Harrington Deal Falls Through

[George O'Brien]

http://www.ajc.com/saturday/content/epaper/editions/saturday/sports_446eca30855080450033.html

It takes two to make a trade
Sekou Smith - Staff
Saturday, August 19, 2006

Al Harrington has been working all summer concentrating on the positives.

That's why he was unfazed by Friday's news that the Hawks' proposed sign-and-trade deal sending him to the Indiana Pacers had died after weeks of negotiations.

"I'm just ready to know where I'm going to be playing next year," Harrington said by phone. "The Indiana deal was something that I really wanted to do. I was looking forward to it since it's a place I'm so familiar with. But it didn't happen, and you just have to move on."

The Golden State Warriors, Denver Nuggets, New Jersey Nets, Los Angeles Lakers and Minnesota Timberwolves, all teams that have been in the Harrington mix from the start, have picked up their pursuit of the last high-profile player left on the free agent market.

"I want to be somewhere I'm wanted, and these other teams are really interested," said Harrington, a 6-foot-9, 245-pound combo forward who averaged 18.7 points and 6.9 rebounds last season while serving as one of the Hawks' co-captains. "I feel like I can make an impact with any of those teams, whichever uniform I end up wearing. But ultimately, you have to go where you are wanted."

Friday's developments ended a month-long saga that would have returned Harrington to the Pacers franchise that drafted him with the 25th pick of the 1998 draft, the team he spent the first six NBA seasons playing for and the city his mother and father now call home.

The proposed deal was struck its fatal blow when the Pacers declined to agree to the terms --- Harrington was to be signed by the Hawks to a six-year, $57 million deal and then sent, along with John Edwards, to the Pacers for a future first-round draft pick.

After agreeing to negotiate the deal in that form, the Pacers came back this week seeking a shorter deal, four years, and for far less money, $36 million, than initially discussed. They also balked at taking back Edwards, a third-year center with a guaranteed $1 million contract for the upcoming season. The Hawks also had sought to add $3 million in cash to the deal at one point, yet another sticking point for the Pacers, but later agreed to do the deal without that as part of the package they would get for Harrington.

Atlanta Spirit CEO Bernie Mullin confirmed Friday night that the Hawks don't have a deal in place with the Pacers or "any other team." He said that Hawks general manager Billy Knight and Harrington's Los Angeles-based agent, Arn Tellem, are working on new possibilities. "We're looking for a deal that's in the best interest of the Atlanta Hawks and Al Harrington," Mullin said.

Those new deals also could be shorter than the six-year deal Harrington was seeking at the start of the NBA's free agent negotiating period, which began July 1. At least two of the teams, Golden State and Denver, are believed to be willing to discuss six-year deals in the $60 million-to-$65 million range, which would net Harrington $10 million or more per season.

But even if they were interested in doing four years instead of six, they'd still be willing to pay Harrington a salary in the $10 million per season range. The Pacers, armed only with a $7.5 million trade exception, could offer Harrington a starting salary of only $7.6 million.

 

[George O'Brien]

Here's the view from Indianapolis

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060819/SPORTS04/608190451/1088

Harrington appears headed elsewhere
Hawks open up talks after deal with Pacers falls through
Related articles
• Odd Harrington saga may become the norm

By Mike Wells
[email protected]
The Indiana Pacers may have lost their chance to reacquire Al Harrington.

NO REUNION: Pacer Jermaine O'Neal (rear) fouls Atlanta's Al Harrington, his former teammate, during a game last season. - Gregory Smith / Associated Press

The Atlanta Hawks plan to open negotiations with other teams for a possible sign-and-trade deal after not being able to agree with the Pacers, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

The Hawks were ready to sign Harrington to a six-year, $57 million deal, then send him and center John Edwards to the Pacers for their $7.5 million trade exception and a future first-round draft pick when Indiana owner Herb Simon nixed the deal because he didn't like the length of Harrington's contract.

Simon wanted Harrington, 26, to sign a four-year deal worth about $9 million a season, and he also doesn't want Edwards, the person said.

