Packfill

Quote: 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. Using that logic, there is also very little difference between the Hawks and lottery teams like Indiana, New Jersey, Charlotte, Chicago, etc.

Quote: The team has earned more wins each year he has been coach, and made the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade under him........... Maybe he does deserve one more year. Lets step back a bit and look at the past two seasons and afterwards please tell me why Woody deserves to stay: In 2006-07 the Hawks won 30 games. During that season the Hawks suffered some major injuries and each key player missed significant time, including Joe Johnson. Also, let us keep in mind that Smith, Childress, Williams and Marvin were all less experienced and younger then in 2007-08. In 2007-08 the Hawks won 37 games. Yes they did improve by a whole 7 games, which is significant. However, the Hawks did not have the same injury problems they had the previous season and they added a significant amount of talent (i.e., Horford, Law and Bibby) and were more experienced then the previous season. So, given all that, is the 7 game improvement that impressive? Also, lets keep in mind that improving from terrible to middle of the pack (if the Hawks are even there yet) is relatively easy. Improving from middle of the pack to serious contender, however, if very difficult.

Quote: Quote: I don't know how much clearer the answer can be. I hope you are right, but I certainly fear that Woodson will be back this year by mandate of ownership. That is my fear as well. I am going to support Sund unless "he" retains Woody, in which case I am going to operate under the assumption that he is Gearon's lap dog until proven otherwise.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Although his draft history is pretty bad, Sund has made some pretty good trades in Seattle. I believe this is a later move, but then again Billy Knight wasn't all that bad of a GM. We are not a team looking to rebuild, therefore his draft history really isn't as important to me. People were just too enamored with Chris Paul to see Knight's career in Atlanta for what it was...average. When your best year is 37 wins that isnt average, especially considering all the guys he passed on in the draft (Deng, Iggy, Paul, Deron, Roy). Our disappointing win total had much more to do with coaching than our actual players, and I'm sure a lot of 'squawkers would agree with that. It's a shame that people look at who he PASSED on rather than who he actually drafted. If you do assess all the GMs around the league in the same manner, then mostly all of them are below average. Just a brief example, the GM in Detroit drafted Darko, and passed on Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, etc. However, this is the same guy who drafted Prince, Stuckey, and Maxiell. Is he below average, as well ? I could go on and on with examples of GMs who passed on good players, but that's not how you judge a GM. You judge him by the team he's built, and I think the team he built was definately better than 37 wins. Once again, you've got to look at your coach. It is a lot easier to dismiss a GMs draft failures when they win a championship, such as with Dumars. BK, in comparison, has never put a winning team on the floor. Plus, BK hired Woody in the first place so the bad coaching is on him. Because no real coach wanted to commit career suicide by coaching a (at the time) non-existant team ? It's also no secret that he tried to fire Woodson multiple times. and to nbasuperstar..I apologize. Well, Woody was hired by BK prior to the ASG/Belkin implosion, so presumably the dysfunction that now pervades the organization was not a deterrent to coaching candidates when the Woody decision was made. BK also hired a disaster of a coach during his tenure in Memphis, so his ability to identify top coaching talent his highly suspect.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Although his draft history is pretty bad, Sund has made some pretty good trades in Seattle. I believe this is a later move, but then again Billy Knight wasn't all that bad of a GM. We are not a team looking to rebuild, therefore his draft history really isn't as important to me. People were just too enamored with Chris Paul to see Knight's career in Atlanta for what it was...average. When your best year is 37 wins that isnt average, especially considering all the guys he passed on in the draft (Deng, Iggy, Paul, Deron, Roy). Our disappointing win total had much more to do with coaching than our actual players, and I'm sure a lot of 'squawkers would agree with that. It's a shame that people look at who he PASSED on rather than who he actually drafted. If you do assess all the GMs around the league in the same manner, then mostly all of them are below average. Just a brief example, the GM in Detroit drafted Darko, and passed on Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, etc. However, this is the same guy who drafted Prince, Stuckey, and Maxiell. Is he below average, as well ? I could go on and on with examples of GMs who passed on good players, but that's not how you judge a GM. You judge him by the team he's built, and I think the team he built was definately better than 37 wins. Once again, you've got to look at your coach. It is a lot easier to dismiss a GMs draft failures when they win a championship, such as with Dumars. BK, in comparison, has never put a winning team on the floor. Plus, BK hired Woody in the first place so the bad coaching is on him.

