First, over the weekend, there was Bret at Hoopinion, who laid out a Top Seven Reasons Why The Hawks Won't Trade For Chris Kaman, which includes a punchline at the end that nobody wants to hear anymore, but isn't any less true today than the first time it was mentioned:
3) Chris Kaman has been good and healthy exactly once in the last four seasons. A better record than Jerry Stackhouse or Jason Collins...maybe this isn't the best example. However, I doubt present-day Chris Kaman will or should be the guy for whom the Hawks go over the tax line.
Bret was not alone in taking the topic on -- NBA.com's David Aldridge, in his epic Morning Tip, placed the ATL in the "Would Make Sense" pile of teams:
Atlanta: With Al Horford out for the season the Hawks need someone in the middle, and Kaman would certainly help. But New Orleans would have to take at least some salary back -- like Zaza Pachulia, who has a year left on his deal -- or, maybe, Marvin Williams, along with an expiring contract like Kirk Hinrich's and Atlanta's first-round pick -- which wouldn't be that good, given the Hawks' likelihood to be in the playoffs. But the Hawks have been reluctant to get anywhere near the luxury tax, and unless they were just renting Kaman for the rest of this season, it would be hard to re-sign him and avoid exceeding the threshold next year.
Finally, Zach Lowe on SI's Point Forward discusses the Hawks' chances among a dozen or so teams in the piece:
Alas, there are huge obstacles. The tax-phobic Hawks are right at the threshold now, meaning they'd have to send out just about 100 percent of Kaman's salary, or more, in order to avoid moving up too far to duck back under via waiving players on non-guaranteed deals. That would mean including Marvin Williams and/or Kirk Hinrich (on an expiring contract) in any Kaman deal, and though Williams is playing better than ever, it's hard to see how either has much value to the Hornets. A third team might be necessary.
Exit Question: What say you? Interested in a Kaman deal or not interested considering the associated costs?