Simon, team president Larry Bird and CEO Donnie Walsh did not return several phone messages seeking comment Friday.

The Pacers, who are trying to rebound from a disappointing season, have spent more than a month trying to work out a deal with the Hawks. The Pacers were the front-runners for Harrington, who spent his first six seasons here, but they'll have trouble getting him now. Denver and Golden State are believed to be willing to acquire Harrington for about $65 million over six years. The Los Angeles Lakers are also expected to be in the mix.

Harrington has spent the past two seasons in Atlanta, averaging 18.1 points per game.

Without Harrington, the Pacers' status in the Eastern Conference is unsettled. They have acquired eight new players this summer, but they haven't landed a player with the ability to compliment Jermaine O'Neal. They traded Ron Artest for Peja Stojakovic in January, then shipped Stojakovic to New Orleans in a sign-and-trade deal last month.

The Pacers still have trade exceptions of $7.5 million and $2.6 million, the midlevel exception of about $5.2 million and their bi-annual exception of $1.7 million to use this summer.

"We have done a lot of things to this point," Walsh said earlier this week. "We've got another month and a half until training camp, so there is plenty of time to get our roster how we want it."

Walsh also said earlier this week that they're willing to start camp with the current roster, then look to make other moves.

"Some times you have to go into training camp not having everything you want," Walsh said. "We don't normally do things that way, but that's always an option."

It is not clear if the teams trying to get Harrington will be able to satisfy the Hawks, who are trying to avoid taking on contracts.

 

[CaptainInsano]

I must have missed something but why exactly do the hawks WANT to give away a player like harrington? Especially when they give players like Joe Johnson 70 million?

 

[overseascardfan]

I must have missed something but why exactly do the hawks WANT to give away a player like harrington? Especially when they give players like Joe Johnson 70 million?

My thoughts exactly. A first rounder and cash for a pretty good versatile player. They don't want big contracts in return, last time I checked there isn't a long list of players willing to go to ATL. Harrington could net them two players that can turn that franchise in the right direction. They should have maybe asked for Foster and like Tinsley or somebody that could actually help them. The Pacers 1st rounder will probably be in the 20's so that pick might not get them an impact player. It looks like they are just penny pinching.

 

[George O'Brien]

Why do we assume the Hawks actions are supposed to make sense?

In any case, the argument we've been hearing for quite a while was that the reason the Pacers had the inside track was because of their huge TE from the Peja deal.

Why aren't the Hawks trying to keep Harrington? A lot of it has to do with their desire to develop their young forwards: Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, Sheldon Williams, and Josh Childress. Throw in Joe Johnson and there simply aren't enough minutes for all these guys to develop if Harrington is still on the team.

 

[overseascardfan]

Why do we assume the Hawks actions are supposed to make sense?

In any case, the argument we've been hearing for quite a while was that the reason the Pacers had the inside track was because of their huge TE from the Peja deal.

Why aren't the Hawks trying to keep Harrington? A lot of it has to do with their desire to develop their young forwards: Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, Sheldon Williams, and Josh Childress. Throw in Joe Johnson and there simply aren't enough minutes for all these guys to develop if Harrington is still on the team.

Not saying they should't keep him, they should try to get something in return for him.

 

[George O'Brien]

Not saying they should't keep him, they should try to get something in return for him.

Presumably a draft pick is considered "something" to them.

Teams working on sign and trade deals always have to start from what the player's agent has set up. Let's say the Warriors are willing to pay the price, the next step is to find trading pieces the Hawks want - not just "something".

In a sense, each player offered in such a deal is evaluated as if he was a free agent. Would you sign this guy for this price for the amount of time left on his contract? If not, then you won't bite even though it means getting "nothing".

 

[Dan H]

It looks like they are just penny pinching.

Ding ding ding! The Simons make Sarver look like Daniel Snyder.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I must have missed something but why exactly do the hawks WANT to give away a player like harrington? Especially when they give players like Joe Johnson 70 million?

I'm not really sure what this means.....

Is Joe Johnson not their best player BY FAR. I can't believe people still dont think he isn't worth the money. He might not have been worth it to the Suns as that would have been cap hell but he is def. worth 70 million for a team like the Hawks.

