Packfill

Solomon may yet be a solid defensive player to put in in spot minutes but he is not going to get extended minutes because his hands are so bad that the opposition does not have to cover him, meaning everyone else is playing 4 on 5.

I definitely would do the first deal, but doubt Sac-town would. I think Korver is too one-dimensional so would not do the second deal.

Quote: if the kings traded artest to the hawks for marvin and chillz, don't you know they would have like 6 of last years hawks on their team. and not even one of the three best ones. people would wonder if we have the dirty pics of the king gm Well, you could argue that the Hawks wouldn't have the best Sacramento player either. I have to wonder whether Sacramento would want Chillz and/or Marvin considering they already have Martin, Garcia and Salmon to man the wings.

Quote: The West is clearly superior. The East has 2 great teams and then nothing. One could easily argue that the West has 8 of the top 10 teams. The teams that make it out of the West are much more beat up than those in the East even though Boston made their job harder than needed by not showing up on the road until they lost at home, but still. I don't think the best conference is the conference with the best team, it is the best conference top to bottom. Agreed.

I think the Hawks should do what the Celtics did - put together a team that can win a championship.

I doubt Portland would do that trade as Roy provides similar product for them on a rookie contract. Joe is the better player right now, for sure, but they are a younger team then the Hawks so it makes sense for them to grow the core of Roy, Aldridge and Oden together.

Quote: Bibby's $15M a season for a starting PG. We should be able to get a quality PG for $10M a season or less from SOMEWHERE. Obviously no one would sign Bibby for anything close to $15 million. That said, we saw the advantages of having a competent point guard on the team, and there are not a ton of those guys that become available.

Quote: Resigning Marvin will not be an issue if we desire to keep him. Actually, I think our cap situation will be BETTER next year with both Bibby and Zaza expiring. In addition, if we resign Marvin next year, unless he gets a LOT better, his starting salary likely won't be any more than his qualifying offer next year ($7.35M). If his starting salary IS more than that, it means he had a great season, that he has turned the corner as a player and we will want to keep him. I think the one potential issue regarding cap space for the Hawks going forward is if Law does not step up and show he is capable of leading the team as the starting point guard after next season. In that scenario, the Hawks need to spend money on getting a starting point guard.

Quote: Quote: You are missing something here. It isn't just about Woody. There is also a question about whether we have a real GM or a Gearon yes man. If Woody was gone that wouldn't be a question at all. Which is why you didn't see me jumping up and down over the Sund hire. See, one of the thing that people like Dolfan, coachX, and I have been talking about for a while, is "change . . just for the sake of change". With all of this "potential" on the Hawks roster, you'd think at least one of those Asst GMs of playoff teams would jump at the chance to run the show themselves for another organization. But they didn't. Why? When you look at Sund, he definitely has the experience. But why would he leave an organization like Seattle, especially a year after they obtain what could be the next great player in the NBA in Durant? If he left Seattle because he didn't want to go through another rebuilding effort, fine. But if he left Seattle because his job may have been in jeapordy with the new owners moving the Sonics to OK City, and he was willing to take whatever new offer came his way, then that's an issue in itself. It could very well be that a guy like Sund was the ASG's 6th or 7th choice, after their other targets either publically or privately declined the opportunity to take the job. Sund left Seattle because he was forced out of the GM role their a year ago. He was just a consultant this past season.

Quote: Now that we know that Woody is coming back, you are allowed a period of mourning. So go ahead and bytch and cry about this decision for a few days. Take a week if you have to. If you need two weeks, you have serious problems . . but hey, take 2 weeks if you have to. But by the time the NBA Draft comes around ( and definitely by the time summer league comes around ), all of this crying should have ceased. What's done is done. And anyway, the most important decision to be made this summer is NOT on who's the coach, it's on what we do with Smith and Childress. Woody coming back is actually a good indication that both Smith and Childress will be retained, seeing how much Woody trusts both of them. In the grand scheme of things, that's what we can't make a mistake on . . . player personnel. At any rate, this team will have my UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT, no matter what the management does. - I will continue to be a die hard fan of this team - I will be in attendance for opening night - I will make the commitment to attend 7 - 10 home games - And WHEN we make the playoffs next season, they will have my full support, no matter what record going in or what seed we have. It's amazing. Doc Rivers, by most accounts, probably would've been fired by most organizations because he couldn't get his young team to win. A few Hall of Fame and veteran players later, he's on the verge of winning Boston's first championship in 20+ years. Thank you so much for this insightful post.

