It’s the Losing, not the Lying

In a development that is entirely unsurprising, Atlanta Spirit is suing King & Spalding for malpractice, alleging that K&S made massive mistakes in drafting the agreement by which the entity would buy out Steve Belkin’s shares and then compounded the error in its representation of Atlanta Spirit in the litigation in Maryland against Belkin.  The suit is unsurprising because the source of the litigation was an ambiguously drafted provision in the sale agreement that allowed Belkin to try to control both of the appraisals for the value of his interest.  Atlanta Spirit ultimately prevailed on appeal in Maryland by convincing the Court of Appeals there that the appraisal provision was unenforceable.  The moment that happened, a malpractice claim was likely.  (Note: K&S will have plenty of defenses to the claim, one of which will be that, as the Maryland opinion notes, they had 30 hours to prepare a complex commercial document.  Another caveat: I’ve only followed this dispute through the media, so take my thoughts with a pound of salt.)

Atlanta Spirit’s Complaint makes for fascinating reading as a history of the legal wrangling regarding the ownership of the Hawks, Thrashers, and Philips Arena (albeit from the perspective of ownership).  One of the big issues that Atlanta Spirit faces is establishing damages.  OK, so K&S drafted a document with an imperfect provision regarding the determination of fair market value for the teams; what did that mean for you in terms of actual dollars and cents?  Atlanta Spirit’s claim is that they wanted to sell the Thrashers after the resolution of the 2004-05 lockout, at which point the competitive landscape would be better for a team like the Thrashers and the franchise’s value will be greater, but they were unable to do so because of the uncertainty as to who actually owned the teams: Belkin or the rest of Atlanta Spirit.  This is a somewhat embarrassing argument for the owners of a major pro franchise to make, but this is what happens when you air your grievances in the public litigation process.  Atlanta Spirit faced the same issue when it was litigating against Belkin in Maryland and had to put forward evidence regarding the vast sums that the teams were allegedly losing.  (Unrelated issue: this dispute illustrates the value of an arbitration clause in certain commercials contracts.  Atlanta Spirit would have been much better off if it could have fought with Belkin behind a wall of confidentiality.)

Naturally, Jeff Schultz has latched onto this argument to complain that we’ve been swindled by Atlanta Spirit.  Here’s his opening flourish:

They told you they cared. They lied.

They told you their biggest concern was putting out the best product for you, the fans. They lied.

They told you not to pay attention to any of those rumors of the Thrashers being for sale, although they eventually admitted begrudgingly that, yes, they were looking for “investors.” They lied.

The Atlanta Spirit is not looking for investors. They’re looking to sell the Thrashers. They’ve been looking to sell them for — ready for this? –six years.

Six . . . years.

Those are the caretakers of your franchise. Those are the ones who’ve pleaded with you since 2005 to support a mostly inferior product — and now they can’t figure out how they’ve burned so many bridges in this town why fans still feel too angry or worn down to show up for a pretty decent team. Reality never has been their strong suit.

This is hopelessly naive.  A decision to buy or sell a franchise is one of those topics about which we can fully expect owners to lie and with good reason.  If a team’s owners admit that they are looking to sell, then they immediately start to look desperate and their price goes down.  This is negotiation 101.  If I’m going to scalp tickets outside of a game, I want to create the impression that I’m not committed to getting into the stadium.  If I show up in team gear reeking of desperation, then a scalper is going to fleece me.  The apparent decision by Atlanta Spirit to lie about its intentions to sell the team is no different than a college coach denying that he’s considering leaving his program, a presidential candidate denying that he’s considering ending his campaign, or a president lying about surveillance flights over the Soviet Union.  If Schultz wants to be mad, then he ought to be mad at himself for assigning weight to the self-interested answers of Atlanta Spirit to questions that they could not answer honestly for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Schultz is absolutely correct in the conclusion of his column: “If Atlanta loses its second NHL franchise, it won’t be because the sport failed here. It will be because ownership and management failed.”  The reason why he’s correct has nothing to do with Atlanta Spirit claiming that it was trying to sell the team when it was, in fact, trying to do exactly that.  Rather, if hockey fails again in Atlanta, it will be because the team didn’t win nearly enough games to generate interest.  Atlanta fans will respond to a winner.  We turned out for the Hawks in the 80s, we turned out in droves for the Braves in the 90s, and now we’re selling out the Georgia Dome for every Falcons game.  Atlanta fans, unlike some fans elsewhere, will not pay for a bad product.  (This does not extend to our affection for our college football teams, whom we’ll pay to see even when they are 0-11.)  The Thrashers have made the playoffs once in eleven seasons and were promptly swept.  Let’s go out on a limb and say that that qualifies as a bad product.  Indeed, one of the first defenses that K&S will make regarding Atlanta Spirit’s damages is that its alleged malpractice didn’t cause a diminution in the value of the franchise; Don Waddell’s fumbling of the on-ice product is the proximate cause of the loss.  (K&S would also point to larger systemic factors, like the economic downturn and the NHL’s descent into irrelevance.  That said, they’ll try to resolve the case on legal grounds if at all possible.  They won’t want 12 jurors trying to make these complex analyses of market value.)  At this point, we would all be happy if Atlanta Spirit sold the team, but it’s not because they had the temerity to claim that they had no interest in doing so.    

All Hail Billy Knight

When I first saw the headline that the Hawks had acquired Mike Bibby to solve their long-standing weakness at the point guard position, I assumed that they had given up Josh Childress to make the deal happen. It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that the Hawks would have traded for Bibby while only giving up a pupu platter of spare parts. This is literally the sort of trade that gets suggested by unrealistic sports talk radio callers, the sort of trade where a team gets a quality asset and only gives up parts that it doesn't need or use. The Hawks had a glut of back-up point guards. Now, they have dealt two of those point guards away (Tyronne Lue and Anthony Johnson), along with Lorenzen Wright, who is literally one of the worst players in the NBA, and Shelden Williams, who is pretty much stuck with the bust tag at this stage. In other words, the Hawks gave up nothing but fungible pieces to get a quality point guard.

Despite a few missteps along the way, it's now safe to say that Billy Knight's job of rebuilding the Hawks is complete. He started by blowing the Terry-Rahim-Ratliff team up during and after the '03-'04 season. He's been very patient, letting the team struggle so he could acquire good draft picks. He made one major free agent signing (Joe Johnson). Now, the team has a roster that can be described as very good, at least by Eastern Conference standards: Mike Bibby, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford as the starters, with Josh Childress, Acie Law, and Zaza Pachulia as the primary reserves. Knight definitely made some significant mistakes along the way (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Brandon Roy, Speedy Claxton, I'm hearing you on all of them), but in the end, he's put together a good roster. He needs to be credited for his patience. He didn't panic by making bad signings of expensive free agents (remember when everyone wanted him to overpay for Sam Dalembert or Eddy Curry?) and he didn't offload his young players. He bided his time and then struck when a rebuilding franchise was giving up its best asset for pennies on the dollar. Now, the Hawks have a good roster and if they just keep it together, the team will get better as the young players mature.