What is everyone going to say when we end up having to pay Boris 70 million next offseason?

 

[George O'Brien]

Running an NBA franchise is in itself a game. Except in NY and Dallas, teams try to put together a championship team by buying players capable of winning it all without exceeding the luxury tax or going just above it. Every player is evaluated by whether what that guy can do can reasonably be replaced.

Is KG worth $20 million a year? Probably, because he does so many things that can't be replaced. Is Amare worth $75? If he's healthy, he is one of the two or three most dangerous guys in the NBA.

Is Peja worth $64 million over five years? I doubt it. He's never been a great playoff guy and is only average as a defender. Bonzi Wells may be more trouble than he's worth, but you can get him for a lot less money and yet get the same level of scoring.

So is JJ worth $70 million? Compared to Peja, absolutely. However, I don't see either as cornerstones for great teams and for that money you should get a franchise player.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

So is JJ worth $70 million? Compared to Peja, absolutely. However, I don't see either as cornerstones for great teams and for that money you should get a franchise player.

If we are going to use the term franchise player, we have to assume that there are 30 of them in the league (at a minimum).

Look at other teams franchise players (according to salary)

NY - Marbury, Francis
Chicago - Wallace
Mil - Redd
Memphis - Gasol
Portland - Randolph
Seattle - Allen
Utah - Boozer
GS - Davis or Richardson
Sac - Bibby

JJ is most definitely a franchise player. He definitely deserved the contract value he got. Last season he already proved he can handle being the man, and he is only getting better. If Atlanta got some real management they would be a very very scary team.

 

[SunsTzu]

I must have missed something but why exactly do the hawks WANT to give away a player like harrington? Especially when they give players like Joe Johnson 70 million?

They have guys like Marvin Williams and Josh Smith who play the same positions as him and have really high ceilings. So Harrington isn't really in their long term plans and if they can get something for him it can help them build around what they have for the future. I don't think Harrington is anything more than a good role player personally.

 

[F-Dog]

I must have missed something but why exactly do the hawks WANT to give away a player like harrington? Especially when they give players like Joe Johnson 70 million?

Because he sucked in Atlanta. Empty stats, no defense...I still can't figure out why teams are lining up to pay him huge money. Apparently the Pacers came to their senses, at least.



Anyway, this is bad news for the Suns, since it's going to be difficult for Atlanta to get less immediate help out of a Harrington deal than a TE (they would have essentially traded Harrington for Lorenzen Wright).

The rumor du jour is a three-way deal with Denver, with the third team receiving Harrington and the Nuggets taking team X's SG and sending the Hawks a big. My guess is that the third team is Golden State, because they have a documented history of giving enormous contracts to tweener role players...if that's true, then Denver will wind up with M. Pietrus and send along either Joe Smith or Reggie Evans.

 

[asudevil83]

Ding ding ding! The Simons make Sarver look like Daniel Snyder.

you'd be surprised how many teams are just as "cheap" as sarver and are deathly afraid of the LT. i'm almost getting tired a people calling sarver cheap, when in fact the LT is serving its purpose extremely well now-adays.

 

[nowagimp]

If we are going to use the term franchise player, we have to assume that there are 30 of them in the league (at a minimum).

Why should there be 30 franchise players?? The term franchise player arose from the idea that a team could get one guy and build a contender by putting other players around him. That takes a special talent, to carry a team to contending status. It is rediculous to think that there are 30 players in the NBA that you can build a winner around by adding players around him/them. Ben Wallace is NOT a franchise player, you will not build an offense around him at all, you will try to cover up for his deficiencies there. He is a very good role player. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Elton Brand, Dirk Nowitski, Duane Wade, Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony(a bit a of a stretch), Paul Pierce, Steve Nash, etc are franchise players. I think that JJ will be a franchise player, though I dont know that he's proven it yet. There are more franchise players than those mentioned above, but the paycheck and the number of franchises in the league does not determine the numbers of franchise players in the NBA.

