Packfill

Quote: You don't think Bogut is Ewing or Shaq, but what have you seen that tells you Paul is Kidd or Nash? Paul supposedly plays against the toughest competition in the country, but when was the last time he dominated a game? All the guys who came out of high school dominated inferior competition, yet no one had a problem drafting any of them. There are people on this board who want the Hawks to draft another H.S. player this year. Who did Howard or Josh Smith play against last year in H.S.? Bogut would be great in any conference. I hate to say this, but it seems like Bogut is being compared to every white stiff who's ever played in the NBA. If Bogut was from Harlem instead of Austrailia, would there be a question about his ability? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it doesn't seem fair to me. Inever said Paul was going to be the next Kidd. Rather I said I rather draft the next Kidd instead of the next Michael Olowakandi. I also went on to say I did not know enough about any of the prospects to say any of them are can't miss prospects like a LeBron or Shaq. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Quote: There are two forces at work here... PG is the hardest position to play in the nBA C is the hardest position to find. however, you have to look at the level where each player is playing. I'm glad that BK gets to do that up front. Who is to say that it's not a case of Kaman vs. Hinrich? Also, that statement that you made: Quote: Very few point guards(Devin Harris) make any impact before there 3rd or 4th year I take it you're talking about good PGs since you mentioned good Big men... Well, let's look at the record: Centers vs. PGs... 2004: Okafor, Araujo, Swift vs. Gordon, Livingston, Harris 2003: Darko, Bosh, Kaman vs. Hinrich, Ford 2002: Ming, Nene, Wilcox, Ely vs. Jay Williams 2001: Curry, Diop, vs. No PGs.. 2000: Chris Mihm, Pryz vs. Dooling 1999: Redojevick vs. Francis, Davis, Miller, Terry. 1998: Olowakhandi, Lafrentz, Doleac vs. Bibby, Jason Williams, Now... with the thorough understanding of draft history... back to 1998... we see clearly that the trend is that more PGs are higher impact than Cs... BUT obviously it's case by case... Still, the two that we will never know about are Jay Williams and TJ Ford... Although Ford was making an impact until he got hurt. The moral of the story is finding these positions are hard so you don't want to pass up the next Jason Kidd by drafting Big Country... Excellent post D. There is no guarantee at this point that Bogut turns out any better then Chris Kamen or Raef LaFrentz. I think alot of you guys discount the value of a truly exceptional point guard. There are so few of them that if you have the chance, you grab one no questions asked because they make your entire team better. Add Steve Nash or Jason Kidd to the Hawks and they immediately improve by 15 wins. Granted, a great big can do the same, but you get the point - if you think one of the points has a chance at greatness then you take them over the big guy who you are not sure has a chance at greatness (and vice versa). Now, I don't know enough about any of the draftable players to say one or another is a guarantee. I just don't see a Shaq, Lebron or Patrick Ewing.

Easier but riskier too, because you are not guaranteed that Walker will be around next year.

This is a good point. First, you would need to be sure that Walker is signable before trading Al - because we need one of them. Second, how much more will Walker cost then Al and what impact will that have on the team's ability to sign free agents or sign its own young players when their rookie contracts expire. For these reasons I think it makes sense to keep Harrington because he is locked in at a reasonable rate for next year - after which we will have a much better sense of how the young players are progressing. If, at that time, Harrington proves to be a good fit then the Hawks can resign him. If not, he is gone. With Walker, you will have to sign him to at least a 4 year deal (probably 5 or 6) and there is no guarantee he will mesh with the young guys once they have a few years under their belt. So on contract status alone Harrington makes more sense. I guess if you feel Walker is so much better then Harrington that it makes sense to commit to him, then you would feel differently. And yes, I realize Walker is the superior player right now. Three years from now, who knows.

What Harrington hype? He is a good player. Obviously the Hawks cannot win with both Harrington and Walker as the core of the team, but I am still not sure which is better for the team in the long run.

Nice. Playing like a number 6 pick right now. As I have said in the past, I still like Igoudala better and would have preferred him to have been the pick, but I don't think there is a huge difference in talent between Childress, Deng and Igoudala. My suspicion is that none of them become superstars but all become solid role players. People bitch and moan about making Childress the 6th pick, but end of the day regardless of which of the three we picked the results will likely be the same.

How so? I will give you he is more exciting and a better free throw shooter, but otherwise I am not so sure.

I think we like to talk about the future because the present is not so appealing. there usually is some excitement though when one of the young players has a good game.

Either way works for me (though I would prefer to hold on to Harrington), we could package Crawfords expiring contract to make the numbers work

Francis is a great individual talent but I am not sure any team could win big with him as the point guard. He is basically the Antoine Walker of point guards, great stats at first blush, but looking deeper you see really low shooting percentages, lots of turnovers, and, for a max contract guy, an inability to get a team over the hump from decent to really good. Yes Orlando has improved dramaticly from last year, but a large part of that has to do with the return of Grant Hill, the presence of Dwight Howard and the team actually trying to compete.

I agree with Weez, if Chandler was clear of any medical problems I would definitely do the deal. Yes you need to throw some money at Chandler but it is the same money you would trhow at a free agent center anyway. Davis' contract is terrible but it expires (assuming it is two more years as Spiral suggested) in time for the Hawks to pay big money to our current rookies.

I would not re-sign Walker unless Al Harrington is traded as well. Not trying to pick sides on the Al vs. Toine debate, but it is one or the other next year, not both. That being said, Al is already signed for next year so my guess is Toine is the more likely to be elswhere when next season starts.

Stats don't mean crap if your team does not win. No one on a last place team deserves to be an all-star.

I don't think Jack is having a great year. Watching him in the tournament last year thought he was a sure fire lottery guy but this year he has not had the same magic to his game. I don't know whay anyone mentione Warrick because he does not represent a need for the Hawks. Josh Smith can do everything Warrick can do.

Am I the only one that thinks that none of those three - Deng, Childress and Igoudala - are going to be superstars? I think they will all be good role players but nothing more. I still like Igoudala the best of the three but the difference in abilities and ceilings is not that big. Realisticly, the only player picked between 6 and 17 in the 2004 draft that has shown anything remotely resembling "star" potential is Al Jefferson. Maybe Billy missed on him but so did a lot of GM's, just as they may have missed on Josh Smith. I can almost guarantee that no GM, coach or draft expert projected Jefferson going 6th in the draft.

He is worth a look. I just posted a day or so ago a list of young centers that were at least worthy of a look. Sampson was one of them. O.K., I am done tooting my own horn.

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.