Bibby ought to have some significant effects on this team. The Hawks finally have a point guard who can break down a defense and distribute the ball. Bibby isn't a huge assist-producer, but he can get to the basket and score, which will be helpful for this team. He's having a pretty poor year this year, hopefully because of injuries and a poor supporting cast. If that's the case, then we can expect a Bibby resurgence when he gets to Atlanta. Personally, I think that Josh Childress has always been the Hawk who stands to benefit the most from playing with a quality point guard, as he is the best player on the team at moving without the ball and finishing at the rim. Joe Johnson also stands to benefit, as he has been carrying way too much of a load and has been wearing down as a result. Bibby gives the Hawks a second option at crunch time. He also gives the Hawks a good three-point shooter that they sorely lacked to punish opponents for doubling.

I've been snowed under at work recently, as you may have noticed from the lack of posting this month, but if I wouldn't have written about the Hawks last weekend, it would have been to say that I reached my breaking point with them last weekend. They played from behind the entire game against Cleveland and then promptly got annihilated by Houston. I had given up on the team by Saturday night. The games this week did nothing to improve my mood. Case in point was the Detroit game on Tuesday night, which featured Joe Johnson throwing a shot up with his back to the basket on a critical late possession, followed by a collapse in Charlotte against the lowly Bobcats the next night. This team has a chronic inability to score on critical possessions because they have nothing approaching a coherent offensive structure and they end up giving the ball to Joe Johnson on iso plays, despite the fact that he's not very good at beating opponents off the dribble. The Bibby trade solves some of these problems, as it gives the Hawks a one-on-one option for the end of games. It does not solve the problem that the past six weeks have given me serious reservations about Mike Woodson's ability to coach these players. I feel good about the team now because Bibby can cover some of Woodson's failings, but I'd feel better with Larry Brown in charge.

The reaction to the trade has been positive around the Internet. The trade gets the Jeff Schultz seal of approval, although his reasoning appears to be "Billy Knight did something," which is pretty weak because plenty of general managers make frequent moves and don't make their teams any better. (See: Thomas, Isiah.) Columnists like constant motion because it gives them topics for copy, but it's not inherently good. Sekou Smith gets this point:

Keeping the core in place is just another byproduct of shrewd dealing, because the Hawks fielded calls from all over the league for guys like Josh Smith, Josh Childress and Marvin Williams. Some of us (yeah, I’m guilty, too) would have buckled and sent one of them packing for something much less than Bibby, for the sake of change.

Knight, love him or hate him, has never been accused of being a conformist. He did it his way and smoked the competition, snatching Bibby away while the rest of the league was focused on Jason Kidd and the other blockbuster deals involving Pau Gasol and Shaquille O’Neal.

Marty Burns approves and points out that acquiring Bibby counters the image of the Hawks' ownership group as being totally unwilling to spend money. I'll admit that this is a major relief to me, as there was a gnawing fear in the back of my mind that Atlanta Spirit was unable, either because of financial reasons or Belkinkampf, to spend money on the team and that we were going to let go of one or both of the Joshes at the end of the season as a result. That fear is gone, although there could be a concern that spending $14.5M on Bibby next year will make the owners less likely to spend to keep the Joshes. Marc Stein points out that Lebron can't be happy about this development. He also makes the cautionary point that Bibby might struggle now that he's not playing off of a passing big man like Brad Miller. John Hollinger($) quantifies Bibby's effect at about six games over the course of an 82-game season or two games over the rest of the season, which might be enough to get to the playoffs. That doesn't take into account the fact that Bibby can make the rest of the team better, so there is some rationality to the "Bibby as messiah" euphoria that I had when I first heard about the trade. Then again, I remember the euphoria when the Braves traded for Mark Teixeira this summer and the Braves finished third, exactly where they would have been without Mark (although Teixeira played beautifully for the Braves after the trade). We are embarking on a bit of a leap of faith that the Bibby of this season, who is averaging a pedestrian 13/5 on .406 shooting, will improve once he gets here. At this stage, I'm quite happy to make a leap of faith. With the Hawks finally having a legitimate point guard and after a great dunk contest last night, I'm a satisfied NBA fan this morning.

Prediction? Pain. Or Maybe Not?

This could be a first: an analyst is picking the Hawks to finish over .500 and make the playoffs. And the analyst in question isn't Terrence Moore. Rather, John Hollinger, who makes his arguments on the basis of actual numbers and evidence as opposed to "Frank Robinson was traded once from Cincinnati and I'm from Cincinnati, so therefore, the Braves shouldn't trade Andruw Jones," has gone on record as predicting the Hawks to go 42-40($) and sneak into the playoffs as a #7 seed. His reasoning is three-fold: (1) the Hawks had a lot of injuries last year and it's unreasonable to think that this bad luck will continue; (2) the Hawks gave significant minutes to Speedy Claxton and Lorenzen Wright last year, both of whom were dreadful, so simply giving their minutes to replacement level players will lead to improvement; and (3) the Hawks are young and their players can be expected to improve. I sincerely hope that Hollinger is right.

In discussing last season, Hollinger spends a fairly significant amount of space addressing the Hawks' deficiencies in terms of three-point shooting, both offensively and defensively. He makes a fairly strong case that the Hawks might have simply been unlucky in that their opponents hit a lot of threes. Personally, I think the Hawks' defensive problems all start with their inability to stop penetration (especially from the point guard spot) and the rotations that result from penetration create open threes. I'm not high on Acie Law, nor is Hollinger, but if he can keep opposing guards out of the paint without being an offensive liability (see: Ivey, Royal), then he'll be a major improvement. Hollinger also notes that the Hawks didn't shoot the ball well from outside last year and this, I think, is a more significant problem. Like John Thompson's 1988 Olympic team that had a host of athletes and no shooters, Billy Knight has put together a team of 6'9 runners, but Joe Johnson is the only one among them who can hit from outside (although Josh Childress is decent from behind the arc). The Hawks desperately need someone to hit open shots to penalize opponents for doubling Johnson. Again, if Law is that guy, then Hollinger and I will both be wrong and the Hawks will be a better team. Another person to pay attention to is Marvin Williams, who got better last year at scoring, but needs to show some outside shooting to help the team more.

