TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: Quote: Fans need to start giving this team and the coaches credit on how they finished the year, instead of giving excuse after excuse of those factos that "should've" kept us down. If we keep this team together, and add 1 or 2 decent pieces to bring off the bench, this team should have little problem making the playoffs next year. I don't know if I count as a doom and gloomer but I thought that last year's team with its lack of injuries and significant talent should have had little problem making the playoffs. I think we should have little problem making the playoffs next year. The fact is, though, that we did have trouble making the playoffs and got in by the skin of our teeth -- coming into last season 37 wins was enough to have made the playoffs only once in a non-strike year since the 1995-96 season. It is not about doom and gloom for me - it is the fact that I feel we underacheived last season. If we underachieved, it was only by 3 - 5 games. It wasn't like we had a 48-win team here. I thought at the most we could win 45 games, but 41 games was more realistic. When a team plays .500 ball, they are usually schizophrenic, especially on the road. And that's exactly what the Hawks were. Add that to the fact that our supposed "deep" bench was horrible, and you have a recipe for a 37 win season. It's just hard to believe that after the year Smith, Horford, and JJ ( in the 2nd half of the season ) had, plus the fact that we won 3 playoff games, after not even being in the playoffs for 9 years, that people are still pessimistic about this team. If Bibby or Acie can give us any kind of stability at the point next year, we should be more than OK. The West is stronger than the East, and will be next year. So don't be surprised if another 37 win team gets that #8 seed. Just hope that we're in the 40 - 45 win area, so that we can get a #6 or higher seed. That will at least give us a shot to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Quote: I can't decisvely say that we were a better team with Bibby. Say what you will about AJ, he played really well for us when he was the starter. Bibby is a better player an does a lot of things that AJ can't, but our BEST stretch of the season was in December. We beat Utah at home during that stretch, and won games at Orlando and at Washington. We even played made a run at Dallas at the start of the fourth quarter to make it a close game before the Mavs ultimately pulled away. We also beat some easy teams in there as well, but we beat three teams that were actually pretty good, and two of those on the road. But honestly, we probably are a better team with Bibby-when he's healthy. I think sometime around early April he must have aggravated that thumb injury because we much less effective than he was immediatelya fter we got him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. So why does Woodson deserve credit for the team playing a little better when we got a better player? That's not coaching, that's improving your talent level. Because that's the excuse every other coach and great player in the league would use. Better players were the reason why Kobe was crying this time last year. Get him Fisher, Gasol, and young guys who have matured a little, and BAM . . they're playing for a championship. Players were the reason why Larry Brown quit on the Knicks. It was the players that got a decent coach like Scott Skiles fired. Then they wonder why they didn't get any better as the season progressed. Players . . Hall of Fame caliber players . . saved Doc Rivers job, after the players he had last year stunk it up on the court. I don't care how good of a coach you are in this league, you need players performing at a high level every night, in order to win games. It is the coach's responsibility to put them in the best possible position to win games, but the players have to ultimately execute on both ends of the floor. The Miami Heat lost 26 out of 28 games at one point this year. Why? Because Wade was hobbled and not 100%, and Shaq was a fat tub of lard that got winded at the end of games and really started not to care at all. A Hall of Fame coach like Pat Riley couldn't win when he didn't have the players. His teams weren't even competitive some nights. That's the excuse you actually give for Washington not being a better team than they were, because they were missing Arenas for most of the season. But a player being hobbled for the Hawks or Woody having inferior players, doesn't carry much weight with the fan base. LOL @ AJ played well. AJ had like 6 - 8 games he played well in December. The rest of the time, he was virtually a non-factor, other than being a guy who could bring the ball up. He was solid defensively, but he was no more than a better passing and shooting version of Royal Ivey. Defense was the reason why we won in December. We were stellar defensively back then.