Quote: This is a slow time for Hawks news so I'm just trying to find a discussion that has not been beat into the ground over the last few days: The reality is that the Hawks have little to spend in free agency if or when Josh Smith is resigned. In a perfect world Chillz will be brought back but what if the Spurs or Mavericks offer him a big deal we cannot match without paying luxury tax ? There has to be a plan B. Here are some possible cheap FA wings who are good role players off the bench: J. Hayse M. Barnes M. Pietrus K. Rush Q. Ross Bigs: K. Brown Elson If we could sign one of the above wings and one of the bigs for the same price or less then it would cost to resign Chillz then it has to be strongly considered with our lack of bench depth and lack of space below the luxury tax threshold to fill out the roster. Here is a up to date list of FAs: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=2008freeagents Anxious to hear other's thoughts on a possible plan B. Roger Mason may be cheap enough for the Hawks to have a shot at signing him as a back-up shooting guard. He also can handle the ball a little as a hedge against injuries to either Bibby or Law next season. Is there a roster spot or minutes available for a defensive big if they are bringing Anderson over? If they are bringing Anderson over and are intent on bringing in a defensive big then they should jettison Zaza.

Quote: Isn't it funny how our nightmare comes to real life ON FRIDAY THE 13TH! Just wondering, since everyone seems to have different opinions (except towards Woody), what does everyone see happening next season? Give it some thought... 7 The Friday the 13th thing is quite ironic. As for your question about what happens next season, I am not sure. Hopefully the team can overcome Woody's deficiencies. I think any improvement will be as a result of the natural maturation of the young players. Hopefully some of them can start developing some consistency. It would be nice if the franchise brought in some solid vets to provide minutes of the bench but I don't think there is enough money available for those types of players.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Please tell me you do not really believe this. If this were the case then every Fortune 500 CEO would be hired without an interview. OH COMMMMME ONNNNN.Give me a break. Are you so in passionate love with your position that you cannot even acknowledge this SIMPLE truth?When's the last time you spent two hours watching a CEO manage his team even once? What's more... think Fortune 30, not 500.There are 30 teams that have coaching staffs from which a given team typically will choose to make hires, plus a handful that are former employees.Quote: Besides, Woody's previous supervisor wanted him fired.Yes. And, come to think of it, wasn't that the very popular and well-regarded GM who everyone here admired and thought was just a wonderful decision-maker?So, now, it's convenient to hide behind BK as if you LIKED his decision-making?????....sheesh...Please. Do you honestly believe that any of the current NBA head coaches were hired without first interviewing with the GM?Don't you think every GM that makes a decision to hire a coach does so after personnally interviewing the candidates? Don't you think part of the evaluation is how well the two can work together? Whether they share a similar approach to building a team? And yes, the CEO's of the the 30 largest companies did universally interview for their jobs. What's more, CEO's are evaluated all the time. Daily. They face far more scrutiny then any NBA head coach. Board's of Directors have independent advisors retained to assist them in evaluating the effectiveness of their executive officers. Moreover, they have stockholders to answer to - just like teams have fans. There are also more news publications devoted to their moves and non-moves then any coach has to deal with. No one is hiding behind BK. BK was a bad GM. BK is the guy that made the mistake of hiring Woody in the first place.EDS, I don't think there's clear communication going on here.You're arguing against something that I didn't say, or at least, didn't mean for you to take it that way.Let me try again.In the NBA, the limited number of "companies" and "lead managers," put together with the nightly display of the "lead managers' projects" (ie, games) makes it undeniably easier to evaluate the field of candidates for a given position. That's not to suggest that there aren't other areas worth looking into, but it is to suggest that there is a LOT of evidence that the top executive can look at for an NBA team that a Fortune 500 exec doesn't have, just by the nature of the different environments. Neither companies nor teams interview people without some compelling reason for believing that they need more information. So, I would offer the educated guess that Sund wasn't any more thrilled by what he saw "out there" than intrigued by the possibility of what he already had "in here," and made a decision accordingly.May be a terrible decision, may be the perfect decision, but more likely will be somewhere in-between, of course.And, yes, there's a possibility that it wasn't even his decision... that ASG was of one mind and that they all agreed to put it upon Sund to keep Woodson. That's a tougher sell, in my mind, b/c of the number of egos involved, all of whom probably have an inclination that they're always right. But... I don't know for a fact that it didn't happen just that way.All I know is that I believe Woody deserves some criticism for some bench moves from time to time, but as the lesson of Fitch teaches, one deludes himself if he thinks just the W/L record is an accurate measurement of Woody's value as a coach.Sturt,Watching the games is not enough for a GM to make an informed decision, particularly if that involves watching game tapes - which I presume is what Sund did since I don't think he attended many Hawks games. If you are just watching the tape, How does Sund know what BK was doing in the huddles, in the locker room and on the bench? How does he know what involvement Woody has with what is happening on the court. Occasional glances of the coach yelling probably don't help, nor to the frequent shots of Woody looking dumbfounded.There is no way you can honestly believe that there is any GM in the NBA that would hire a coach without interviewing him, his assistants and talking with anyone he knows that has insight on the candidate. And CEO's do have a daily display of their abilities, whether it be how they handle board meetings, analyst calls, press appearences, public events, etc. Plus the news media follows the moves of these CEOs much closer then a coach of a team like the Hawks.Very Truly,EDS

