Packfill

Quote: I'm not saying that Houston didn't need Hakeem. Nor am I saying that the Celtics didn't need McHale and Parish. Nor am I discounting what Rodman brought to the Bulls. That would just be downright absurd. What I am saying is there is no singular part that is more important than the other. It may be easier to build around a big man, but just as important are players that can get it done from outside, break down the defense, and get others involved. That is how you win. You need guys on the outside, just like you need guys on the inside. You rarely find championship teams without dominant inside play and you rarely find them without dominant outside play. It's that simple, and what we need to focus on isn't finding the best big man available. We need a superstar and an identity. Period. This I more or less agree with. As it pertains to the Hawks, I feel that it is essential that they obtain a quality "big" whose talents include bringing it defensively. If that big is a Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem then great, but at this point I would settle for a Ben Wallace, Horace Grant or Bill Lambeer[sp?]. They need defense and rebounding in the middle to become competitive, let alone win a championship.

I also have to disagree with your post. No way Houston sniffs a championship without Hakeem. Yes you need good role players, but the dominant post player carried Houston, San Antonio, LA (Shaq years) to championships. LA (Magic/Kareem years) and Boston one titles because, in addition to top players such as Magic and Bird they each had a hall of famer at center. That fact cannot be dismissed. Detroit (Issiah years) and the Bulls (both times) are the only teams of recent vintage to win a title without a hall of fame caliber post player. The Pistons did it both times with solid team play, strong defense and good coaching. Both Pistons teams had strong interior play - including power guys who set a tone on the inside that there are no freebies (Detroit with Lambier, Salley, Rodman and Mahorn and Detroit with Wallace, Wallace and co.). The Bulls with Jordan are a unique case because they had Jordan, the best player of all time. Still both Bulls teams had a few strong interior players - Horace Grant the first go round and Rodman the second - that set the tone defensively. Still you cannot compare the Bulls to anything because Jordan was so head and shoulders above everyone else. So yes you need good role players around the big guy, but Jordan needed good role players around him to. Plenty of teams have had success without a dominant big guy but none have won a championship. Maybe this year will be different if the Suns or Sonics breakthrough (although even the Suns have Stoudamire).

Wow.

I remember reading something prior to the draft that he was closer to 6'9" then 7'. I rather have a guy like Kendrick Perkins (they are not trading Jefferson) as he is a little more ready to contribute. Not sure their contract status, but other guys to look at are back-up bigs in Charlotte Melvin Ely and Jamal Sampson, Gadzuric from Wilwaukee, and Brendan Haywood.

I should add that this is the reason I advocated paying Kenyon Martin the max this past summer. I, maybe incorrectly, perceived him as someone with the type of attitude and skill set to provide some of the attitude needed down low. Hasn't worked out that way for Denver though so what do I know.

Completely agree. All those teams had someone inside to set the tone - it may not be through a single dominate player (I am thinking specifically of the Issiah Pistons), but someone who would at least police the middle. Hawks do not have that. That inside presence alone does not guarantee a championship - think of the Deke/Smitty/Mookie Hawks - because you have to have the complementary scorers. In summary, the Hawks need someone with some attitude/moxie in the post. This does not mean you need some jerk like Rodman, just someone who will make the other team think twice and clean the glass.

Quote: What I meant by my comment Employee8, is that too many people on this forum state why someone should be placed on the Hawks based on likeness. I for one do not like Felton, I actually like Paul more thanks to my father going to Wake Forest, but I don't go around raving about him like many Techies do for Jack. If people would put more thought and a little research in to their threads, then maybe I wouldn't have to tell people to shut up, when they are talking out of their a$$ People are entitled to their opinions. There is no guarantee that Jack won't be better than both Paul and Felton. I am sure no one thought Steve Nash would be the best point guard in the NBA when he came out of college, but he is. We don't know, that is what makes talent evaluation so hard. Just because someone is a fantastic athlete, has great size or a pretty jumper, does not mean they will be a great basketball player. If that were the case, Desagana Diop, Michael Olowakandi, and Stanely Roberts would be franchise centers. Darius Miles, Harold Minor, Gerald Wallace and Kenny "Sky" Walker would be more than role players. Steve Alford, Trajon Langdon and Dennis Scott would be mentioned in the same breath as Reggie Miller and Ray Allan.