Quote: The difference between Washington and Atlanta is 6 games, and Washington did that with Gilbert Arenas playing in only 13 games. Imagine how big that gap is if Arenas plays in 80 games. Sorry, but if the Hawks can't use the "what if's", then no other team can either. Hell, what if Bibby wasn't hobbled in those first 10 or so games? This fan base always tend to dog everything we do, but give other teams a pass when they underachieve or have problems. Quote: A lot of you want to reference that stretch of the season where Woodson had Bibby. Take my word for it, Bibby got here in time for our absolute weakest stretch on the schedule. From March 16 to the end of the season, we played ONE western conference team, and it was Memphis. We played the Knicks THREE times. Also we had two games against the Bulls, and games against Milwaukee, Indiana, and New Jersey. So all of those other teams didn't have "weak" parts of their schedule to string together a bunch of wins? It just so happened that our "weak" games came at the end of the year. Quote: 12 of our last 17 games were played against teams with a losing record. That's a pretty large percentage, guys. We were absolutely due for a winning streak. By the way, at that point in the season, there's not a lot of teams that have anything to play for. Playoff position had been determined for several teams, like Boston and Orlando, well before the end, and Miami and NY knew they were jockeying for lottery position. LOL @ due for a winnng streak. Ish, record-wise, we were just as bad as most of the teams we played during that stretch. The entire East, outside of Miami, thought they could get that 8th spot, because of how bad we played out West in February. No one, outside of a few Hawk fans, even thought we could win 8 games down the stretch, forget 11. Wasington, Indy, Jersey, Chicacgo ( twice ) , Philly ( twice ), and Orlando all were either trying to catch us, or hold their current playoff position. Quote: Two teams who had something to play for were New Jersey and Indiana. They were the two teams who were fighting with us for the last position in the Eastern conference playoffs. They weren't exactly good teams either. But we lost to both of those teams-they should have been big games for us, but we were almost NEVER in that game against the Pacers. Those teams HAD to win those games, home games for them by the way. They were playing out of sheer desperation. And you see what happened after they beat us. They couldn't even beat lesser teams and try to keep pace. But like i said, even if we'd won those 2 games, but still dropped the final 3, we're still only at 39 wins, and the same complaints would be taking place. But instead of criticizing the Hawks for losing road games vs Jersey and a red hot Indy team at the time, it would be looked at as "we were supposed to beat Indy and Jersey anyway." Quote: Please don't use the stretch run to defend Mike Woodson. Stick to the playoff wins-at least those were against a good team, even if Woodson was less responsible for those than the home crowd. Northcyde, your 11 wins during our MARCH to the playoffs: NY Knicks (3 times), Washington, Orlando (a nice win), Milwaukee, Chicago, Memphis, Toronto, and Philly. That's TWO teams with winning records. A nice march over poor competition. Those 11 wins represent the best stretch of basketball the Hawks had played in 9 years. Go look it up and see. And actually, Washington, Orlando, Philly, and Toronto all had winning records at the time we played them. 4 playoff teams, mind you. We took care of business against the Knicks, as we should have. ( by the way, go check and see how many East teams swept the knicks ) Quote: EDIT: The more I look at the last line of the post I quoted, the more funny it gets. There is little difference between the Hawks and Indiana, New Jersey, and Chicago. I mean, it's only four games between the Hawks and the Bulls, and 6 between the Hawks and Washington (who played most of the year without Arenas). Congratulations, I can say we're solidly one of the 11 best teams in the weak East. Status quo is unacceptable-we have to be a team that can play over .500 for a season. Nobody wants the status-quo. Of course they need to be a .500 or better team next year. It's just that the majority of the fan base wants to believe it can't happen, even if woody is here. It's the pessimitic nature of this fan base that believes that we are more likely to take a step back, than take a step or two forward. These young guys now know what it is like to be in the playoffs. That will be the #1 thing that drives them next year. Toronto, Orlando, Chicago, Washington, and Cleveland all had to go through their growing pains, before they started to turn things around. We're now in that young group of teams that is steadily improving and looks to have a bright future. It's just that you gloom and doomers are afraid to really believe that, just like most of you thought that Boston would sweep us. It's that same mentality that had people doubting JJ or now believing that Marvin is a player in decline. Fans need to start giving this team and the coaches credit on how they finished the year, instead of giving excuse after excuse of those factos that "should've" kept us down. If we keep this team together, and add 1 or 2 decent pieces to bring off the bench, this team should have little problem making the playoffs next year.