The long-term solution to the Hawks' three-point woes could be Al Horford, not because Al has any ability to hit an NBA three, but rather because Al might be the Hawks' first legitimate post threat since Dikembe. If Horford proves to be a good inside scorer, then he'll force doubles and then Joe Johnson could be the guy receiving the ball on the perimeter as opposed to handling the ball and drawing a double. My greatest anticipation for the opener against Dallas is to see Horford play. (Speaking of the opener, the Hawks' first five games are home dates against Dallas and Phoenix and road games against Detroit, New Jersey, and Boston. Oy vey.)

The note of pessimism that Hollinger strikes is a significant one, namely that the ownership squabble could prevent the Hawks from locking up Josh Childress and Josh Smith long-term. I can't put into words what a major problem this could be. Rebuilding takes such a long time in the NBA because the system is weighted in such a way that teams have an advantage in retaining their players. Thus, when the Hawks were bad, there were very few quality players available around whom they could rebuild. The Hawks have gone through years of suffering to accumulate a good young nucleus of players. The genius of the NBA system is that the Hawks can now retain them, as opposed to having to let some of them go for cap reasons (the NFL method) or watch as the biggest market teams outbid them for those players (the MLB approach). The nightmare scenario for the franchise is that the Hawks piss away their accumulation of young talent because Steve Belkin won't agree to any long-term commitments, either because he's cheap or because he views the entire roster as tainted because it was assembled by Billy Knight. It's one thing for Belkin to stop the Hawks from trading for an expensive player like Amare Stoudemire; it's quite another for him to prevent the team from keeping its existing players.

Belkinkampf: the Quagmire that Keeps on Giving

I should have known that the idea of Amare Stoudemire coming to the Hawks was too good to be true. What possible use would the Hawks have for Stoudemire, a player coming off a season in which he averaged 20/10 and shot 57.5% from the field. A player who is just now entering his prime. A player who absolutely pwned Tim Duncan in the 2005 playoffs. A player who meets a major need for the Hawks (and just about every other NBA team): a quality interior scorer. A player who would immediately make the Hawks a playoff team in the East and possibly the favorite in the Southeast Division.

Why isn't Amare coming? Because cheap-ass Steve Belkin doesn't want to spend the money on a legitimate NBA star. It boggles the mind that Belkin would buy into an NBA team and then refuse to spend the money that it takes to put a good product on the court. Did he really think that he would never be called upon to pay for a max-contract player? He can't possibly think that Stoudemire isn't worth the money, can he? Abd how is he not realizing that the Hawks have a "show us wins" fan base and thus, putting a good product on the court is more important for Atlanta than it is for teams that will draw well regardless of how good they are? Stoudemire would mean so much for the team, so naturally, Belkin doesn't want to pay for him.

Here's the real stupidity of Belkin's purported opposition: the genesis of his fall-out with the remaining owners of Atlanta Spirit was his claim that Knight was going to overpay for Joe Johnson by giving up Boris Diaw and a #1 pick. If the Hawks make the Stoudemire deal, then the final bill for Johnson will end up being Diaw (who, regardless of his success in Phoenix, was useless for the Hawks) and roughly the #18 pick in the 2008 Draft (assuming that the Hawks are about a #6 seed in the East next year). By torpedoing the Stoudemire deal, Belkin makes his criticism of the Johnson deal a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm normally reticent to believe every rumor that gets printed, but Ian Thomsen at SI is saying the same thing, albeit without naming the owner who is ruining everything. If I only had the Thomsen article and not the Ford article, I still would have assumed that Belkin was the problem because he opposed the Joe Johnson acquisition because he didn't want to pay Johnson's salary (or at least that was what his co-owners said). Naturally, the AJC, consistent with their apparent policy of never printing any rumors for fear of angering the local sports collectives, have nothing on the squabbling, although Sekou Smith does have a good summary of the trade rumors floating around. Mark Bradley also has a good piece on the confidence that he feels in Billy Knight this morning. He closes with this thought:

And if the night ends with Amare Stoudemire coming here, we’ll be calling Billy Knight a magician.

If Billy Knight's rebuilding process ends with a starting lineup that includes Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Amare Stoudemire, then a whole lot of people are going to owe him a major apology. (Add in the rumored Childress for Jose Calderon trade and you have a dynamite starting five, although depth would be a question. I like that proposed trade a lot more than the #11 for Luke Ridnour offer because Ridnour is a dreadful defender and would merely perpetuate the Hawks' inability to keep opposing guards out of the lane.) There will certainly have been a little luck involved, namely keeping the Hawks' first round pick this year, but Knight will have achieved exactly what he was supposed to do when he blew the team up after the 2003-4 season. But coming back to the first two paragraphs of this post, Knight is going to have to get past a pile of internal squabbling to get to that point.

(And I'm not even going to mention the possibility of Michael Gearon pushing Knight to take Yi because of interests in the Chinese market. That would be a classic "Real Madrid taking Beckham over Ronaldinho because Becks would sell more shirts in Thailand" move. Yi is an enormous unknown; taking him with the #3 pick when Horford and Conley are both sitting out there having proven themselves in college basketball would be insane.)

A Guy Can Dream, Can't He?

How about Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Ty Lue and the No. 11 pick for Kobe and Radmanovic? The Hawks then grab Mike Conley with the #3 pick (although I'm not sure that he's the right point guard to play with Kobe because the primary attribute that a Kobe sidekick needs is dead-eye shooting ability to make opponents pay for double-teams) and have the following starting lineup: Conley, Kobe, Childress, J-Smoove, Zaza. Or how about this: the Hawks use the #3 pick on Al Horford because they're admitting a mistake on Shelden Williams and then give Salim a greater role now that that they don't need a true point guard with the ball going through Kobe on most possessions, thus giving them a starting five of Salim, Kobe, J-Smoove, Horford, Zaza with Childress in the sixth man role. Either of those teams is a playoff contender in the East. If Lebron can get the Cavs close to the Finals with his crap-tastic supporting cast, then couldn't Kobe get the Hawks close with a supporting cast that isn't great now, but is getting better and might be dynamite in two years? A few other thoughts on the fantasy that will never happen:

1. The 800-pound elephant in the room is whether Billy Knight has the authority to make an enormous deal for a player like Kobe, given the legal wrangling going on between Belkin and Atlanta Spirit. Is it possible, from a legal perspective, that Atlanta Spirit would want or need Belkin to sign off on this deal?

2. Notice how the two players taken after Josh Childress are the potential centerpieces for Philly or Chicago to use in acquiring Kobe? Oy. (And I say this as an unabashed fan of Childress's game.)