Quote: Quote: Please tell me you do not really believe this. If this were the case then every Fortune 500 CEO would be hired without an interview. OH COMMMMME ONNNNN.Give me a break. Are you so in passionate love with your position that you cannot even acknowledge this SIMPLE truth?When's the last time you spent two hours watching a CEO manage his team even once? What's more... think Fortune 30, not 500.There are 30 teams that have coaching staffs from which a given team typically will choose to make hires, plus a handful that are former employees.Quote: Besides, Woody's previous supervisor wanted him fired.Yes. And, come to think of it, wasn't that the very popular and well-regarded GM who everyone here admired and thought was just a wonderful decision-maker?So, now, it's convenient to hide behind BK as if you LIKED his decision-making?????....sheesh...Please. Do you honestly believe that any of the current NBA head coaches were hired without first interviewing with the GM?Don't you think every GM that makes a decision to hire a coach does so after personnally interviewing the candidates? Don't you think part of the evaluation is how well the two can work together? Whether they share a similar approach to building a team? And yes, the CEO's of the the 30 largest companies did universally interview for their jobs. What's more, CEO's are evaluated all the time. Daily. They face far more scrutiny then any NBA head coach. Board's of Directors have independent advisors retained to assist them in evaluating the effectiveness of their executive officers. Moreover, they have stockholders to answer to - just like teams have fans. There are also more news publications devoted to their moves and non-moves then any coach has to deal with. No one is hiding behind BK. BK was a bad GM. BK is the guy that made the mistake of hiring Woody in the first place.

