What is plan B?

[Harry10]

- over pay John Salmons

- over pay Wesley Matthews

- make a play for Rudy Gay

- make a play for Brendon Haywood

- make a play for Ray Allen

- make a play for a couple of decent players like Anthony Marrow, Randy Foye, and Roger Mason

- sign a couple of vets and hope they are not totally washed up like TMac and Brad Miller

- trade cap for Collison and Posey

[dms269]

How much money would Salmons need to get for us to overpay for him?

[Harry10]

Salmons turned down $6M, so i guess he will be looking for $7M-$8M. which is pretty much the cap space of the Hawks.

[td00]

Salmons is the most logical answer, seeing that we might not get anything if Joe leaves.

The problem here is that Salmons didn't fit in Chicago and Sacramento saw enough to move him at his previous salary.

I couldn't give Salmons more than a 1-2 year deal. After all, he didn't exactly help the Bucks in that 7 game series. I think the Bucks know they aren't bringing him back, which is why they bought into Maggette.

Fill the holes we have now as opposed to having to replace Joe. Can you tell I think he is gone come July 1? A S&T would be in his best interest (an extra 25M minimum.)

[Harry10]

^ i don't think a SnT would be the best option, because i don't think that NYC or NJ have anybody worth trading as good as Salmons or Matthews. Houston might be able to make a good package for Joe, and i don't want any part of Deng or Beasley.

[td00]

The Hawks have made their offer in advance.

Joe is in LA of all places and taking on all offers.

Its up to where Joe wants to play to determine if we have a chance at getting any compensation.
If Joe does decide in a S&T, I have no hard feelings as he would assist us in keeping some positive momentum towards improvements.

And how much will it take to get Wesley Matthews? I could see him easily improving his salary 5-fold, unless there are some parameters that prevent that. That would be a great alternative in Joe's absence.

[Harry10]

^ Michael Redd got $3M, Manu got $6M, and Marquis Danials got $4M. I have a feeling that the Jazz might match $5M per year, especially if they feel like Mathews can become a 15ppg guy.

we know that Salmons is an 18ppg guy. $6M per year could be a great value for Mathews if the Hawks can get him, especially if he can be a 15ppg player, but he is still kind of a gamble, because i'm not sure how much influence Deron and the Jazz system had.

[td00]

I would say if Utah loses Boozer, they have a greater range of $$ to offer to Matthews. It would not surprise me for him to stay there.

Should Joe leave, it will be interesting to see if we can lure any mid level FA to come here with our new coach and unsureity of this upcoming season.

[NWO4Life]

Crawford 1 and 2 are the immediate answers. Marvin, AL, and Josh would all get an additional attempt or two a night. This could really help Marvins game the most. I am most excited about how Marvin will elevate his game in this new offensive system. Hey does have the talent to be a very good player now where under Woodson he seemed buried.

[evildallas]

I think Salmons is a really bad idea, so I can't throw my support behind paying him. As far as Wesley Matthews goes, I believe he could be at $4M per and the Jazz won't match, but I could be wrong. The Jazz are already right around 60M in salaries before dealing with Boozer (who will likely walk) or Korver.

My problem is I've done the math of plan A and I don't see how the ASG adds any other pieces to the team (beyond a couple of minimum salary vets). To reload with the same team and just a different coach really puts the blame on Woodson for the post-season fizzles. I can't see how he should shoulder all the blame and therefore I see plan A as expensively treading water.

[D21]

Salmons turned down $6M, so i guess he will be looking for $7M-$8M. which is pretty much the cap space of the Hawks.

I don't think that there will be this cap room.
Keeping Joe or not, they will certainly try to get something from Childress, and if you want this 7-8 of cap room, you need to make Childress free befoe, and won't get anything.

The question for the best plan B is do we renounce Childress and use 8M of cap room,
or do we make a sign-&-trade and get something in return, then use the MLE.
There is matching the offer of Childress, and keep him at least until Dec 15th, and use the MLE.

I also think that letting Childress walking for nothing just to get 8M of cap room and sign someone with that is not matching the ambition of building a contender.
You would end up to the cap, and just add some minimum salaries.
But maybe it's the "best plan" for ATL owners ?..

[td00]

Would anyone be surprised if Sund lets Joe and Chills walk for nothing?

I perhaps am delusional about a Chills return, because I don't see him coming back even if Joe goes.
We would have to pay him too much for my liking....we already have the 3 headed max contract of Bibby/Zaza/Marvin to deal with for 2 more years.

Truly, i would be happy for draft picks, but get us a new GM to select those draft picks. I don't agree with Sund's evaluation of talent and what this team needs most in its current form.

