Flexibility = MYTH...

diesel50 · Post #1 » by **diesel50** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:34 pm

In Atlanta, Flexibility is really a Myth. We talk about having cap Flexibility to "go after players" however, the truth is that Flexibility is really code for saying that we're running the team on the cheap.

I just want to consider this trade deadline for a moment.

We're actively persuing a trade of Teague because Ferry doesn't like the contract. We are looking at Hill because we can get him with our cap Flexibility.

Well, that was all fine until I saw what Brooklyn was up to. They don't have cap flexibility. They have a roster filled with overpaid players... right. BUT... they just traded Terry and Evans for Thornton. On top of that, they are looking at Hill also.

Is it me or is Billy King doing more than Ferry and King has "No Flexibility"??
The difference is that King is not running his team "on the cheap" so he can go out and make deals freely. Ferry is running this team on the cheap so he can only make deals that are to our fiscal advantage.

For Ferry to suggest that we are shopping Teague aggressively says that he better trade Teague. Just like with other players, I believe our wonderboy GM has managed to alienate another player with his style of GMing.

diesel50 · Post #2 » by **diesel50** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:36 pm

BTW... Hawes was just traded to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders...

Good Looking out there Danny.

PandaKidd · Post #3 » by **PandaKidd** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:32 pm

I dont think Hawes is worth 2 2nd rounders for us. Id rather use our 1st round pick to go after a big man

Rip2137 · Post #4 » by **Rip2137** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:54 pm

Hawes(who sucks by the way) got traded for 2 seconds, another big and Earl Clark(who I honestly think is good with minutes).

BossHoggin · Post #5 » by **BossHoggin** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:37 am

Rip2137 wrote:Hawes(who sucks by the way) got traded for 2 seconds, another big and Earl Clark(who I honestly think is good with minutes).

Earl Clark has been beyond horrible this year, and the Cavs do not have space for 4 rookies this year. I'd bet on trading Orlando's 2nd for two future 2nds.

Cavs needed big man scoring and a center to move Varejao back to third big (surprise, he's injured again).

diesel50 · Post #6 » by **diesel50** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:40 pm

Just a quick recap.. as everything trends downwardly and the news of the Hawks become evident league-wide... we see....
Hawks trade for Jamison...
And Reup Martin..

Is that being Flexible... or is that running the team on the Cheap?

parson · Post #7 » by **parson** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:53 pm

The problem I'm having is it seems you want us to use your definitions. I'd say we're seeking flexibility AND running as cheaply as possible. Isn't that what the ASG has always said - that they would be reasonable unless they had a chance at a superstar?

azuresou1 · Post #8 » by **azuresou1** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:07 pm

diesel50 wrote:Just a quick recap.. as everything trends downwardly and the news of the Hawks become evident league-wide... we see....
Hawks trade for Jamison...
And Reup Martin..

Is that being Flexible... or is that running the team on the Cheap?

It's called being smart.

We got some cash in exchange for almost literally nothing. Cash that will help the team's finances and which can be used in the future.

I don't know how much cash we got back, but I'm sure YOU'D be glad to tell your boss you saved the company $500k-$3M in exchange for a zero-value asset.

I can't believe I took the time to explain this.

Post #9 » by **Jamaaliver** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:59 pm

Rip2137 wrote:Hawes(who sucks by the way) got traded for 2 seconds, another big and Earl Clark(who I honestly think is good with minutes).

It's ironic you say that. A few sites mentioned that of all players traded at the deadline, Hawes had the highest PER and was the only traded player with a PER above 15 (i.e. the league average.)

Clark was released immediately by PHI.

I'd love to see either guy ion a Hawks uni at this point.

diesel50 · Post #10 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:31 am

parson wrote:The problem I'm having is it seems you want us to use your definitions. I'd say we're seeking flexibility AND running as cheaply as possible. Isn't that what the ASG has always said - that they would be reasonable unless they had a chance at a superstar?

Is there a team that has ever won anything by running on the cheap? It seems like our ownership is content to sit and wait on it's revenue sharing and it's ownership profit than try to actually win a title. And the idea of a chance at a superstar is just saying if we can get somebody to make us more money, we will take them. Here's the problem... This is not championship building. Championship building starts with a plan. So here we are with Ferry talking Flexibility when he really means "running on the cheap" and making people believe that we're actually building a winner here. We're just keeping the status quo. We should have kept Belkin if this were the case.

diesel50 · Post #11 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:36 am

azuresou1 wrote:
diesel50 wrote:Just a quick recap.. as everything trends downwardly and the news of the Hawks become evident league-wide... we see....
Hawks trade for Jamison...
And Reup Martin..

Is that being Flexible... or is that running the team on the Cheap?

It's called being smart.

We got some cash in exchange for almost literally nothing. Cash that will help the team's finances and which can be used in the future.

I don't know how much cash we got back, but I'm sure YOU'D be glad to tell your boss you saved the company $500k-$3M in exchange for a zero-value asset.

I can't believe I took the time to explain this.

I think it's called Negative Cash. We told LAC, we will take your debt off your hands... and we are waiving him for a cheaper Player in Martin.