Diaz is not a point guard.

Quote: Quote: I would strongly consider that. A line-up of Paul, Childress, Smith, Harrington and Big Z would be a shooter away from at least respectability. I like that lineup. But why not also go after Michael Redd and break the bank for him? In addition, it would be even better if we managed to keep Walker here, too. I mean...What a nice "Problem" to have for once : Too Much Talent. Because this is reality. Adding both Redd and Big Z in one off-season is not likely to happen.

Quote: Bogut will be an all-star in this league. He will instantly be the best passing big man in the league, he'll put up a double double every night, and he'll be a great fit with the speedy athletes the hawks have (The Smiths, Childress, Harrington). He'll be able to hit those guys cutting to the basket, and he'll be great at starting the fast break. It's much easier to find a PG than a franchise center. If you get a chance to draft a big time center, you do not pass it up. Lets not get carried away. Bogut has performed very well this season by to say he will immediately be the best passing big man in the NBA is crazy. Guys like Brad Miller, Vlade Divac, Yao and others have already established themselves as top performers in the league. There is absolutely no guarantee that Bogut will perform anywhere near that level - particularly as a rookie. Also, I agree that it is more difficult to find a franchise center then a point guard. But Bogut is not the certifiable guaranteed franchise big man type like, Shaq, Duncan, Mourning, Ewing, etc. Jon Koncak was a lottery pick big man too, so there certaintly is room for error. Finally, while it is easy to find a servisable point, a great point guard can substantially elevate the play of his teammates - thus having a much greater impact then statistics alone. Look at what Kidd did for Jersey and what Nash is doing for Phoenix.

I think any of those guys could be good but there is absolutely no guarantee that they will be even able to make a team. So yes there are draftable prospects, but immediate help is not a given.

I would strongly consider that. A line-up of Paul, Childress, Smith, Harrington and Big Z would be a shooter away from at least respectability.

If a woman asked me that . . . I digress. I think those are all guys who could be second round finds. Simien in particular has first round talent and production - but second round medical history and height. Guys like Head and Daniel Ewing are too small to be shooting guards but have demonstrated at least a modicum of ability to play the point ala Gilbert Arenas.

The only way it happens is if we take back some bad contracts. While this would eat into our capspace I would do it so long as those bad contracts end on or before the expiration of Josh Smith and Josh Childress' rookie contracts.

Fleton is great but if I had the choice, I would take Paul over Felton. Yes Paul is on the small side but so few point guards these days do anything other than shoot from the outside or seek ro drive and score or drive and past. There are a few that will attempt to post up a smaller player but those are the exceptions. Paul reminds me of Kevin Johnson. As for Redick, I think he has a chance to make it in the NBA but I do not think he gets picked in the teens when he does come out, hust too much question about his size and athleticism. Not sure Rashard Lewis is the right comparison either, he is more Alan Houston, Casey Jacobson, Danny Ainge type.

I am guessing Chris Paul, Andrew Bogut and Chris Taft would have something to say about this.

Just to clarify, those stats are based on 48 minutes of play, not 40.

Just say no to undersized shooting guards with low shooting percentages. He is an excellent athlete, yes, but not a great basketball player.

My father was born and raised in France, survived a war, moved to the US and worked his tail off. So I do not understand what you are talking about. Have you ever been to France?

They can go over the luxury tax threshold to sign one of their own free agents or via an exception but that cannot otherwise sign a free agent when they are over the cap.

Isn't Dallas capped out? They could only offer the mid-level exception, we could offer more.

If you draft Paul in round 1 why draft another undersized point guard in round 2 with McNamara. He is not big enough to be a 2 guard. If you want a shooter get one with some size.

The rookies have no chance if Lebron and Wade play.

Quote: That would be good, giveaway the only guy on the team that can make a jump shot. Well I guess if we are going to tank we mine as well make sure that we are going to succeed. We just will not have anyone on the team that can make an outside shot. P I am of the opinion that there is no way Denver would do this trade, but you wouldn't trade Delk for a first round pick?

No way Denver gives us a 1st for Delk. Absolutely no chance, he is not that good. I doubt they would even give us Skita for Delk.