3. I have absolutely no problem with Kobe demanding a trade. Mitch Kupchak has been inept in his efforts to surround Kobe with talent. Kobe will turn 29 before next season starts and he knows that he is reaching the second half of his prime years. Why should he be forced to waste those years playing with Chris Mihm and Smush Parker? Bryant has leverage because he's a terrific player who always plays hard; why shouldn't he use that leverage? The counter to this defense of Kobe has always been that he forced Shaq's departure in the first place, but it's now looking that that might not be the case, but instead, the Lakers floated that rumor as cover for their real motivation, which was to get rid of Shaquille before paying a guy with a suspect work ethic and his prime years in the rearview mirror a max deal.

4. It wouldn't be a Bill Simmons column without taking a shot at Atlanta as a "moribund NBA city," but look at his explanation that LA is a terrific destination for NBA free agents because of "the weather, the women, the wealth and the Hollywood scene." Insert the word "Black" in front of "Hollywood" and which city are we describing? Atlanta isn't a choice NBA destination right now because the team hasn't won since the Clinton Administration. (If I can figure out a way to blame George Bush for the Hawks, I surely will. Someone get Cindy Sheehan on the phone, stat!) Kobe would change that and he's smart enough to know that this will be a good NBA market with a winning team and a major star.

4a. After taking the obligatory shot at Simmons, I need to mention that his discussion of prior All-NBA players traded in their primes is very compelling. There's almost no way to overpay for Bryant, although the Joe Johnson-Josh Smith-#3 pick deal I saw somewhere yesterday comes close.

5. To throw more cold water on the possibility of Bryant coming to Atlanta, Chad Ford's suggestion that the more likely result is that Jerry Buss will fire Kupchak($) seems solid to me. The only way this wouldn't work is if Bryant sees the damage done by Kupchak as long-term and he feels impatient.

6. One positive thought: given the Hawks' (understandable) struggles in recent years to sell tickets, Kobe has more economic value to them than he does to just about any other NBA franchise.

7. Jeff Schultz's attempt to argue that the Hawks should not try to acquire Bryant are beyond weak:

In the culmination of a three-year franchise meltdown since Shaquille O’Neal was drop-kicked to Miami, the Los Angeles Lakers heard Bryant demand a trade on a radio talkshow.

On. A radio. Talkshow.

Now that’s class.

Yeah, that's a reason to decline to make an effort to acquire one of the top five players in basketball: he made a trade demand on a sports talk radio show. That has EVERYTHING to do with building a winning hoops team.

This isn’t about what kind of athlete Bryant is or what he could bring to a basketball team. It’s about what he has become. After three championships with the Lakers, he wanted to be The Show. Now he’s Sideshow Kobe.

Right, because most people would not react when they bust their rears for 80+ games every year, only to see their inept management base their plan for improving the team on the maturation of a 19-year old post project, all while declining every opportunity to bring in players who can help the team win now.

But there is also little question that the Bryant-O’Neal feud significantly played into the situation. Their relationship drove a wedge into a team that could’ve won more championships. It drove Phil Jackson to grab a candle and a harp and run for the hills. Bryant’s actions set the stage for O’Neal’s departure.

If you still don’t believe that, consider Jackson’s book, “The Last Season: A Team in Search of Its Soul.” He referred to his relationship with Bryant as “psychological war.”

Jackson also wrote that he became so frustrated with his star that he approached general manager Mitch Kupchak in January about trading him. The key passage: “I won’t coach this team next year if he is still here. He won’t listen to anyone. I’ve had it with this kid.”

And Jackson believed what he wrote so much that he came right back to coach the Lakers after a one-year hiatus. And who was the first person to call Kobe to talk him down off the ledge after he made his trade demand? Phil Jackson.

You think: “Bryant and Joe Johnson. Wow!” But any Lakers trade demands probably would start with Johnson and the third overall pick.

Don’t. Even. Think about it.

The Hawks have a chance to do something right (draft Mike Conley Jr.) and go up.

If Jeff Schultz was writing in Phoenix in 1992, he undoubtedly would have written about how Jeff Hornacek, Andrew Lang and Tim Perry were a good nucleus and if the Suns could just pair them with a good draft pick, they'd be on the road to success.

What annoys me most about Schultz's column is that he simply ignores Bryant's merits as a basketball player, namely that he scores 30+ per game and is one of the best on-the-ball defenders in the NBA to boot, not to mention the fact that no one has ever accused him of not playing hard. Schultz ignores the most important evidence and instead relies on the pop psychology factors that ought to be at the back of the bus when evaluating a potential Bryant trade. Unfortunately, that's where we are in modern mainstream sports journalism. The juicy bits from Phil Jackson's book and the choice of medium in announcing a trade demand are more important than 32.8 points, 5.2 rebounds, and 4.4 assists every game. Let's just have psychologists run teams instead of basketball pros.

Hawks-Lakers Liveblog Tonight!

Live, from the deepest recesses of Philips Arena, blog night with the Hawks tonight, starting at 7 p.m.! And the team has won five of seven! And three straight on the road! And we're only 3.5 games out of a playoff spot! And there was an article from Chris Sheridan today to rain on the Hawks' parade by reminding us of impending events in Belkinkampf! Scheisse!($)!

We Learn Two Things about Terrence Moore this Morning

1. He is capable of criticizing an African-American sports figure. For years, Braves fans noticed Moore criticizing certain players, typically Caucasian, and advocating for others, typically African-American. This morning, he's doing his inept best to rip Billy Knight, the one African-American general manager in town. I suppose one can come back with the argument that what he's doing is sticking up for Mike Woodson, the one African-American coach in town, by arguing that he doesn't have much to work with, but that seems unlikely to me. So kudos to Terrence for disproving a stereotype about his opinions.

2. Terrence still can't make an argument worth a damn.

Here's his effort at examining Billy Knight's record as Hawks' GM:

To see how far the Hawks haven’t come during their journey from self-inflicted implosion to wherever their slew of bosses say this franchise is headed, just study the other guys Wednesday night at Philips Arena.

After doing so, you’re allowed to scream as loudly as you wish.

Those other guys are the Utah Jazz. In 2003, the year before Hawks general manager Billy Knight did the right thing by blowing up the messy roster that he inherited, the Jazz prepared to go from sweet to sour notes on the court after the retirement of John Stockton and the departure of Karl Malone. If you combine those losses to the Jazz’s stated goal of rebuilding, you had their version of Knight ousting the likes of Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Jason Terry, Boris Diaw, Antoine Walker, Rasheed Wallace, Theo Ratliff and Al Harrington.

We're OK so far...

The thing is, while the Hawks are now closer to the cellar than the penthouse of the Southeast Division with the NBA’s worst overall roster not in Philadelphia, the Jazz are roaring among the elite at 18-7. Not only that, the Jazz have a three-game lead in the Northwest and a future as bright as the Hawks’ is cloudy.