Quote: According to reports, Sund was being coveted in other places. Most notably by Donnie Walsh and the Knicks. Now, he may not have been the top choice there, but the fact is, Rick Sund had other options. Considering his experience in the league, I don't see him as a guy who would take a job to be a lap dog just because he wants a paying job. Let's hope so. But, Walsh was not bringing him in to be a the decisionmaker (Walsh fills that role). Again, what he does with Woody will be very telling of the type of mandate he was given.

Quote: I think two important factors will influence their decision with Woody: first is finding someone who will take the job and they won't go through this same embarassing thing they did with the GM. The other is money. Both of those don't seem to be in our favor for those of us who want Woody gone. But I hope you are right. If Sund was a guy the ASG really wanted then presumably he had enough negotiating leverage to give him the ability to get the coach of his choosing (within reason, but at least a market rate contract) and to make the moves he wants to make. If he doesn't have that authority and/or mandate, then he was more likely just happy to have a paying job and will run the franchise at the wishes of the owners. I hope this is not case for the sake of the franchise. I guess we will find out one way or the other relatively soon.

Quote: In my opinion, if the goal of the ownership was to find a GM that would keep Mike Woodson, they would have hired Billy King. Afterall, Larry Brown was openly campaigning for the Hawks to hire Billy King because he knew Billy would keep Mike Woodson as head coach. Instead, the Hawks have hired a general manager that has no history with Mike Woodson at all. The fact that Sund has no prior relationship with Woody would make his decision to retain Woody, if that is indeed what he does, more circumspect and would evidence that Woody's retention was a condition of the job offer from the ASG. In my mind, that would cast a long shadow on Sund's "authority" as GM here in Atlanta.

Welcome to Hawkland. Now please fire Woody and get this team a real coach.

I agree with most in that this is certaintly not an exciting hire, but they could have done much worse. This is way better then Chris Grant but not as good as Dennis Lindsey or someone of his ilk (i.e., Hammond). Now, if Sund agrees to keep Woody that is a giant black mark and I will be skeptical and likely critical of every move he makes until he proves he proves otherwise.

Quote: No no, they haven't been turned down by anyone. Those guys never even interviewed and the ASG never had any interest in them. It was all media speculation and ignorant fans on this message board that thought those other rumored guys were actually in the running. The only guy that the ASG wanted all along was Fitzsimmons and he is close to being promoted. They are going to say they interviewed candidates from outside the organization - because they wanted to do this in as business like a fashion as possible and really leave no stones unturned - but the more they talked to people the more they realized the right guy was already within the organization.

Looking at this from a "glass half-full" perspective, at elast Grant is not the GM. Hawks dodged a bullet there. I really think the ASG is going to do what they did last time and just promote the assistant GM. They did it with BK and now they will do it with Fitzsimmons. They will say something to the effect that "he was the right guy all along, knows these players better then anyone else, has lots of experience, etc."

My guess, and I hope I am wrong, is Gary Fitzsimmons.

Is there anyone that can honestly say they have any clue what the Atlanta Spirit is going to do at this point? I definitely did not think Grant was a strong candidate but to completely change course and go from wanting a "young" guy to now looking for someone with experience - if we can believe Sekou - just makes no sense at all.

From Sekou: By Sekou K. Smith May 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this Chris Grant is out and now we move on yet again in what has to be one of the most perplexing searches I’ve ever seen. The Hawks aren’t giving up details and neither are the people they’re interviewing (hence all the bad info being farmed out by various dot com sources). That makes our job ridiculously tough. But Chris Grant will not be taking over the show for the Hawks this week, as some lunk head (me) suggested above. As I said earlier on the radio, I’m going with experience now. The Hawks have poked around the next big thing crowd and come up empty. Now comes the been there, done that crowd. At least now we’ll have a catalog of someone’s work to pick over when we digest the hire.

Quote: I agree with you. They really f'd themselves by not getting Paul over Marvin Williams. They would have been in a position to win a championship with Paul. Alhough I am not sure they can win with Josh Smith having such a low basketball iq. The shots he takes are just mind boggling sometimes. If you have a point guard like Paul who can dominate the ball, kick and drive, etc., then Smith only gets the ball when he is close to the basket so that problem goes down significantly.

Quote: I am probably the only one rooting for the Spurs. I like Duncan's approach to the game and admire the way that franchise is run. I want a Spurs v. Celtics final. Tough call on who I want to win - Spurs for being the model franchise or the Celtics for at least having the guts to make a championship run. I am probably leaning towards the Celtics so that the Hawks can say they lost to the best.