Let's do the math...
Jamison... we took on 5 Million. Cut him. Signed Martin for the rest of the season...
That's -5 Million dollars... and you say we made money?
We gave LAC Cenyk Akyol's rights for Jamison in order to pay the 5 Million dollars he was owed... Then we cut him.

theatlfan · Post #12 » by **theatlfan** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:53 am

diesel50 wrote:I think it's called Negative Cash. We told LAC, we will take your debt off your hands... and we are waiving him for a cheaper Player in Martin.

Let's do the math...
Jamison... we took on 5 Million. Cut him. Signed Martin for the rest of the season...
That's -5 Million dollars... and you say we made money?
We gave LAC Cenyk Akyol's rights for Jamison in order to pay the 5 Million dollars he was owed... Then we cut him.

¿Que?

Where did the $5M come from? Jamison and Martin won't make $5M combined this year...

diesel50 · Post #13 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:06 am

Oh. I misread.

parson · Post #14 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:36 am

diesel50 wrote:
parson wrote:The problem I'm having is it seems you want us to use your definitions. I'd say we're seeking flexibility AND running as cheaply as possible. Isn't that what the ASG has always said - that they would be reasonable unless they had a chance at a superstar?

Is there a team that has ever won anything by running on the cheap?

The Chicago Bulls, for one. They're famous for that, especially when they had Jordan.

How many do I need to name?

diesel50 · Post #15 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:40 am

parson wrote:
diesel50 wrote:
parson wrote:The problem I'm having is it seems you want us to use your definitions. I'd say we're seeking flexibility AND running as cheaply as possible. Isn't that what the ASG has always said - that they would be reasonable unless they had a chance at a superstar?

Is there a team that has ever won anything by running on the cheap?

The Chicago Bulls, for one. They're famous for that, especially when they had Jordan.

How many do I need to name?

You mean the Chicago Bulls who star player Michael Jordan took a paycut so that his team can sign good players? Until his last 2 years playing when he commanded 33 amd 34 Million respectively? Not only do you need to give another name... you should apologize for trying to mislead the youngins on this one. Jordan was smart and knew that he made a lot of money from endorsements. There would have been no Jordan, Scotty, and Grant if Jordan wasn't humble enough to take a paycut. That's not something you find much of in today's NBA.

azuresou1 · Post #16 » by **azuresou1** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:05 pm

Jordan didn't take a paycut. He was just underpaid. And Scottie Pippen is one of the most underpaid players in NBA history.

I really don't get what your point here is. Is it that you think saving money when you're not a contending team is a BAD thing?

diesel50 · Post #17 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:40 pm

azuresou1 wrote:Jordan didn't take a paycut. He was just underpaid. And Scottie Pippen is one of the most underpaid players in NBA history.

I really don't get what your point here is. Is it that you think saving money when you're not a contending team is a BAD thing?

Paycut... Underpaid... This is semantics right??
Here's the Jordan Salary:

1985-86 Chicago Bulls NBA $630,000
1987-88 Chicago Bulls NBA $845,000
1988-89 Chicago Bulls NBA $2,000,000
1990-91 Chicago Bulls NBA $2,500,000
1991-92 Chicago Bulls NBA $3,250,000
1992-93 Chicago Bulls NBA $4,000,000
1993-94 Chicago Bulls NBA $4,000,000
1994-95 Chicago Bulls NBA $3,850,000
1995-96 Chicago Bulls NBA $3,850,000
1996-97 Chicago Bulls NBA $30,140,000
1997-98 Chicago Bulls NBA $33,140,000
2001-02 Washington Wizards NBA $1,000,000
2002-03 Washington Wizards NBA $1,030,000

So you contend that Jordan taking an underpaid salary didn't work for Chicago's good? Moreover, which of the superstars of today's game will take the same type of paycut to make sure that his team could win?

Remember, the original discussion is about a team having cap flexibility...created by a GM and that leading to winning. The case of Jordan and the Bulls was brought up but Jordan made this happen himself. What stars in today's game is going to do that?

diesel50 · Post #18 » by **diesel50** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:43 pm

azuresou1 wrote:
I really don't get what your point here is. Is it that you think saving money when you're not a contending team is a BAD thing?

My point is that there's a direct correlation to spending money and contending. Many owners in the NBA are not trying to win, they're trying to make money. They are not sporting men, they are business men. My point is that our ownership fall into that category. I'm not saying just throw money on anything, but at least have a plan and don't be afraid to spend money on good players who will help you contend. MJ is not walking through that door...

azuresou1 · Post #19 » by **azuresou1** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:52 pm

It's not semantics anymore than you quitting your job is equivalent to you getting fired.

Jordan was underpaid not because he chose to get paid so little, but because he signed an 8 year contract right before salaries exploded:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-21/ ... rdan-signs

The Bulls continued to run their organization on the cheap by low balling Scottie Pippen.

azuresou1 · Post #20 » by **azuresou1** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:57 pm

Your entire premise is bunk.

The Knicks perennially spend big money and suck.
Brooklyn is going to pay over $100M in luxury tax alone next season, and they're no better than us.
The Spurs have contended for the past decade and rarely pay luxury tax.

Furthermore, you seem to be confusing cause and effect. Spending more money does not make your team better. It is the process of making your team better than (sometimes) costs money.