Quote: Orlando had nothing to play for either. Miami is Miami. Any team can go back and say well we should have won this game or that game. Bottom line is that your record is what it is. The Hawks won 37 games in a lame conference. So if none of those teams had anything to play for, includng us, why do people keep citing those final 2 games as if they mattered? Whether we lost those 2 games, won them, or split, it didn't matter one bit at the end of the year. Would people really feel any better about the Hawks, if we'd won 39 games? Would they feel better if we'd locked up the playoff spot by beating Indy @ Indy, but still lost 3 of their final 4 games, to win only 38 games? The fact is that the next step for this team is to win on the road at least at a 50% clip, while still winning 25+ home games. We won 37 games this year, but was the 8th best team in the East, and won 3 playoff games. Yet, the 37 win total overrides everything?

Quote: Even with Bibby we failed on several chances to really lock up the playoff spot against . We continued to play as inconsistently as ever and please don't overlook that despite going to 7 games we were basically embarrassed in 4 losses in Boston including a game seven we couldn't even make competitive. You can blame the players and youth etc. but at some point the coach has to be able to put them in a position to win. Does anyone remember our march to the playoffs? Here is a refresher: Apr 2 vs Toronto W 127-120 Johnson 28/Horford 12/Bibby 12 Apr 4 vs Philadelphia L 104-109 Johnson 32/Smith 8/Bibby 11 Apr 5 at Philadelphia W 92-85 Johnson 22/Horford 12/Johnson 6 Apr 8 at Indiana L 98-112 Johnson 30/Smith 13/Johnson 4 Apr 11 at New York W 116-104 Johnson 34/Horford 11/Johnson 6 Apr 12 vs Boston L 89-99 Johnson 21/Horford 11/Johnson 8 Apr 15 vs Orlando L 105-121 Williams 16/Horford 11/Horford 6 Apr 16 at Miami L 99-113 We locked up the playoff spot after the Boston loss, when Indy lost. Before that Boston loss, we'd won 11 out of 15 games. THAT was our "march" to the playoffs. Here's what I find hilarious. After we did lock up the playoff spot, many people on this board were wanting Woody to basically play the scrubs as much as possible to either get them somewhat ready for the playoffs, or see what they could do with extended playing time. The final 2 games, in most people's eyes, didn't matter one bit. And while we didn't completely shut it down as a team, Bibby and especially JJ did during those last 2 games. Yet, people act like we played all out to win those final 2 games. So when we win 37 games, instead of 39 games, it looks worse. And because it looks worse, people truly want to believe that this team didn't improve much or that they faultered down the stretch. Please. The next step for the Hawks, is to become as close to a .500 team on the road as possible. We're not improved, but we won 25 home games, and 3 home playoff games against the possible EC represenative? And the reason why the East is weak, is because the mediocre teams in the East can't beat the West teams on the road outside of Memphis and Seattle. And even those teams had some success against the mediocre East teams. There is very little difference between the lower seeded East playoff teams: Atlanta, Philly, Washington, and Toronto.

Quote: if we get a SG we need one that can shoot and score. he doesnt have to average 20 but since jj will give us 23, smoove 18 and horford 14 i think 16 points from our starting SG will be nice. Jr. Smith and Mike Miller are the only 2 i can think OF. LOL . . so why get rid of Marvin then? He's already giving us 15 ppg. You are right about one thing though. If you trade Marvin, get a guy who can shoot AND create his own shot.

Quote: BK to Sund. Very anticlimatic. Very disappointing. It's like I said in the other thread: it's like trading in a Hyundai for a Kia.

Quote: Do you watch the Sonics. Swift started out slow because of how raw he was, but when he was getting some playing thime he started producing. He was sort of like Al jefferson in Boston, he was brought up slowly. Johan Petro is consider as a very athletic 7 footer, who has a chance to be really good. Don't you remember when he came off the bench and killed us. Yeah I watch the Sonics. And both of those guys are garbage. A lot of scrub players kill the Hawks. Melvin Ely has dominated us before. We made Damien Wilkins look like Dominique and Gerald combined. Even Speedy a few years ago with the Hornets, without Chris Paul, dropped 29 on us. And I'm sorry. Swift and Petro are not good players or even potentially good players. They are serviceable big men at best. Petro shot 42% FG this year . . as a center. That's horrific. As for Swift, he had nowhere near the talent that Jefferson had in Boston. Not even close. Ish, if that's the case, Shelden is a potential 15 and 10 guy. He can at least say that he's scored 20 points and 15 rebounds in a game once, and has more double doubles than both of those guys combined . . . which totals about 4.

