Hawks can't acquire 2 max players...

[Jamaaliver]

And it's your belief that getting a pick that would of been between 6-11 (because Josh very easily could of gotten 4-5 extra wins out of 22 win New Jersey), Memet Okur, Shawne Williams and zero cap relief for a contract that was not even an issue in the first place would of been a worthy return for him.....

NJ did indeed include Okur and Williams in their trade for Gerald Wallace. But considering Josh is a superior player to Gerald Wallace and is on a reasonable contract for another season, I believe we could have gotten a better group of players than that package.

Trading a PF who avg 16 ppg for a lottery pick isn't as lopsided as you think.

Just as an example, Ray Allen was traded for the #5 pick in the 2007 draft after averaging a career high 26 ppg.

[MaceCase]

This is where your plan is entirely half assed. There simply is no capspace with that group. Three months ago that was the exact issue the team was going through where because of cash constraints Josh would have to of been let go for nothing in 2013. You can't try and backtrack with revisionist history and pretend that this wasn't part of the dire reason that Ferry decided to pull the trigger on the Joe trade. Your deal does absolutely nothing for that.

Alright, let's take a moment and breathe. We can disgaree and debate while remaining congenial and non-combative. We're all Hawks fans here. Even if we have different visions for our team.

My proposition is that moving Josh is the 1st move. Not the final move. We move Josh for a top 10 pick. Suddenly, we have the cap space to extend Teague. We also have Horford, JJ and two draft picks. If Ferry comes in and still makes the Marvin trade, then next year we have a modest amount of capspace.

Right now we have Josh, AL, Teague and garbage. With lots of cap space next summer.
The alternative I suggest would give us JJ, AL, Teague and a top 10 drafted player. With modest amounts of cap space next summer.

My scenario would not give us cap space to sign a huge free agent outright, but it does allow us flexibility.
We call teams offering Horford and the #6 pick in the draft, we'd have all types of offers.

And again the whole point was that in 2013 we could only afford Teague or Josh not both before going into lux tax trying to fill the remaining 8 roster spots. Seeing as Lillard, a PG btw, is your target then you essentially decided to ship Josh and Teague out for Lillard who quite frankly.......I don't see the hype about, talking Ty Lawson at best and there was no one else in that range that will be much better in the next 4 years. Now you are also talking about moving Al too and I just have to wonder where the hell this rabbit hole ends that has everyone but the worst contract and playoff performer remaining. This deal isn't proactive it's shortside. You literally are offering the weakest plan that nets the Hawks a low lotto pick (if only by chance the odds held up, it just as easily could of been top 3 which then means, whoops! No pick!) and less than 10 million in capspace than what actually happened which is a first rounder and 40 million in capspace in 2013 alone, 98 million in savings overall.

Right.....and the team went on to lose only 7 more games, finished as the 4th seed (better record than Boston) with Homecourt advantage and Al was due back.......but a progressive GM would of jumped the shark at the trade deadline and shipped Josh off for that paltry return rather than.....you know, stay calm and realize that you don't **** your future for the very likely chance that you won't get Lillard.

I don't really consider us finishing with the 4th seed again as progress.

I view trading Josh for a lottery pick as an aggressive move without blowing the whole team up.
Keep in mind he had expressed a desire to play elsewhere.
Us dumping Josh would have likely resulted in a better draft pick for us.
Us trading the 2nd highest paid player for a very low salary player allows us the space to extend Teague.

It's less about Lillard and more about the high draft pick. The fact Lillard was available at #6 is just icing on the cake.

Oh really? But you would consider redoing Joe on the 06 Hawks except older, less productive and on a more cap crippling deal for the next 4 years as being "progress"? You keep missing the part of the Hawks being the 4th seed was that it was without Al and you keep mentioning Josh's contract as if it has any affect on our overall cap situation. The man is expiring and is underpaid by nearly every regard......it's an entirely ludicrous proposal no different than saying moving Marvin and Zaza would of allowed the team the cap space to improve.....it's an entirely fallacious argument which brings me to:

And it's your belief that getting a pick that would of been between 6-11 (because Josh very easily could of gotten 4-5 extra wins out of 22 win New Jersey), Memet Okur, Shawne Williams and zero cap relief for a contract that was not even an issue in the first place would of been a worthy return for him.....

NJ did indeed include Okur and Williams in their trade for Gerald Wallace. But considering Josh is a superior player to Gerald Wallace and in on a reasonable contract for another season, I believe we could have gotten another group of players with that package.

Trading a PF who avg 16 ppg for a lottery pick isn't as lopsided as you think.

Just as an example, Ray Allen was traded for the #5 pick in the 2007 draft after averaging a career high 26 ppg.

I got a real chuckle out of this.

First let's address the Nets part

1) what other assets did New Jersey have?
2) why would they give up said assets when they were instrumental in their offers for the real prize, Dwight?

