planning. The only reoccurring theme is to not give young players the PT to either succeed or fail. If Williams hadn't been brought on so slowly then we may have gotten better return from Childress. If Teague had been given a chance to succeed or fail maybe we don't overpay for Hinrich. Hard to blame the coaches, they are normally in a position of just trying to extend their contract which forces short-term to be the focus. The owners and the GM are the real problem for having a plan and getting the coach on board with it.

geeman · Post #4 » by **geeman** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:27 am

Guys, I just saw where NY wants J Crawford to take a 2.5 mil deal

I'm stating to think he may end up back with us on a one year deal. Don't we have a mid level to offer?

Superiorblogman · Post #5 » by **Superiorblogman** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:51 am

geeman wrote:Guys, I just saw where NY wants J Crawford to take a 2.5 mil deal I'm stating to think he may end up back with us on a one year deal. Don't we have a mid level to offer?

Yes but that would put us into luxury and we are against the luxury like it is signing up for HIV or Aids

Post #6 » by **dms269** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:59 am

geeman wrote:Guys, I just saw where NY wants J Crawford to take a 2.5 mil deal I'm stating to think he may end up back with us on a one year deal. Don't we have a mid level to offer?

I believe we would have bird years and could go above mid-level.

But like what was said, I doubt we go into the luxury tax to bring him back.

D21 · Post #7 » by **D21** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:27 am

geeman wrote:Don't we have a mid level to offer?

If our owners want to pay Tax, we can sign (or sign-&-trade) Crawford for what we want,
AND use our full MLE on other(s) player...