LOL . . there sure is a lot of spinning going on in this thread. Those Seattle players Sund has drafted would have a very difficult time even seeing playing time for us. Swift a potential 15 and 10 guy? Petro a good player? WOW. It just goes to show that sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for, when you want to change something. Better make sure you're getting a true upgrade if you're changing. This is like trading in a Hyundai for a Kia. Yeah, it's a different car, but is it a better one?

Quote: Do you even realize what you are saying? You are talking about getting to the line more but foul shots don't count as attempts. You and mrh are wondering what Marvin would do with more attempts and giving him credit for getting to the line at the same time. Hello Mcfly. LOL. This is really rocket science to you huh? Marvin could get fouled while making a shot, or he could get fouled going to the hole, even if the shot attempt doesn't officially count. In both cases, he'll have additional opportunities to score from the line, if he gets more touches and shots up. That can't be that hard to understand. Quote: A lot of those foul shots that Marvin draws in part because he is clumsy and cant take contact would be counted as shot attempts if Deng was in the same situation. It's always some backhanded excuse of why or how Marvin does his thing. That's why I find myself defending the guy more than ever. The fact that he can draw a foul 15% of the time can't be discounted, no matter how clumsy he looks going to the hole. Fact is, he's forcing people to foul him, and he's getting to the line. Quote: The gap between Deng and Marvin is bigger than this years numbers indicate. Deng didn't miss 19 games in a contract year just because he felt like taking some time off. Last year Deng averaged 19 ppg shooting 52%. That is a long way from 15 ppg shooting 46%. Marvin sure didn't get much sympathy from the fan base for missing 18 or so games last year. Even you admitted this year, that Marvin was hurting in February. That guy easily shoots 48% on the year and maybe averages close to or over 16 ppg, if he didn't have that horrible February. So if Deng gets the benefit of the doubt for missing 19 games . . and you readily admit that Marvin was hurting in February . . then Marvin deserves the benefit of the doubt as well.

LOL. Once again, you don't follow through all the way. Go through EVERY TEAM that you listed for Marvin in that original post, and see how Smoove, Chill, AND JJ did against those teams this year. Donmt just pick the 3 that favors Chill. And this isn't about Chill, because I'm not a Chill basher. The majority of this fan base is mad or disappointed in Marvin, because he's content to play his role on the team, instead of forcing the issue and trying to be a star. Being consistently solid obviously isn't good enough for the base. So mrH's point is. . . should we make Marvin a bigger part of the offense, and if people would appreciate him more if he became that? Marvin being the 4th option is kind of the point. Maybe he shouldn't be the 4th option. Maybe this team needs to force feed the ball to him, much like we do Smith, in order for him to be the 2nd option. Because it's obvious that fans aren't content with him being just a solid player. Unless Marvin becomes an energizer bunny like Chill, and start grabbing offesive rebounds by the boatloads, he's going to need touches in the halfcourt, so that he can affect the game with his scoring.

Quote: Deng scores 6.7 ppg inside compared to 4.2 for Marvin. There is only a .4 ppg difference in the amount of dunks they get. There is a 2.9 ppg difference in the inside points that aren't dunks. Please try to do a better job with your spin doctoring. Once again mrH's point was that Marvin didn't get the FGAs per game that Deng did. So would he be more appreciated if he did, because his numbers would be better. Marvin would either have more points from his jumper, more on the inside, and maybe an extra FT more, if he got more attempts. Marvin doesn't finish as well as Deng, but he gets to the line more, enabling him to still get his points. Deng is better than Marvin, but it isn't the wide gap that many believe.