[Harry10]

^ i automatically assumed that Childress would be traded for a second round pick, because the Wiz have the cap space to sign Chil, without sending a player in return. and like i said before, i would rather have Joe walk then do a SnT, because their are no tradable players (besides Houston) that is better than Salmons or Matthews.

looking at the number, i think at this point i would much rather have Salmons over Joe. Joe gets 21 ppg, while John gets 18ppg, but John has a better shooting %, 3pt%, and true shooting %, and he comes at a whopping $10M cheaper (so better chance of ownership keeping Horford).

Matthews could be exciting just for the fact that we could watch him grow into an above average NBA starter.

but i think that the Hawks should really look into a Collison trade. he is athletic, can hit 3s, and really fits into the Hawks system, and i think he possibly has a higher ceiling than Matthews

[D21]

Harry,
they have cap space to sign him, but ATL has the right to match.
With some logic, you can see that if they want to sign him at more than what ATL would agree, it means that Childress is worth more than a second round pick.
If Joe leaves, there is enough playing time for Childress until Dec 15th when you can trade him, and get more than a secound round pick.

Letting Joe and Childress walk for nothing, to use only 9M and get someone like Salmons is just a big step back regarding a team saying they want to win a title or even be a ECF contender.
They won't be able to use MLE, so no Brad Miller for example.
And next year, there will be no cap room, or not more than a MLE.
What a great plan...


And when you see that plan A is to give him a Max contract, they are both the owners and Joe loosers.
If Joe stay because of a Max contract, instead of 15M and some money to improve the team, especially in this team where owners don't want to pay any tax, then he's a looser, or have a ego so big that he thinks he will win here.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... n_pursuit/

One source told Isola that the Hawks intend to offer Johnson a max contract and "get the deal done

The only positive thing if they give him Max and he accepts would be if it's linked to a willing of paying for winning.
If they tell him that even with giving him a Max, they will sign-&-trade Childress or match (and maybe trade him later) and use the MLE to improve the team, then it will be a winning attitude. But that would be the only reason.
Anything between that and letting both Joe and Childress walk is a looser attitude.

EDIT: and now, we start to hear about Brad Miller being wanted by NYK, and more important BOS and ORL !!!

[Harry10]

Harry,
they have cap space to sign him, but ATL has the right to match.
With some logic, you can see that if they want to sign him at more than what ATL would agree, it means that Childress is worth more than a second round pick.
If Joe leaves, there is enough playing time for Childress until Dec 15th when you can trade him, and get more than a secound round pick.

Letting Joe and Childress walk for nothing, to use only 9M and get someone like Salmons is just a big step back regarding a team saying they want to win a title or even be a ECF contender.
They won't be able to use MLE, so no Brad Miller for example.
And next year, there will be no cap room, or not more than a MLE.
What a great plan...


And when you see that plan A is to give him a Max contract, they are both the owners and Joe loosers.
If Joe stay because of a Max contract, instead of 15M and some money to improve the team, especially in this team where owners don't want to pay any tax, then he's a looser, or have a ego so big that he thinks he will win here.

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... n_pursuit/

One source told Isola that the Hawks intend to offer Johnson a max contract and "get the deal done

The only positive thing if they give him Max and he accepts would be if it's linked to a willing of paying for winning.
If they tell him that even with giving him a Max, they will sign-&-trade Childress or match (and maybe trade him later) and use the MLE to improve the team, then it will be a winning attitude. But that would be the only reason.
Anything between that and letting both Joe and Childress walk is a looser attitude.

their is just alot of things wrong here, because the greatest asset Chil could give back to the Hawks is cap space, because ultimately Salmons (or Matthews) is better than Childress (just like how Flip is better than Chil). if the Hawks do decide to bring back Childress (eating up $6M in cap), then the Hawks won't be able to sign anybody else, because the 12th spot needs to be filled by a PF. so ultimately, the Hawks have to choose between Salmons, Matthews, or Childress and it is not even close that Childress is the worst of the three.

[D21]

their is just alot of things wrong here, because the greatest asset Chil could give back to the Hawks is cap space, because ultimately Salmons (or Matthews) is better than Childress (just like how Flip is better than Chil). if the Hawks do decide to bring back Childress (eating up $6M in cap), then the Hawks won't be able to sign anybody else, because the 12th spot needs to be filled by a PF. so ultimately, the Hawks have to choose between Salmons, Matthews, or Childress and it is not even close that Childress is the worst of the three.

The wrong things are on your side Harry

It's not Childress or Salmons/Matthews, but Childress+MLE player or Salmons/Mathews
That's a huge difference.

And as I already said, it's not long term Childress, if you want to trade him, you can do it starting Dec 15th.
And if he wants to go to MIL, you can also work on a sign-&-trade Childress for Salmons, and keep your MLE for another guy, which is better than only having 8 or 9M to spend.

[MikeRice]

I'd really like to see us make a play for Rudy Fernandez. I don't know if he is available just because he's reportedly unhappy, but he'd be great insurance if Joe left.

Not sure what Marvin's value around the league is but I'd love to move him in almost back-up any scenario.