The problem with your hodgepodge proposal is that you aren't taking into account any of the realistic factors which leads me to your Ray Allen example

Ray Allen was traded because he was a large contract on a rebuilding team who's age, contract and play style would not mesh with the different direction that Seattle/OKC was going in......You gave an example that completely contradicted your proposal of surrounding the expensive and aging Joe Johnson with lotto picks and minimal capspace. Notice that the Celtics themselves gave up all of their young assets and pieces to surround Pierce with veterans rather than expecting them to somehow develop into productive players around him. This is done because it makes zero sense to invest a high payroll to a bottom feeder or into a player that will take away from the development of your younger assets of which you have also invested millions in.

I'm sorry but this is truly not a well developed proposal nor argument in support of it. The idea of arguing that rebuilding around Joe and his contract with rookies is a hole in logic the size of the Grand Canyon. If you were talking of moving Josh for actual productive vets to surround Joe would of made sense but this? Not at all.

[Jamaaliver]

And again the whole point was that in 2013 we could only afford Teague or Josh not both before going into lux tax trying to fill the remaining 8 roster spots

That's why I wanted to trade Josh.

I feel like my initial message/goal is getting lost in our debate.

It's not about drafting Lillard. (Though I think he's a 20ppg scorer in this league, easily.)
It's not about building around Joe.
It's not about trading away Horford. (Who, btw, I pretty much consider untouchable.)
At the time all this went down. We weren't a very good team. And Josh sent word for the 2nd straight year that he wanted to be moved.

We get rid of Josh's contract for a draft pick and change so that we can get a lottery pick. Losing Josh allows us to resign Teague without going into the luxury tax.

Now we still have a pretty competitive team, but we have just a bit of cap room and two 1st round picks. These are assets to be used in the future. Maybe we draft Drummond. Maybe we draft Lillard. Maybe we pkg the picks and JJ.

We'd have unlimited options between the picks, Teague, AL, Marvin, JJ's contracts to pkg. Or we draft best players available and save a little money while that team grows. The point is we'd have okptions

[ATLHawksfan21]

I have to side with Mace on this one and it's not even close. Trying to build around JJ is a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea when the deal was done and it is a worse idea today. I love what Ferry has done so far and I would rather let Josh play this year out and see where we are as a team, with the possibility of losing him in free agency, than trading him for pennies on the dollar. Besides, we hold his bird rights so we could always do a sign and trade if he does decide to leave.

[MaceCase]

We'd have unlimited options between the picks, Teague, AL, Marvin, JJ's contracts to pkg. Or we draft best players available and save a little money while that team grows. The point is we'd have okptions

Except you don't have unlimited options.....which is what I'm trying to point out to you. Your plan puts us exactly in the same position the team was in 3 months ago....going nowhere with no way of major change to the core, minimal cap space and declining assets.

1) Teague and Al have to be moved now for other positive assets if the intention of the team is to actually get "better".

2) Surrounding a 31 year old with 90 million left with rookies is reducing the return on said 31 year old because he doesn't have the time to "grow" with your new core. He has a very limited window that began even before his resigning.

3) Whatever money you are saving on lux taxes you are still blowing away wasting it on a max vet on a rebuilding team.

4) After missing the perfect opportunity to move Joe the only other way now is by attaching some of those acquired assets with him to appeal to other teams to absorb his deal.

Are you noticing the downward trend in your "options" for the future of the Hawks? There is very little positive outcome in the scenarios, why? Because you began your plan by moving the least impactful contract on both the current and future roster for a nominal return. There really aren't any ifs, ands, or buts on this. There were only two options for the Hawks going forward:

A) Move Josh/Al/Teague for a Pau/Nash type deal where the intention is to fully maximize the closing window around Joe. (Sund's plan)
or

B) Move Joe and create a larger and continuous window around the younger Al/Josh/Teague (Ferry's plan)

there really isn't any middle ground if you want to get the best return on the roster, you can't mix-match options A and B logically.

[azuresou1]

I'm with Mace on this one 100%.

BTW, Lilliard is massively overrated and I don't see the hype. He's an old rookie who looks to me like a much worse version of Westbrook. I see him as a slightly above-average player.

[Jamaaliver]

That's actually not at all what I was arguing in favor of.

My initial post:

What really burns is that we could have traded Josh Smith this past season to NJ for the draft rights to Damion Lillard.

THAT kid is a star in the making. (And the likely ROY.)

That move alone would have given us a fresh start and some cap relief.

I like Lillard. We could have had him if Sund had been proactive. This was my point from the start.

And for the record, I view Josh Smith as a slightly above average player.

[Jamaaliver]

It's not about building around Joe.

At the time all this went down. We weren't a very good team. And Josh sent word for the 2nd straight year that he wanted to be moved.

We get rid of Josh's contract for a draft pick and change so that we can get a lottery pick. Losing Josh would've allowed us to resign Teague without going into the luxury tax.

[azuresou1]

No, I get that. But I'm with Mace because your plan is extremely tenuous and realistically would leave us with Joe Johnson, mediocre rookies, and STILL capped out with no opportunity for improvement.