Quote: Teams that Marvin averaged more than 14 shots a game.... Charlotte ( 40.8 min, 17.5 pts) Denver (34.5 min, 19.5 pts) Phoenix (37 min, 19 pts) Portland (Close) ( 37.5 min, 14 pts) Seattle (41.5 min, 25.5 pts) Toronto (Close) (34.7 min, 17 pts) So this is Marvin. It's not impressive because out of 30 teams, he only shot more than 14 times a game 4 times. It was against teams who plays little defense or a quick pace. We can't play Seattle every game. How about teams we see often? Chicago (33.3 min, 28.2% FG%, 6.75 rpg, 10.25 ppg) Detroit (34.3 min, 50% FG%, 5.25 rpg, 14.0 ppg) Miami (37.5 min, 40% FG%, 7.25 rpg, 14.5 ppg) New Jersey (30 min, 56% FG%, 5 rpg, 17.5 ppg). New York (36.25 min, 55% FG%, 6.25 rpg, 17 ppg). Orlando (30 min, 44% FG%, 4.5 rpg, 10.75 ppg) Philly (36.25 min, 51% FG, 4.5 rpg, 15.5 ppg) Washington (36.25 min, 43.3% FG%, 7 rpg, 16.25 ppg). In games where Marvin should be comfortable, he plays to the tune of the defense. Against good defenses, he rebounds less and shoots less. Ummm Diesel, that's actually a trend of the team, not just Marvin. Do a profile of those exact same teams, focusing on JJ, Chill and Smith, and see what you find.

Quote: The problem is that there are 82 games and Marvin can't rely on other people to consistently get him good looks. He isn't that good at creating his own shot. I didn't know what to expect when I first started looking this up. So when I saw his shooting percentages virtually remained unchanged when he took 14+ shots, I just had to laugh. Like Horford, Marvin is consistent as hell in what he does. And you're trying to tell me that they couldn't run Marvin off of more screens to get him open looks? That Woody couldn't exploit possble mismatches more when Marvin has an advantage? He may not be good at creating his own shot, or finishing in the lane if he doesn't dunk, but he has a knack for drawing fouls when he's around the rim, much like Smoove and Chill does. He made more FTs than any other person on this team this year, making over 80%. And he's the 2nd best shooter on the team, despite being a "clumsy klutz". The question in all of this, is if Woody is willing to make Smith less of the offensive focus, in order to elevate Marvin's role? That's the real issue here. I truly believe that Smith could still get his points, if he'd just commit to playing closer to the rim and leave those long jumpers alone. His offensive rebounds would increase and thus his possible put backs and possible trips to the FT line. No one wants the kid shooting jumpers, so why not have the people who can make outside shots, take the outside shots? If they miss, you have a superior athlete in Smith who can go get the offensive board . . if he puts his mind to it, much like Chill does. Marvin not being able to get off 1000 shots last year should never happen, unless we have multiple guys who are better offensive weapons. Marvin deserves blame for that. Unfortunately, so does our coach for not creating more opportunities for him in the halfcourt set. Quote: The big gap between him and Deng is finishing inside. Marvin scored 2.3 ppg inside on shots that weren't dunks or tips, shooting 46.7% on those shots. http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL10A.HTM By contrast Deng scored 5.2 ppg on those shots this season, shooting 55.6%. Last year he scored 5.1 shooting 58%. Marvin is clumsy and can't take contact so he struggles to finish inside. Inside scoring is inside scoring. It's not Marvin's fault that Deng doesn't dunk the ball more when around the rim. Deng is the better far better finisher at close range that aren't dunks and tips. Marvin is better at getting dunks and drawing fouls going to the hole, no matter how clumsy he looks at times. And this year, Marvin finished on the inside 58% of the time, a great improvement from last year. And he drew almost 60 more fouls compared to last year, drawing fouls on 15% of his shots. mrH's whole argument was that if this team made an effort to make Marvin be a bigger part of the offense, would people think differently about him? The answer to this question is obviously NO . . because people would find something else to try to downgrade the kid with. Hawks fans want "Marvin the Superstar", not "Marvin the Consitent Player" By the way, these are Marvin's numbers when he averages 10 or less shots a game. He had 34 games in which that happened last year. In those 34 games, he averaged 8 shots from the field. 30.9 minutes 11.9 points 4.7 rebs 1.6 asst 0.9 stls 0.3 blks 1.2 tos 47.4% FG 83.1% FT So I go the other way, and his points and rebounds decrease from his season averages at about the same rate as they increased when he took 14+ shots a game. But his shooting from both the field and the line remains about the same. Not spectacular by any means. He's just consistent as hell.