Shawn Marion is an all star, but not a franchise player as he cannot carry the team in the crunch(he cant even create his own shot).

No offense, Gcrackr, but the word "franchise player" doesnt have much meaning if every franchise has one, as most of those teams have no chance of winning anything at all. Some teams like the pistons did not have a franchise player, just a real good team concept.

 

[Chaplin]

Marketing-wise, most teams have a "Franchise Player", the kind of player that is identified with the team using name recognition, not necessarily skill level. Players like Joe Johnson, Gilbert Arenas, Dwight Howard and Yao Ming/Tracy McGrady all fall into that category.

It's like when you buy a ticket specifically to a game where the Suns play the Hawks, you buy a ticket to see Joe Johnson, not the Hawks as a team.

 

[nowagimp]

Marketing-wise, most teams have a "Franchise Player", the kind of player that is identified with the team using name recognition, not necessarily skill level. Players like Joe Johnson, Gilbert Arenas, Dwight Howard and Yao Ming/Tracy McGrady all fall into that category.

It's like when you buy a ticket specifically to a game where the Suns play the Hawks, you buy a ticket to see Joe Johnson, not the Hawks as a team.

I can safely say that I will never buy a ticket to see one player in a team game. I can also say that were I to buy a ticket to the suns/hawks game it would be to see the suns, not the hawks or Joe Johnson.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

No offense, Gcrackr, but the word "franchise player" doesnt have much meaning if every franchise has one, as most of those teams have no chance of winning anything at all. Some teams like the pistons did not have a franchise player, just a real good team concept.

Thats why I didn't call JJ a SuperStar. Players like LeBron, Wade, Nash, Dirk ect. are superstars to me. Essentially a superstar is the notch above a franchise player - one that makes a franchise win.

I define a franchise player as the cornerstone of a franchise. That is why I said that there must be at least 30, because due to the CBA a team is essentially forced to pay at least one player to be their cornerstone (min salary rules). Ben Wallace is a cornerstone of the Chicago Bulls now. Marbury is the corner stone of the Knicks. Redd is the cornerstone of the Bucks. I am not saying that they are the best choice for a cornerstone (although considering the limited supply of superstars it is hard to argue) - however I personally classify them as franchise players.

By that definition, JJ is the Hawk's franchise player. He is the cornerstone of that team - and he isn't a bad cornerstone as he has the possibilty of becomming a superstar. At the very least he is going to be a perennial allstar.


The big problem with terms like franchise player, superstar ect. is that everyone has a different definition. For some people, they all mean the same thing. I think you will at least understand where I am coming from now, even if you don't agree with it.

But even if we are to ignore those labels, it is very hard to say that the JJ isn't worth 70 million to a lot of team. Especially the Hawks, who got the best FA on the market. Now you can question whether JJ is worth 70 million AND Diaw + 2 first round picks. He isn't worth that much to a lot of teams, but considering who Diaw was in Atlanta I still think he was worth that to the Hawks.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I can safely say that I will never buy a ticket to see one player in a team game. I can also say that were I to buy a ticket to the suns/hawks game it would be to see the suns, not the hawks or Joe Johnson.

I bought a ticket to Lebron's first game in Phoenix (I think it was his first overall). I go to a ton of Suns games each year, but I have to admit the reason why I bought an extra game was solely to see him play.

That is the only time I have bought a ticket to see a player, although I am likely to do it again when Oden comes out.

 

[Chaplin]

You can't tell me that most people would buy tickets to see Dennis Rodman play on the Bulls in the 90s...

There's only one reason to get a ticket to a Wolves game (other than seeing the Suns).

 

[nowagimp]

Thats why I didn't call JJ a SuperStar. Players like LeBron, Wade, Nash, Dirk ect. are superstars to me. Essentially a superstar is the notch above a franchise player - one that makes a franchise win.

I define a franchise player as the cornerstone of a franchise. That is why I said that there must be at least 30, because due to the CBA a team is essentially forced to pay at least one player to be their cornerstone (min salary rules). Ben Wallace is a cornerstone of the Chicago Bulls now. Marbury is the corner stone of the Knicks. Redd is the cornerstone of the Bucks. I am not saying that they are the best choice for a cornerstone (although considering the limited supply of superstars it is hard to argue) - however I personally classify them as franchise players.