And now we've completely blown it. The Hawks' roster isn't anywhere near the bottom of the NBA. What GM in his right mind would take the Knicks' roster, laden with similar players possessing untradeable contracts, over the Hawks', which has a number of promising young players and is cheap enough that the team has flexibility to go after free agents when the opportunity arises? Or take Minnesota's roster, which has one aging superstar, one promising young player, and then a series of dreadful players. I was hoping that Minnesota could trade for Iverson because Iverson and Garnett are two players who have never had the benefit of playing with another superstar and they deserve the chance to play with one another, but the Wolves had virtually nothing that interested the Sixers.

Why the contrast? Well, here are the CliffsNotes: The Jazz get it right more often than not when it comes to drafting, and the Hawks don’t. You also have that gambling thing. The Jazz aren’t afraid to seek the big payoff at the roulette wheel (Mehmet Okur and Carlos Boozer), and Knight prefers the nickel slots (Speedy Claxton and Lorenzen Wright).

This is just unbelievably wrong. Maybe Bobby Knight is right about journalists? First of all, Knight did sign one big ticket free agent during his tenure. You might have heard of this Joe Johnson fellow, Terrence. He's currently 5th in the NBA in scoring while shooting 50% from the field. Second, Carlos Boozer was viewed as a complete bust for his first two years in Utah, when he was overpaid, could not stay healthy, and was an essentially decent power forward when he was on the court. The fact that he's having a renaissance this year does not change the fact that if Moore was in Utah, he would have killed that franchise for two years for lavishing so much money on Boozer. Third, the fact that Utah has signed two big ticket free agents who, in Terrence's make-believe world, were great signings does not change the fact that the NBA's free agent market, like baseball, consists of players who typically get far more than they're worth. Remember when Knight was killed in the press for failing to acquire Sam Dalembert, Tyson Chandler, or Eddy Curry? Right now, the Hawks get equivalent production from the much cheaper Zaza Pachulia, while the Sixers can't offload Dalembert, the Bulls have offloaded Chandler, and Curry was a massive disappointment in New York last year. (He is playing better this year.)

To be fair, the Jazz had a shot to build walls and a roof around a solid foundation named Andrei Kirilenko. It’s just that the Jazz also had the guts and the wisdom to add paneling by giving $50 million to Okur and $68 million to Boozer as free agents. Now the three comprise one of the league’s most potent frontcourts.

In contrast, the Hawks don’t have one of the league’s most potent anything. Knight is so obsessed with not overspending on players that only the Charlotte Bobcats have a lower payroll than the Hawks’ $45.6 million. Plus, the Hawks are nearly $8 million under the salary cap, which means they have the money. They just don’t like to spend it.

See above. Knight has refused to spend money on free agents who tend to be massively overpaid. The one big ticket free agent that he signed has turned out to be better than any of us had hoped. Additionally, the Hawks have the young players and cap room to sign a free agent if a good one becomes available, but even if they don't, the Hawks have an extremely young team that should get better and better as time goes by. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. For example, that's how the Bulls built their team and they only went after a pricy free agent (Ben Wallace) once they had assembled a young core and it had started winning. But since Utah is in town tonight, the Bulls don't exist.

It shows. Beyond Joe Johnson, the Hawks’ only legitimate star, at least five of their 12 players are marginal by NBA standards. Royal Ivey. Matt Freije. Cedric Bozeman. Esteban Batista. Solomon Jones. The Hawks also haven’t a starting point guard (again). Instead, they use a couple of career backups in Tyronn Lue and Claxton in that role. Josh Smith remains a project, and several of his teammates are constant reminders of what the Hawks should have done in past drafts but didn’t.

Here's the bottom of the Jazz's roster; let me know if any of these names are synonymous with "good":

Rafael Araujo
Jarron Collins
Derek Fisher
C.J. Miles
Roger Powell

As for the starting point guard issue, the Hawks brought Speedy Claxton in to be that guy. He's been hurt for much of the start of the year, so writing him off seems silly. This weekend, for instance, he had 10 points and 11 assists against the Bulls and 19 points and 11 assists against Memphis. Not bad for "not a starting point guard." Finally, the criticism of Josh Smith is interesting, since Knight took him with the #17 pick and Smith has significantly out-performed his draft position so far in his career. Ironically enough, Utah had the #14 and #16 picks in that Draft and came away with Kris Humphries and Kirk Snyder. Humphries is currently averaging 2.7 points per game for Toronto; Snyder is currently averaging 5.7 points per game for Houston. Billy sure screwed that pick up.

For instance: The Hawks made Shelden Williams the fifth pick in this year’s draft, and he has yet to impress. In fact, he has yet to do anything worth mentioning. That’s opposed to Rudy Gay, just named the Rookie of the Month in the Western Conference. He was picked in the draft by the Memphis Grizzlies — you know, right after the Hawks picked Williams.

Rudy Gay - 15.2 points per 40 minutes, 6.9 rebounds per 40 minutes, .385 FG%

Shelden Williams - 10.9 points per 40 minutes, 10.3 rebounds per 40 minutes, .435 FG%

And that leaves aside the facts that: (1) the Hawks could not take Gay with their existing roster; (2) I don't recall Terrence Moore screaming for Gay on Draft Night, so this smacks of "let me figure out which rookie is off to a fast start and rip the Hawks for not drafting him; and (3) judging draft picks on the basis of their first 20 games is typically a terrible idea. At this time last year, the Jazz were getting killed in the press for taking Deron Williams instead of Chris Paul.

Then there was the 2004 draft near the start of the Hawks’ rebuilding. They took Josh Childress, which was OK, when they could have selected from among Luol Deng, Al Jefferson and Andre Iguodala, which would have been better.

Childress, by either the 82games.com model or the Wages of Wins model, is an extremely valuable player. He defends well, he rebounds, he moves without the ball, and he shoots at a very high percentage (.567 this year before he got hurt; .552 last year). The Hawks' stumble after a fast start can be attributed pretty closely to Childress's hairline fracture. If the Hawks start playing well when Childress returns, you think we'll see Terrence Moore acknowledge his mistake? I'll expect that right after he acknowledges that trading for Juan Pierre might have been a bit of a boo boo last year for the Braves.

No, I didn’t forget about 2005. I saved that draft for last. That’s when the Hawks took Marvin Williams instead of Chris Paul, the starting point guard that they still need and the former Wake Forest whiz who eventually was named Rookie of the Year for the New Orleans Hornets. Anyway, the Hawks also skipped over somebody else in that draft. We’re talking about Deron Williams, among the league’s most efficient point guards, and guess who was omniscient enough to get him?

The same team whose omniscience caused them to take Kris Humphries and Kirk Snyder in the 2004 Draft.