Quote: YOu could make that argument with anyone. You could say if Childress took 16 shots he could score 20 ppg. The reality is that Childress can't create his own shot so he can't get that many shots up. Marvin isn't skilled enough to keep his percentages up while taking significantly more shots. The difference between Marvin and Chill, is that Marvin gets his points mainly within the halfcourt set. Getting Marvin 14 shots only means making a commitment to get him the ball within the halfcourt offense. It also means getting him just 3 more shots a game. With Chill, you're talking trying to get him an extra 6 - 7 shots. So the only thing we can kind of look at, is how Marvin played when he took at least 14 shots last year. First, I'll list his averages for the season: 34.6 minutes 14.8 ppg 5.7 rebs 1.7 asst 1.0 stls 0.4 blks 1.6 tos 46.2% FG 82.2% FT Now, Marvin had 24 games in which he took 14 shots or more. In those games, he averaged right at 16 shots a game. Here are his numbers. 38.8 minutes 18.7 ppg 7.1 rebs 1.8 asst 0.9 stls 0.4 blks 1.9 tos 46.1% FG 81% FT Interesting . . . .

Quote: The "threat" of shooting is just as important. The key point here is taking pressure off of JJ as well as increasing our shooting, and opening up the lanes and spreading the defense. This makes it much easier for Smith and Horford (and Acie) to drive inside. The Spurs had too much confidence in Bowen, even when Kobe started killing him. If anything, they should've doubled Kobe, and make those "shooters" beat them instead. Lakers only took 10 threes. With us though, JJ just happens to be our most potent 3 point threat. The solution to this is to take him off the ball, and let Acie run the show. Bibby is fine against non-defensive PGs, but Rondo exposed him big time. Quote: Is it easier to drive to the hole when the defense is packing the lane because you don't have shooters, or when the defense is out on the perimeter guarding players on the 3pt line? It's easier to drive if one guy is on you, regardless of how the defense is playing. but if they're packing the lane, then yes, it's harder to drive against that. Another way to attack this, is that when JJ passes out of the double team, the person receiving the ball attack the basket. Acie, in the few minutes he played in Game 6, did just that. Bibby did it to a certain extent as well. Quick ball movement solves this as well, as was the case in Game 3. JJ himself passing out of the double team a lot quicker, would make things easier for the Hawks as well.

Face it mrH, Matvin is just horrible and will never amount to anything. But to address your topic, I actually figured up exactly what you are taking about. If Marvin took 14 shots a game, like Smith did this year, and played the EXACT same way he did this year, he'd average 18 ppg. But he'd still suck because he wouldn't be averaging 20 ppg.

The ironic thing is that the Lakers didn't win the game off of the strength of their shooting. They won by playing defense, rebounding, and drivng to the hole. Meanwhile, the Spurs "shooters" shot a ton of 3s and missed them in that 2nd half, let the Lakers back in the game because they didn't drive and get to he FT line. I understand what you're saying though. But if you defend, rebound, and can get to the line, you'll win the vast majority of the time.

Most of your good teams possess the ability to play inside-out, with at least one guy capable of scoring down on the block. We don't have that ability yet. Horford and JJ had it working a little in Game 3 I believe. But the best I've seen it work with the Hawks, was @ Golden St., when Salim and JJ ran it and beat the Warriors. JJ was in the post and Salim was the shooter. If he can score and draw fouls while down on the block, that's more important than his ability to make 17 - 22 foot jumpers. Those jumpers will be an added luxury. I just hope that a jumpshot isn't the only thing that will be effective on the NBA level.

