Over the Denver Stiffs (proudly part of the SBNation network), they posed a question to all other SBN NBA blogs, "Why should/shouldn't your team be contracted?"
Since the whole notion is ridiculous (Is anybody going quietly into that good night with their 9 figure purchase on the table?), we answered the best way we knew how.....by being snarky.
Jason Walker from Peachtree Hoops: Contract the Hawks? Why not just saddle a loyal fan base (and bloggers) with 60+ million in contracts for six guys, including a widely criticized max contract for their Five Time All-Star (patent pending), and never, ever allow the team to get out of the second round of the playoffs.... ever. All while always being subjected as a national punchline at any opportunity.
The Hawks have never won the lottery, and the last #1 overall pick was wined and dined at McDonald's to try and convince him not to use his 745 inch vertical to jump to the ABA (former Nugget David Thompson). It didn't work.
In fact, the most famous draft pick in the last ten years was the guy that wasn't picked (Chris Paul) rather than the guy who was (Marvin Williams).
At least when Seattle lost their team to OKC they had a title to soothe their pain ... Atlanta fans have to look back to St. Louis for a title that is most certainly not theirs.
Heck, even Atlanta's best player - Dominique Wilkins - didn't make the NBA's all-time top 50 when he was in the top 10 all time scoring and never being tied to anything negative on or off the court, except being a Hawk.
Aw shoot ... go ahead, drop the Hawks. How could it hurt worse?
As I read the actual piece after being published, I found that some of these writers took the questions very seriously, as did Nate Timmons of Denver Stiffs, who comments on each of the teams chances for contraction. Hey, good for them---it makes for some excellent reading.
Did Nate take me up on my dare to contract? Go check out Nate's piece and enjoy the conversation.
Exit Question (Scale of 1-10): How much outrage would there be in Atlanta if the Hawks were seriously being considered for contraction?