If you mentioned the Jazz, you may scream a little louder.

That said, the Hawks still have a chance to get it right. Come this summer, you’ll have stellar point guards Chauncey Billups and Mike Bibby as free agents. You’ll also have Vince Carter, Darko Milicic, Gerald Wallace and Rashad Lewis, all considerable talents, all available at the right price to turn the Hawks into something in the vicinity of the Jazz. Or at least farther away from resembling the Hawks.

Billups and Bibby would be interesting, but we'd have to see if they wanted to play for Atlanta. Rashard (that's with two "r"s, Terrence) Lewis would be interesting if he could play the four, but he'd likely add to the logjam at the forward spots. Still, he's an excellent player, so I wouldn't be totally opposed to signing him. Vince Carter is an inferior version of Joe Johnson: a scorer who doesn't get to the line that much, only Vince shoots a signficantly lower percentage and is also an insufferable ass. What is it about Darko's 7.5 ppg that makes him so appealing? Gerald Wallace is a small forward and no improvement over Josh Smith. He'd likely sit on the pine behind Smith, Childress, and Marvin Williams, so yeah, Terrence, that would be a great idea, just like everything else you've advanced in this totally unsupported, worst form of Monday Morning Quarterbacking that you call your livelihood.

Look, if the point is that Utah has rebuilt faster than Atlanta and we all wish that the Hawks looked like the Jazz right now, then yes, that would be reasonable. If you want to criticize Billy Knight for taking Marvin Williams over Deron Williams or Chris Paul, then that's fine too. Marvin might turn out to be a great player and that will lessen the magnitude of the mistake, but Knight still passed on a chance at two excellent players at a hard-to-fill position for an excellent (we hope) player at an easier to fill position. If the Hawks don't show improvement this year (35 wins or so) or don't make the playoffs next year, then Billy Knight will likely be fired for that mistake. (Or, the Hawks' owners could lose in Belkinkampf! Scheisse! and then Knight will be gone the next morning.)

That said, Knight has made some excellent decisions, namely: (1) identifying Joe Johnson as a free agent target and overpaying to get him; (2) drafting Josh Smith 17th in the 2004 Draft; and (3) signing Zaza Pachulia at a very reasonable price while passing on a number of free agent centers who turned out not to be worth the contracts that they signed. I'd probably add drafting Josh Childress to the list of successes, as he's really won me over. In making a limited point, Moore completely loses the plot and makes a series of one-sided arguments with little or no basis. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Belkinkampf! Scheiss!

The latest disaster from the Belkin v. Rest of the World imbroglio:



the Hawks and Thrashers cannot sign any players to contracts longer than one year. While this isn't quite as disastrous at it might appear, since the inept Judge Eric Johnson carved out an exception for negotations already commenced (and thus the signing of Speedy Claxton can proceed, as well as the signing of the Hawks' draft picks), it does severely complicate the Al Harrington sign-and-trade, since the Hawks will only be able to trade him for players with one year remaining on their contracts or for players for whom trade discussions have already commenced. It also makes the Thrashers' efforts to bolster their defense and sign a center to replace Marc Savard extremely difficult.

The decision by Judge Johnson is favorable in the sense that it allows Atlanta Spirit LLC to continue operating the teams pending their appeal of the decision giving Belkin the right to buy the teams out. It's also favorable because Judge Johnson didn't require the posting of a massive bond, which would have severely hamstrung the efforts of the owners to operate the teams. However, the fact that the Judge would initially suggest that the teams not be able to sign any free agents demonstrates that he has no idea how professional sports teams operate (and more generally, that litigation is often completely at odds with the business objectives of both parties in a given case). The fact that both parties had to step in and stop him from doing so demonstrates that they both understand that such a decision would damage the teams' ability to compete and therefore reduce the value of the assets over which the parties are fighting. The fact that the parties then couldn't reach an agreement as to parameters for trades and free agent signings, thus leaving Judge Johnson to employ the absurd one year or less restriction, shows that their acrimony is getting in the way of what should be a common goal. The one positive spin I can put on Judge Johnson's decision limiting signings is that he knows that it will put significant pressure on the two parties to settle, as he has put them on the road to mutually assured destruction. However, his original decision in favor of Belkin has given Belkin no incentive to settle, because he knows that if he prevails at the appellate stage, then he gets both teams and Philips Arena for a relatively reasonable sum.


Schmuck...with good lawyers.

Our new star icer is a Slovakian named Marian

My first reaction yesterday upon hearing the news that Dany Heatley had asked for and received a trade from Atlanta was "That ungrateful jerk! We supported him through his toughest time and this is how he repays that loyalty?" Then, I was sad that a guy who was the face of the franchise and was going to be our Lemieux, our Yzerman, our Sakic was heading out of town to be replaced by another European who can score, but does not do the dirty work. Then, I listened to 680's new hockey show from 7-9 on Tuesdays and I came to my senses. I don't usually hand out plaudits to 680, which seems to cater to the angry segment of suburbia that doesn't listen to 750's parade of social darwinists, but they do have the Thrashers now, my second favorite Atlanta team (behind the Braves,) and the Billy Jaffe/Darren Elliott/Dan Kamal radio show is now going to become a staple for me. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the Heatley deal:

1. Given that Waddell had to trade Heatley after he requested a trade and the number of available trading partners was small because there aren't that many players in the league who are of equal value, getting Hossa, who's as good as Heatley, and a defenseman who gives the Thrashers something they haven't had before (the description of De vries makes him sound like a slightly less dirty Kasparitis or Ulf Samuelsson) is a great deal. Hell, Hossa for Heatley straight-up would be a reasonable deal. Heatley's upside is a little higher because he's two years younger and is a little more physical than Hossa, but he also has a more significant downside, namely that in the past two years, he's suffered a major knee injury, a fractured orbital, and has likely suffered psychological damage after his car wreck. Hossa is consistent, having scored 29+ goals for the past five NHL seasons. he's also durable. Throw in a quality defenseman that Ottawa had to unload so they can sign Wade Redden and Zdeno Chara after the season and you have a net positive deal for the Thrashers. It's possible that Heatley will light the world on fire and Don Waddell will look like he made a mistake, but keep in mind that a) he had no choice but to make a deal, and b) Heatley might play a lot better in Ottawa than he would have in Atlanta, both because of better teammates and because of the fresh start he's getting.