Quote: Preface: While I appreciate that my posts are so salient that ex feels that they need his commentary and broad disparagement, I don't make it my habit to respond to him ordinarily just out of the tedious nature of any dialogue with the young man. But, given the news of the day, I will make an exception. Any average Hawksquawk Joe, and for that matter any one of less-than-average intelligence can tell you that one conducts interviews when one doesn't have enough information on the person's previous job performance from which to make a judgment. That is, hiring an NBA coach isn't like hiring for the vacancy in the cubicle beside you. To be employed as a coach in the NBA is to be employed in one of the world's very small fishbowls. Evaluating how a person has performed in their previous opportunities and how they might make sense in the vacancy here isn't about resumes and interviews nearly so much as it is about straight-up observation and talking with their previous supervisors. Please tell me you do not really believe this. If this were the case then every Fortune 500 CEO would be hired without an interview. Besides, Woody's previous supervisor wanted him fired.

Quote: Apparently every other team in the league hiring a coach doesn't think very highly of Avery or Flip so why should we be judged so harshly for passing them up?Because every other team in the league does not have an underperforming coach. Well, the Bobcats did have an underperforming coach, but they fired him and hired a hall of famer.Hopefully the team can overcome Woody's deficiencies and build on last years "success."

This is clearly a sign that the ASG are committed to putting the best possible product on the floor.

Quote: and it depends on what their long term goals are. Would an expiring Bibby an expiring Zaza and Marvin for Arenas, Etan Thomas and Stevenson make sense to them? I don't know that I would want to give up Marvin in this deal but that is one way I could see it happening. Haywood/Zaza Jamison/Blatche Marvin/Songalia Butler/Young Bibby/Daniels Depending on what they resign Jamison for, they could have a lot of money to go after FAs in 09/10 if a deal like that went down. That would be an awesome deal for the Hawks, but likely not enough for the Wiz since they don't really need Marvin with Caron Butler already on board.

Quote: Quote: Realistically, Sund should know by now if he wants to retain Woody or not. Whether he knows who would replace Woody is another matter. Hopefully as a long time front office executive he has put thought into head coaching candidates (in a general sense) even before joining the Hawks organization. And the point should be affirmed that, indeed, he may know what he wants to do... but then, that doesn't mean that we're going to know anything anytime soon. If Sund knows that he isn't going to retain Woody then it is common curtesy to give Woody and his assistants as much time as possible to find alternative employment. This is especially true when there are a limited number of vacancies for coaching positions in the NBA.

Quote: You can't fire Woody... he's either resign or he isn't. And ASG wasn't going to fire BK since Sekou said he was offer a 1-yr extension. A 1 year deal is essentially the same thing as telling someont to "go **** yourself" in the world of employment agreements, especially for someone that has been employed by an organization for more then 5 years.

Quote: You think that he should already know in a week whether he should retain Woody or not? I think he could be leaning one way or another based on outside observation and initial impressions, but 1 week isn't nearly enough to make an informed decision. At this point he could be leaning towards keeping Woody and that could be the wrong decision. Even though I support bringing back Woody I would rather him make the right decision once he has all the facts and data to work with, even if it means bringing in someone else instead of rushing to a decision after a week. A week is more then enough. Sund has been doing this for 30 years, he should have talked to all the players, Woody, the assistants and any other executive within the organization by now. He also should have watched tape of most of the teams games. Heck he should have already been thinking about this after interviewing, so he has had more then a week.

Quote: Gordan Giricek? Primoz Brezec? Fred Jones? I think that some of those guys are going to be looking at playing for the vet minimum before all is said and done. If not the vet minimum then certainly not much more than that. I think Chillz will improve as he gets stronger. I think he finishes around the basket stronger now than he did as a rookie. I agree with you about JJ but consistency is what separates the really good ones from the great ones. As for Smoove, Marv, Chillz, Acie and Al, I don't know that ANY of them will reach their full potential next year but I DO think that ALL of them will be better than they were this year. Some may be only marginally better and some may be markedly better but I don't think any will regress (or even stay the same). I think the taste of the playoffs will motivate them all to come back and do even better this year. I DO agree that we lack a superstar but I would say that the Pistons lack a superstar as well. They have a lot of really good players though and that is a model I think we can follow. That said, I am certainly not opposed to trading for a superstar if a trade comes along for one that doesn't gut the rest of the team. If the Hawks are going to use the Larry Brown Pistons as a building model then it will be another 4+ years for the teams core players to gain the requisite experience that Brown's veteran team had. Oh, and the Pistons had a hall of fame coach.