By that definition, JJ is the Hawk's franchise player. He is the cornerstone of that team - and he isn't a bad cornerstone as he has the possibilty of becomming a superstar. At the very least he is going to be a perennial allstar.


The big problem with terms like franchise player, superstar ect. is that everyone has a different definition. For some people, they all mean the same thing. I think you will at least understand where I am coming from now, even if you don't agree with it.

But even if we are to ignore those labels, it is very hard to say that the JJ isn't worth 70 million to a lot of team. Especially the Hawks, who got the best FA on the market. Now you can question whether JJ is worth 70 million AND Diaw + 2 first round picks. He isn't worth that much to a lot of teams, but considering who Diaw was in Atlanta I still think he was worth that to the Hawks.

Where I respectfully disagree with you is that teams are not forced to build their franchise around one player. It is possible for a team to be very good, even win, without a franchise player. SOmetimes a good team is enough. A franchise player is the type of player who is that good, good enough to pay crazy dollars and build a team around to win. When LB built the pistons, they were a bunch of castoffs and young players with potential, Ben Wallace wasnt even wanted by half the teams in the NBA. The 90's(no Jermaine ONeil) reggie miller pacers were that kind of team, I never heard anyone call reggie a franchise player.

Whether JJ is worth 70 mil to the hawks depends on whether they operate in the black for a 5-6 year period during his tenure. Many NBA teams do not operate in the black consistently, and therefore do not have "marketable" franchise players, let alone ones who will bring winning with that huge salary.

How long has the term franchise player been around?? For a very long time is my guess. It used to be that ALL franchise players were superstars, as winning was the defining result of teams with franchise players. Now, apparently its the WWF entertainment model, I guess, a freak who does amazing things, but not necessarily win games for you. Its more like a circus than a game. I guess the meaning of franchise player changed into something else.

 

[Errntknght]

Anyway, this is bad news for the Suns, since it's going to be difficult for Atlanta to get less immediate help out of a Harrington deal than a TE (they would have essentially traded Harrington for Lorenzen Wright).

Yeah, but its not very bad news since they're likely to get someone who's chief value is an expiring contract. The big thing is going to be how much the young guys on the team improve and meld together. Wright for Harrington is a little help for the Suns cause.

 

[Errntknght]

When LB built the pistons, they were a bunch of castoffs and young players with potential, Ben Wallace wasnt even wanted by half the teams in the NBA.

Just a historical point - LB had almost nothing to do with building the Pistons, it was done by Joe Dumars and Rick Carlisle. At the time he took over the concensus was that LB was getting it on a silver platter while Carlisle got the shaft. Its possible Brown's coaching helped some in their success but its probably more important that he wasn't there long enough to have driven all the players up the wall.


In general I agree with your thesis that teams don't have to be built around a franchise player and so there is no necessity of there being as many of them as teams. In fact, I usually just have myself a little chuckle when people start talking about 'formulas' for how to create championship teams - historically, all types of teams have won and the most recent successful teams are what define the popular formulas. The whole thing is right up there with fantasy trades as a way of filling in hours during the summers.

 

[SunsTzu]

I bought a ticket to Lebron's first game in Phoenix (I think it was his first overall).

Actually it was his 2nd game, his first was against the Kings(remember he had a commercial that had him and a couple Kings where he pretended to choke when the ball was in his hands). I remember this game pretty well because for the first half LBJ had a white piece of something stuck in his goatee for the first half and I couldn't take my attention off of it.

That game was the first with the orange uniforms for the Suns(wonder how many people bought tickets to see the orange unis).

 

[George O'Brien]

It's funny how terms like franchise player and super star get used so much they lose meaning. Rather than worry about it, I was wondering how many players REQUIRE double team attention on a regular basis. Kobe, T-Mac, KG, Amare, and maybe a half dozen others. I don't see enough games to know how many guys need double teaming from everyone, rather than just the Suns.