2. My negative feelings about Dany seemed dumber and dumber the more I thought about them. The best way to describe Heatley's decision came from Ottawa's play-by-play announcer, who had a lengthy bit on 680 last night: Heatley needing to get out makes sense in the same way that parents who lose a child almost always sell their house. Heatley went through a tremendous tragedy and remaining in Atlanta meant constant reminders of that tragedy. The best way for him to deal with the guilt of accidentally killing his best friend is to move on and get some distance from it. Additionally, Heatley went about seeking the deal the right way. He didn't pull a TO and demand a deal in the press. Rather, he thought things through, had an intelligent conversation with his GM, and then asked for a deal, thereby preserving as much of the GM's bargaining power as possible. In a way, Heatley's approach has illustrated the stupidity of Owens' scorched earth approach, which destroyed Philly's ability to keep him (with a straight face) and thus assured that they could not trade him.

3. The Thrashers got better because of the trade and ownership's willingness to take on more salary had a lot to do with the improvement. Hossa is more expensive than Heatley and the team also took on salary in acquiring de Vries, so a little shout-out is due to the much-maligned Atlanta Spirit LLC for further stocking the other resident of Philips Arena. If Steve Belkin was still involved, then the trade would have been vetoed and we'd be starting the Heatley vs. Thrashers stand-off.

4. Will Bob Hartley play Kovalchuk and Hossa on the same line? I tend to think not, although if Marian is a good defensive player, then it's a possibility. So much will depend on which players click with one another once the team starts practicing together, but my guess is that Hartley knows he has about six good offensive players and he's going to split them between two lines. Here's my guess as to how the top two lines will look:

Kovalchuk - Savard - Mellanby
Kozlov - Holik - Hossa

5. Now, the question turns to finding a back-up goalie with the news leaking out that Pasi Nurminen has a career-threatening knee injury as the result of some serious weight-lifting. (Dan Kendra, anyone?) Even if Kari Lehtonen comes right into the NHL and is ready to play on a high level, the NHL season is longer than anything he's ever experienced before, so the Thrashers are going to need someone who can play 25-30 games and not embarrass himself. After trading the franchise's centerpiece and getting full value, this will be child's play for Waddell.

I have to admit it's getting better

We're channeling the Beatles instead of G'n'R today (maybe "The Long and Winding Road" would have been better?) in light of the latest development in JoeJohnsonGate: David Stern has arrived to rescue the deal. Judge Gestel ruled against the majority of the Hawks' owners (hereinafter, "Owners who want to spend") on Tuesday and said that they needed approval of the NBA to remove Belkin as the team's representative on the Board of Governors. Stern has now filed an affidavit stating that the Owners who want to spend have the right to do so because Belkin's actions are material enough to trigger that right. This seemed fairly obvious to me from the outset: signing a player who would be the highest-paid player on the team by far seems like a pretty important action and one owner stopping that action from taking place seems like a pretty material action that legally binds the team. Anyway, it wasn't obvious to Judge Gestel, although something tells me that the result would have been different if the Celtics were the team acquiring the player (not that judges would ever let their personal preferences get in the way of interpreting the law.) Hopefully, the affidavit from David Stern, who has a law degree and rose from the position of corporate counsel to the commissioner's seat (see, lawyers can do productive things!), will be sufficient to get the injunction dissolved and we can all go on with our lives.

I'm something of an optimist, despite over two decades as an Atlanta sports fan, and this whole imbroglio could turn out to be a positive one for the Hawks. If it ends with Belkin getting neutered, then the net result is that everyone else in the organization will have bonded together against a common enemy. The players will view the remaining owners as willing to go to the mat for them to improve the team, especially Johnson because it will be clear to him that the Owners who want to spend were willing to fight Belkin in court to get him to Atlanta. Billy Knight ends up looking like a hero, helped in no small part by this photo:



And if the Owners who want to spend money succeed in buying out Belkin so he can cause no more mischief (a possibility that seems somewhat unlikely according to today's paper, although Belkin losing his injunction and being marginalized by the Owners who want to spend money would damage his bargaining position), then we could actually be confident in this ownership group going forward. In the end, if the Hawks end up with Joe Johnson and the whole episode brought to a head (and ultimately healed by amputation) the fissure in the group, then the franchise is better off and we can look forward to the coming years as an exciting time in which a young, athletic team will hopefully grown and improve together.

One pessimistic thought: John Hollinger, espn.com's NBA stathead, ranked the acquisition of Johnson as the second-worst off-season signing:

"Assuming this deal happens, it was bad enough for the Hawks to offer to pay Johnson roughly double what he's worth by giving him $14 million a year. It was bad enough that Atlanta's 'plan' involves Johnson playing the point full-time, even though he gets into the paint about as often as Shawn Kemp gets into a leotard. But the real kicker for me is that the Hawks are now willing to fork out two No. 1 picks to Phoenix for the right to overpay Johnson so badly. Johnson's numbers have been inflated by all the minutes he's played, but on a per-minute basis he's a pretty ordinary player."

A couple thoughts on this:

1. I'm somewhat leery of playing Johnson at the point, but his passing and assist numbers are pretty good in limited time at the position. Ultimately, he'll be best at the two with Salim Stoudemire at the one, assuming that Salim can occasionally beat defenders off the dribble. If not, he'd be a fine match with Tyronne Lue. The problem with playing Johnson at the two is that it bumps Josh Childress into the logjam at forward, increasing the necessity to trade Al Harrington for a one or a five.

2. Is it possible that he didn't drive much in Phoenix because his role was to be a set shooter? Seriously, why would the ball be in his hands when you're paying all that money to Steve Nash? He was certainly quick enough to get into the paint when he was in college.

3. The market clearly thinks that Johnson is worth the money since teams are lining up to pay him the max and trade with the Suns if the Hawks' deal falls through. Maybe they all watched Phoenix go in the tank once Johnson was injured in the playoffs.

4. Shouldn't his durability be a positive? Does John Hollinger need to talk to the Baseball Prospectus guys about this point?

Where do we go now/a ya ya ya ya ya ya

Maybe humming a little G'n'R would make me feel better. In case you haven't heard, one Mass Hole has backed another. It's sadly ironic that an ownership group replete with lawyers allowed one figure to have veto power over everything the Hawks do. (Alternatively, they did draft the agreement properly and either their lawyers were much worse than Belkin's or the judge was inclined to side with the local boy.)

Anyway, Joe Johnson is now totally in limbo. The Hawks could try to negotiate with Phoenix to strike a deal that Belkin would find acceptable, but the Suns are unlikely to bail the Hawks out of this mess and if the co-owners and Knight's view of Belkin are correct, he doesn't want the deal to go forward anyway because he doesn't want payroll to go too high. The Hawks could also call Phoenix's bluff and simply sign Johnson to an offer sheet, but all they'd be doing there is sending him back to Phoenix.

