NardDogNation wrote:1.) Why would a asset-strapped team like the Hawks hold onto Al Horford rather than trade him at the deadline? Even if the offer was a bull**** first round pick, it was better than nothing.2.) What was LaMarcus' motivation for signing with the Spurs if he knew he could potentially end up on any other team in the league?
3.) What do you think the Spurs can get for him in a trade?
It's a fair question, and one I'm guessing comes up since the Hawks let DeMarre Carroll walk, then traded Jeff Teague and Kyle Korver. The question will tend to repeat itself when you also consider Paul Millsap also walked instead of being traded.
While the Hawks ownership and front office knew Millsap would walk, there was still very strong feelings from the ownership group that Horford would stay a Hawk. He had been drafted by the franchise and spent 9 seasons there. As the story goes, Grant Hill urged trading him as it was clear that Horford was going to end up a Spur ( or elsewhere) However, in any group ownership situation, there is always one owner who has final decision making power ( This is very controversial with the Bucks, but that's for another thread I suppose), and Tony Ressler decided it was better for the franchise to make a playoff run as deep as possible and then hope for the best in the offseason. Grant Hill is looking at winning considerations, he's a former player. Ressler was looking at marketing considerations, which is valid, but different. The Knicks are a "cash rich" team. Most NY teams are cash rich teams, so it's hard to sometimes relate to other fanbases and franchises that they NEED to sell more tickets and sell more sponsorship revenue and to get to the playoffs to cover their operating costs. Atlanta is a franchise that struggles badly to maintain functional attendance. Some of it is the demographic breakdown of the region, part of it is there is no "signature" star to build the marketing around ( which is why guys like Westbrook and Harden can basically hold their teams hostage)
One of the push/pulls came in that the Over 36 Rule was something the NBAPA had long discussed changing to the Over 38 Rule in negotiations. Horford is in the 2nd year of a four year deal ( 4/113) He's 31 now. Once his Celtics contract ends, he's in line to squeeze in one more max contract, if possible, not just max amount, but max length and slide under the revised Rule. Ressler decided on his own NOT to offer Horford the five year possible max ( 5/150+) and instead offered 5/135+) Ressler wanted Horford to take a discount for the team, the AAV was only slight less than the Celtics offer. On the surface, it looks like Horford gave up guaranteed money to win, a nice safe narrative, but he was looking at his NEXT CONTRACT after this one. He gave up that 5th year, but he opened up a few more options and he went into a near contender situation. The Jeff Teague trade provided him some soft media cover that the Hawks were not really trying. The reality was that Dennis Schroeder was emerging and cheaper and Teague was in clear decline. To be fair to the Hawks, they are a really well run team for the most part. They do a good job of drafting and player development and they make tough decisions all the time that mostly tend to work out.
"Cash Poor" teams have to really consider the marketing aspect at times more than the winning aspect. It's an ugly part of the business but it's not as simple sometimes to see all ownership as greedy and idiotic. There's a saying that has always been true in business, even the NBA, a "fast nickel is better than a slow dime". No one could predict that the cap would spike WITHOUT some kind of smoothing option. Once it did, stupid contracts got handed out, but unintended side impacts happened, like Durant to GSW and Boston able to get Horford and Gordon Hayward in consecutive offseasons.
LMA would get paid and get a chance to quasi-contend. It was about that simple for him. The Spurs have pursued a few FAs in the past and were spurned. Sometimes you get rejected enough (Yes even the Spurs) and that muffin top at 2am in the bar looks good to you. The push for SA was the question if they could move LMA at worst, for some expirings just to shed his contract. If they wanted to just give him away, I think they could do that. To be fair, LMA wasn't totally blind here, that he might be a one year stopgap for the Spurs, but he bet on himself and decided today is today, tomorrow is uncertain. In that regard with Horford, he was right, Horford went elsewhere. Horford was never going to stay a Hawk. He says otherwise in public, but it was pretty much an open secret in the league he was wed to the Spurs. Some of this discussion is also to prevent tampering allegation from surfacing. Tampering happens everywhere. Everyone does it. All the time. Yes, even the Spurs.
In a full on rebuild, the Spurs would need a couple of top 5 picks. Would they get them? I don't know. But they never pick that high in the draft and they'd need a new set of franchise core players. My best guess is for the Knicks to get Leonard, it would cost Zinger, Ntilikina, their unprotected first this year, and they'd have to take in Pau Gasol's contract as well. How the salary match would work, I don't know, because I don't think it could work ( The Spurs would not want Noah nor Kanter nor Lee) It would almost imply THJr would have to go as well to try to balance out the salaries. Odds are it would need to be a three team deal and there's not enough on the Knicks roster after that to entice another team.
It's just not a fit for the Knicks and Spurs.
Again, this discussion opens up a deep dive into the Bucks situation. Wes Edens, Marc Lasry and Jamie Dinan along with the Greek Freak is a pretty interesting narrative to follow. I've seen some truly f**ked things in the NFL, in my time, but nothing like that. You could get some of those b*tches from one of those Real Housewives show to head to the Bucks headquarters and have them run from the building, screaming how it's too much drama even for them.
NardDogNation wrote:What was the Spurs' motivation for doing what they did this offseason? It felt so ill-advised. They committed so much long-term money to players that are advanced in age and play a style that is no longer en-vogue. Was this all an attempt to try to placate Kawhi by keeping them competitive? Because I felt they could have done so much more with that cap space to build their asset base.
Steve Kerr, when he was a former GM ( many people forget he also wore that hat in his career), said something interesting once in an interview. He said teams and their front offices know they are making decisions that will get them fired down the road, but it's down the road, without making any move to get better, you'll get fired right now.
RC Buford has near lifelong job security at this point. But again, the Spurs are not a cash rich team. They need that playoff revenue and previous NBA modern history has shown from a profit standpoint, holding as long as you can to a "franchise run" even in decline, is often the better bottom line decision. Mark Cuban and the Mavs are sort of in the same spot. They could tank and trade off everything, but it's not always so simple to do that. The tipping point seems to be if your "Franchise Player" is a functional team leader and responsible person in general or not. If you have a Westbrook and/or Harden situation, your team is being held hostage. When it's a Tim Duncan or Dirk situation, it's not such a hard pill to take.
The Spurs knew they would not contend, but wanted to put a marketable product on the floor. If you can't win a ring, and most teams just can't no matter what they do, at least don't lose money doing it. The Hawks signed Dwight Howard with this in mind. He wasn't going to push the needle for them, but he was a lingering "name" who offered just enough value to take a risk. The Designated Player Max Extension option was designed with teams like Atlanta in mind. You won't contend, but maybe you can hold onto a marketable franchise core to stabilize your team's financial path.
As this applies the to the Knicks, they are a CASH RICH team. While it seems tanking would be harder for them, it's a just easier path to a rebuild. They are in a rare situation where even a pretty horrible team, the tickets will keep selling.
When I discuss teams doing the best "market based decision", I'm referring to a team trying to win above all else, given the landscape of the behavior of all 30 teams.
When I discuss team making the best "marketing decision", I'm referring to a team trying to just keep butts in the seats and cover their operating costs. Ownership of a pro sports franchise is rarely for generating a revenue, it's a "status" issue. It's usually a loss leader to open up other life/business opportunities. Again, very few teams are like the Knicks and Lakers, where the money flows strong enough where you can actually make the winning based decisions, even with some short term financial hits in place.