Quote: Don't underestimate the value of his outside shooting. We need guys who can hit perimeter shots. Plus pulling a big man out of the lane will open up the lane for everyone else. Actually, we need a guy who can score down on the block with his back to the basket to get us easier points. I'm not discounting Andersen's potential mid and long range shooting. But if he can score down on the block, I'd rather see him down there more, because he'll shoot a higher percentage and have a chance to open up the court for other people. Horford is most effective shooting the face-up jumper right now. He has decent post moves, but they still need to be refined, especially against bigger players. Smoove's post up game is coming along, but he's more effective drivng to the hole against 4s & 5s. His back to the basket game is sub-par. If Andersen can catch the ball down on the low block and score, that opens up the outside for JJ, Bibby, Marvin, even Acie and Horford, because teams may have to double Andersen down low. If they double, he kicks it out to the open man for the jumper. If not, he takes his man one on one and takes the shot or draws the foul. If Andersen can do this on the NBA level, a pick ( or screen ) and roll ( or pop ) game with between Andersen and JJ could be nice.

The best part of that video to me, is not the outside shooting, it's the post up moves down on the block. If he can do that on the NBA level, then we might have something. He'll be going up against much stronger and athletic players though, so we'll just have to see.

If we extend him, won't that be his next contract . . starting next year? 8.5 million, if he doesn't really blow up as a player, is the most he can make.

Quote: Personally, I don't want any draft picks. We need VETS. There's a reason that so many team are looking to trade away their picks this season... few guys who will make an impact in the next 1-2 seasons. A bunch of projects... and haven't we had our fill of projects? At some point, we have to stop running a Junior Achievement branch and employ adults to supplement our already youthful core. NO DRAFT PICKS. Spend on some vets like Kurt Thomas, Jarvis Hayes, Chris Duhon, Fred Jones, Francisco Elson or Adonal Foyle (who may opt out). All of those guys should be on the lower end of the pay scale. My thoughts exactly. Acie is essentially our 1st round pick for this year. Give me a few quality vets over these young kids any day of the week.

No . . you don't trade Chill or Marvin for one of these young draft picks that's not Beasley, Rose, or Mayo. Cost is only an issue for this year, and it's really not that big of an issue this year. Next year, Bibby and ZaZa will surely be gone, knocking over 19 million off the payroll. Even if a guy like ZaZa is retained, he may or may not make more than 4 million per year during his next contract starting in 2009, if he's even here at all. And if cost is an issue for the ASG going into next year, I can easily see the Hawks just keeping Bibby the entire year, and letting that money fall right off the books, instead of using Bibby to bring in more pieces. That move will free up enough money to possibly deal with JJ after 2010 season. This is just my projected 2009 - 10 payroll, from the guys that we'll probably have on the team if we re-sign Chill and Smoove. Also remember that we may very well do with Marvin, what we did with Chill and Smoove , and just let the market dictate what they are worth when he becomes an RFA in 2009. Right now, I don't see Marvin getting anything over a 5 year - 40 or 45 million deal. So I'll say his number will be 8.5 million with a new contract after next summer. 2009 - 10 squad: JJ - 15 million ( last year of contract ) Smith - 11 million ( new contract ) Marvin - 8.5 million? Chill - 6.5 million ( new contract ) Speedy - 5.2 million ( last year of contract ) Horford - 4.3 million ( 1st year of team option ) Andersen - 3 million ? Law - 2.2 million ( 1st year of team option ) '09 First round pick - 1.7 million ( hopefully we're good enough that we're picking somewhere in the 20s ) '09 Second round pick - 600K If those are the numbers for those 10 guys going into 2009, you're looking at the Hawks payroll being somewhere around 58 million, not counting who we pick up as a free agent to fill out the rest of the roster. If you count the additional roster spots, I guess we might be between 62 - 65 million. Even if Smith gets a Max deal, I can see our total payroll in 09 - 10 being somewhere in the 64 - 69 million range. We'll be over the cap, but still not in luxury tax land. Regardless of what we do, our payroll should be lower going into the 09 - 10 season, than it will be going into the 08 - 09 season. If cost isn't an issue, then this team won't mind going a little into luxury tax land, as long as we have a East contender type team on the court. And that's a good thing.

No problem. That means that Smoove will just have to get tougher. He worked out with Olajuwon last summer. This summer, maybe he can hang out with Charles Oakley.