Long-term, Belkin has to go. The Hawks will never be able to sign a free agent with him still in place, which will depress the rest of the team and the fan base. (Can you imagine what the Hawks players think right now?) More significantly, as Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Mark Bradley made an excellent point this morning: Belkin's interference with his GM is exactly what Ted Turner used to do. The example of the one successful pro sports team in this town is that ownership should put the right guy in charge of the team and then let him do his thing, rather than meddling and pretending to have expertise in the field. Belkin clearly has not learned this lesson. He always wanted to be an owner, but it turns out that he has unquenchable desires to be a GM as well.

It just gets uglier and uglier

Billy Knight has joined the chorus of Steve Belkin critics, bolstering allegations made by the Hawks' other owners that he does not want to spend money on the team. At this stage, with a phalanx of co-owners AND the GM all saying the same thing, it's hard to take Belkin seriously, not that that will matter when a Boston judge reviews the Atlanta Spirit operating agreement for the Hawks today and determines whether the other owners have the right to remove Belkin from his appointment to the NBA Board of Governors. The level of acrimony has reached such a public crescendo that the only solution is for Belkin to allow the other owners to buy him out and much of this posturing on both sides might be about affecting the price at which the other owners will do so. Belkin has always wanted to own an NBA team and he might be intransigent because he knows that if he gets booted from Atlanta Spirit, then his chances of ever owning another NBA team become minimal.

The worst possible outcome is for the judge to rule in favor of Belkin and then for Steve to dig his feet it, waiting for a buy-out offer that never reaches the levels of generosity that he demands. We'll be left with an owner hating his other owners and having veto power over every trade they make. The pall cast over the Hawks and Thrashers by a feuding ownership group with no solution on the horizon would be significant, as if the fact that neither of the Philips tenants have been to the playoffs since the facility opened in 1999 isn't bad enough. In short, today's events in Boston are really important. If they don't go well, I have a fusillade about Mass Holes ready to fly.

"I am not a committee!"

So says our beloved leader Steve Belkin from his perch in Boston. Rather than defer to the judgment of the other owners and investors of the team, he's done what any self-respecting American would have done: sue his partners.

A little legal background: Belkin obtained a temporary restraining order, which is just that: temporary. TROs are often granted without notice to the other side, or at least with minimal notice. In other words, Belkin's lawyers had time to draft a complaint and a motion for a TRO, while the lawyers for the rest of Atlanta Spirit LLC did not know what was coming. On the other hand, it's possible that the other owners had a good idea that Belkin was about to haul them into court, in which case they should have been prepared. If they were and they still lost, then that's a worrying sign because it means that Belkin is either standing on firm legal ground or has found a sympathetic judge. Anyway, there'll be an injunction hearing on Tuesday and that's where the matter will be decided because the judge will be deciding whether the TRO should be extended throughout the discovery phase of the litigation, which will last beyond the NBA free agent signing period. The legal issue will come down to the NBA's rules on removing individuals from the Board of Governors and/or the Atlanta Spirit LLC's operating agreement's provisions on the same subject. It sounds from the AJC article that the other owners can remove Belkin if he takes an action against the wishes of the rest of ownership, so the question becomes whether this is that sort of decision.

The article details Belkin's beef with the deal and it makes it clear that he was OK with signing Johnson, but he isn't OK with giving up Boris Diaw and two first round picks. He's not absolved from the fact that he should have stopped the deal at the outset if he felt that way, although it's possible that Billy Knight was being pulled in two different directions and decided to listen to the majority of the owners when they told him to make the deal.

Belkin does have a point in the sense that the Hawks are giving up a lot, especially if the Suns weren't going to match the contract offer anyway. (An interesting development would be if the deal falls through and the Hawks still sign Johnson, calling the Suns' bluff. On the other hand, if Johnson hasn't formally signed anything, then another team could come in, sign him, and offer the Suns a similar package of players and/or picks.) He could argue that he has the long-term interests of the team in mind and if the rebuilding project doesn't go well, then the team could ultimately end up giving lottery picks to the Suns in several years. Billy Knight knows that he won't be around in several years if the rebuilding project doesn't work, so he has no incentive not to make this deal. I'd really like to know the particulars of the draft picks given up by the Hawks and no one has printed the details yet. I assume that one of the picks is the first rounder from the Lakers, which, assuming the Lakers make the playoffs as a low seed in the West this year, would be between 15 and 20. I don't know what the timing is on the other pick. How long do the lottery protections change into mere top three protections? Sekou, where are you?

All that said, Belkin is still being penny-wise and pound-foolish. At this stage, given the hit that the Hawks will take with future free agents and their own fan base, they can't back away from the deal. Belkin, by dividing the team's ownership and embarrassing his GM, has damaged the franchise for which he paid millions. All of this because he's worried about future draft picks? One can't help but get the sense that Belkin is a schmuck. He mouthed off during the NHL Lockout about using replacement players, a useless idea that served only to further antagonize all involved and garner him a $250,000 fine. He's had problems getting along with the rest of the owners before. Now, he's reached a stand-off with his GM and fellow owners and brought a legal action, which is embarrassing and makes resolution of the matter less likely.

Yup, I'm a season ticket holder for this team.

Steve Belkin, You're Killing Me

The Joe Johnson trade has been held up because Steve Belkin, one of the Hawks' owners, refuses to approve it. The scuttlebutt on the radio this morning was that he doesn't think that Johnson is worth the money. Words fail me at this point to describe how dumb this move is by Belkin. Let's leave the issue of whether Johnson is worth the money aside for a moment. Why on earth do you allow Billy Knight to pursue Johnson, get Johnson to agree to contractual terms, and reach a deal with the Suns to ensure that they don't retain Johnson if you have reservations about whether he's worth the money? Now, you look like a jerk and Knight's credibility is damaged, which hurts the Hawks' ability to bring in future free agents that you would presumably find more worthy of your hard-earned dollars than Johnson.

Now, on the issue of whether Johnson is worth the money, Phoenix clearly thinks that he is, since they were willing to match any offer to him. Additionally, you have loads of cap room, so you can sign Johnson and still be paying less than just about every other team in the NBA. If you didn't want to pay for a payroll close to the salary cap, then what are you doing owning an NBA team?

Finally, this snafu has exposed a major problem with the Atlanta Spirit LLC's voting structure. Major decisions are supposed to be made on three-entity votes. If the Washington and Atlanta groups vote in favor of acquiring a player and the Boston group votes against, then the player should be acquired because a unanimous decision is not required. However, because Belkin has veto power by virtue of his spot on the NBA Board of Governors, the majority rules principle flies out the window and the team is paralyzed from making major additions without Belkin's approval. This is a bad set-up and it augurs poorly for both the Hawks and the Thrashers. The solution is that either Boston or Washington buys the other out and the teams would then at least have clear leadership from one entity. As it is now, you have a clusterfuck.