Are you telling me you'd rather have Joe + Lilliard for the future rather than Josh + cap space? Because that's pretty laughable IMO, even sillier than Ruhiel's longstanding desire to trade Horford for scraps.

[Jamaaliver]

Are you telling me you'd rather have Joe + Lilliard for the future rather than Josh + cap space?

I believe that had Sund been a more proactive, aggressive GM, our team could have gotten more assets the last few years.

I view getting Lillard (who i equate to a James Harden quality of player) as the first step.

For year we heard that JJ and his contrct were unmovable. Danny Ferry did it in a week.
I have 0 doubt we could have moved our 6 time All-Star and leading scorer.

Joe and Lillard isn't the final team I'm proposing. Just like Devin Harris and Anthony Morrow aren't Danny Ferry's. Getting the #6 pick and dumping Josh would be a nice start to us reloading without being terrible for 5 years.

An example of a proactive GM wheeling and dealing for assets. Two years ago Washington traded a 2nd round pick to CHI for Kirk Hinrich. 6 months later they traded Hinrich to ATL for Jordan Crawford, a 1st rounder and Bibby. In a few months they flipped a 2nd rounder into two late first rounders.

Getting NJs #6 pick could have been easily packaged for another asset or top player. OR, kept and used for Drummond, Harrison Barnes or Lillard.

[azuresou1]

JJ was moved to the Nets because they were desperate for talent. We trade Josh to them, and then suddenly they're not so desperate now, are they?

Trade Josh to the Nets, and there's almost a ZERO percent chance NJ takes on Joe at all. Why would they?

Using our front office and its history of bad moves is generally not a good indicator of what teams around the league are willing to do.

[Jamaaliver]

I agree. Josh to NJ eliminates the Nets taking Joe Johnson.

But I do believe there would be other opportunities to move JJ.

He's a 6-time All Star, consummate professional and consistent, dependable scorer.

There are always teams 'desperate for talent' who would kill to have a JJ on their roster.

[azuresou1]

Like who? The only teams desperate for talent would be those who are borderline championship teams, or teams that want to retain their star player. Deron was the only one who was realistically was staying. At BEST we would have offloaded JJ for slightly worse contracts.

[Jamaaliver]

Just think of the last two teams to acquhire JJ.

teams that were completely dreadful on the court and in the box office, but needed to improve to at least become relevant.

I suspect Golden State, Charlotte or Sacramento would kill to have an All Star on their team making them good eough to make the playoffs every year.
I also suspect NYK would have at least considered trading Amare for JJ. Amare's contract is not covered by insurance, but is shorter than Joe's.

JJ is overpaid, but he's still a good player.

[MaceCase]

Just think of the last two teams to acquhire JJ.

teams that were completely dreadful on the court and in the box office, but needed to improve to at least become relevant.

I suspect Golden State, Charlotte or Sacramento would kill to have an All Star on their team making them good eough to make the playoffs every year.
I also suspect NYK would have at least considered trading Amare for JJ. Amare's contract is not covered by insurance, but is shorter than Joe's.

JJ is overpaid, but he's still a good player.

You presented two scenarios

1) where young rebuilding teams would deem it fit burning their capspace and assets on a 31 year old on a max contract with the intention that it could possibly be the difference in them making the playoffs. You continuously omit the existence of age and that it happens to have this odd effect on athletes in that it forces decline but how big would this playoff window be for said rebuilding team? Is the investment truly worth it for a theoretical at best 1-2 year playoff window? Are teams that have been under such long-term rebuilding truly interested in such short-term success? These only seem like rhetorical questions though assuming normal logical sense...

2) a situation where Joe is traded for a worse contract. Yes it is a year shorter but there is a very good reason for it being uninsured.......it's because Amar'e's knees are on the precipice of turning into chalk dust.


These are truly likely and more desirable outcomes than the current situation that the team is in.


The impotence of this debate should be clarified though because you've stated that:

1) Joe single-handedly influences a team's playoffs chances.
2) Josh Smith is merely an above-average player.
3) A 22 year old Rookie from a lower tier basketball conference is on par with a player that has already achieved a 6th man of the year award, an Olympic gold medal and NBA Finals appearance by the same age.

[Jamaaliver]

That's all you took from our conversation? This makes me sad.

[MaceCase]

If your premises are faulty then your conclusions are too.

[Jamaaliver]

I suspect that if I said the sky was blue, you'd calll me a liar and insist it was brown.

[MaceCase]

LOL.... As if anything you've stated in your arguments is based on fact rather than your own personal appraisal of reality.

Lets see, which of these premises are equivalent to "the sky is blue."

1) Joe single-handedly influences a team's playoffs chances.
2) Josh Smith is merely an above-average player.
3) A 22 year old Rookie from a lower tier basketball conference is on par with a player that has already achieved a 6th man of the year award, an Olympic gold medal and NBA Finals appearance by the same age.

[Jamaaliver]