Realistically, Sund should know by now if he wants to retain Woody or not. Whether he knows who would replace Woody is another matter. Hopefully as a long time front office executive he has put thought into head coaching candidates (in a general sense) even before joining the Hawks organization.

Quote: Quote: Q. Did the Hawks really get turned down by both Dennis Lindsey and Chris Grant? Z. No. Lindsey never even had a formal interview. Grant, meanwhile, was close to getting the job but negotiations broke down before a contract could be agreed upon. It’s disingenuous for either man to say that they turned the Hawks down, because it simply is not true. http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-bl..._and_rumor.html Q. But so many people believe what they read about both Grant and Lindsey turning the job down. Isn’t that yet another black eye for the Hawks? Z. Look, people choose to believe nonsense all the time. I’ll admit it’s fun to believe the hype sometimes. Few of us can resist. But try and think about this thing logically. No other team has seen fit to make either Mr. Grant or Mr. Lindsey a general manager, so the Hawks’ decision to go in another direction isn’t really so radical. They could both turn out to be very good GM’s some day. But until then, we’ll never know. Lindsey’s been a candidate before elsewhere. But Grant wouldn’t get an interview for a GM job anywhere else. The only reason he made the Hawks’ list is because of his history with the franchise. Keep it real. I'll believe my source, who is as close as it can get, over Sekou. So from the answer about Grant, it can still easily be true that Grant turned the Hawks down because they offered him a less then market contract.

Quote: Quote: Having spent a good deal of time in Boston I can assure you that there are many more die hard Celtics fans then Hawks fans, so to suggest they came "from the dead" this year is a gross mischaracterization. Obviously the more casual fan is going to be drawn to a more successful team, but that is true of every village, town and city in the country. I understand that. But it goes back to what I said about the difference between really following your team unconditionlly, or really following your team when things at A-OK. The casual Hawks fans only come out for big games, or when things are going extremely well. My point is that we need more core fans at Philips, especially now, seeing that we are starting to take care of business at home against mdiocre and bad teams, and a select few good teams. I just can't see why some fans think things are so terrible now, even though we made the playoffs and took the Celtics to 7 games. Quote: It is also naive to think that poor decisions by management that result in a poor product on the floor would not have an impact on the zeal of the fan base. It is no fun to go to games where the team is just going through the motions. That's kind of my point though EDS. The product at HOME was pretty good this year. And it was a fun atmosphere. We didn't win 40+ games this year because we were horribly inconsistent on the road, not at home. Counting the preseason and the playoffs, we won 64% of our home games. That's not as good as the elite teams, but it is on par with the other playoff teams. It's good enough for the fan base to really look forward to next season, and to buy tickets to the game. It's the road that kill the Hawks. So that being said, it's up to the fans at home to really make Philips a legit home court. If JackB is right, and it's really the crowd that get the young Hawks to play at a high level, how much effect will a great and rowdy home crowd just about every night, have on the Hawks? Will it translate to 3 more home wins? 5? 8? If we can win 30 home games next year, that pretty much guarantees us making the playoffs. If we win 1/2 of our road games, that could elevate us close to or above 50 wins, a top 4 seed, and possibly a division title. The reason why fans on this site are so keen on seeing the franchise do the right things is because it is such a pivotol period in the rebuilding/getting better process. This franchise needs to make the right decisions this off-season. The right decisions turn this club into a consistent winner and maybe, just maybe, a championship contender. Wrong decisions turn the franchise into an also ran. Perhaps you have been a Hawks fan too long, but you have to remember that in the grand scheme of things a .500 team is not that good. The casual fan will get interested when the Hawks become a 50+ win team. People want to stand behind a winning product, not a mediocre one.