Quote: I am wondering if the bad pub the ownership has been getting for the potential hiring of Grant had anything to do with this apparent about face. I just hope whoever they bring in can make this team into a championship contender. To me screw the playoffs, get this team in a position to get a championship. Agreed. Although, I don't know if this is possible with the current roster as the only teams to win championships in the past 25+ years are teams that have one of the top 5 players in the game or have a hall of fame coach and deep veteran roster. The Hawks don't have either of those two things so I am not sure how they become a championship team.

Quote: Quote: This is a trade I was thinking about. Tell me what you guys think about it. Chicago receives Zach Randolph Marvin Williams Chicago is not trading for Zach Randolph - ever. If they had wanted Randolph they would have traded with the Blazers for him. The Bulls don't need Marvin Williams - we have a pretty good SF already in Luol Deng. Gooden put up 14 & 9 for the Bulls last year - they like him, and I don't think they will look to trade him unless they can get a significant upgrade. Randolph isn't that. Mudderfudder - Assuming the Bulls take Rose, what do you think they do with the rest of the roster? Deng, I assume, they want back. But what about Gordon and do they trade Hinrich?

I generally want to believe this is good news.

Quote: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/ This kind of pub we don't need, Hawks flying on the cheap With so many pressing matters to consider, starting with coach Mike Woodson's status and Josh Smith's future, the Hawks need to hire a GM who has run a team and made franchise-altering decisions. But true to form, the Hawks are going the cheap route and will hire a first-time GM, someone like former front-office employee Chris Grant, who has never called the shots and now is helping Danny Ferry in Cleveland. According to league officials who have talked to Hawks ownership, they're turning the post into an "entry-level" position. Hiring Grant or Ernie Grunfeld's aide in Washington, Tommy Sheppard, will save the Hawks money, as they're expected to pay no more than $600,000 to $700,000 per year, making their new GM among the league's lowest-paid. But while saving millions, it doesn't look like the best way to handle their basketball business. After taking Boston to Game 7 in the playoffs and generating some excitement among the locals for the first time in years, the Hawks risk what looks like a bright future by putting some huge decisions in the hands of someone who has never negotiated with an agent or had to determine the fate of a coach and lead a search for a new boss. The Hawks won only 37 games in the regular season but took 66-win Boston to the limit in the first round, perhaps indicating that they badly underachieved from November through April. GM Billy Knight is out and his successor has to figure out whether to retain Woodson and how much to pay Smith, who had some monster games in the Boston series, along with deciding what to pay Josh Childress, who's also entering restricted free agency this summer. Plus, the new boss has to determine how best to address Mike Bibby's free agency in July 2009. This is a crossroads offseason in Atlanta when too much can go wrong because a first-timer is calling the shots. But the Hawks' only contact with Billy King, a proven, capable GM, was by phone. Another ex-GM, John Gabriel, didn't get an interview, as was expected. When the Hawks have hired their new man, he'll earn much less than the majority of executives who run teams pocketing from $1.5 million to $5 million annually. That doesn't bode well for their future. ... Hopefully that article is a joke, but if the new GM, especially if it is Grant, does get a bargain basement contract then that is a sign the organization is being run on the cheap.

Quote: I don't even believe Billy Knight was as bad as people had commonly thought of him to be. Sure, he made a mistake drafting Marvin instead of Chris Paul, but most of the 'so-called' experts were already craving about Marvin. And keep in mind that Chris Paul wasn't THAT great of a college player. I can see how people can be mad at the guy if he drafted someone who played like a total no-body in college instead of someone who really had the skillset of someone like Kobe Bryant - but that wasn't the case with Marvin and Paul. Marvin was craved as one of the best players to come out in a decade. We obviously went for talent instead of need, but BK has also gotten it right when he's used that draft strategy. For example, this most recent draft where we acquired Horford. You can say all you want about him being lucky, but BK still got the picks right because keep in mind that we didn't really need a forward. We needed a point guard a LOT more. I've said it many times before, not only here but in Real GM too. BK has as many chances as any other general manager to draft a bust. This team showed great promise in the playoffs, and maybe people aren't giving the credit to all those who deserve it. BK molded this team in one way or another, and I really believe that. Was it BK's fault that Woodson can barely develop his young players? Was it BK's fault when Woodson glued his rookie power forward on the bench and tried to ruin Shelden's career? I think people are putting far too much blame on BK. I don't know... call me crazy, but I didn't really think BK was that bad, and I kind of wanted him to stay but Woodson to get packing. I do not remember anyone, other then maybe KB21, that said Marvin was one of the best players to come out in a decade. It is not like he dominated in college or anything.

Clearly Billy King is not the answer. The Hawks tried the "bad track record" retread already with Billy Knight and we see where that got the franchise. I wanted Lindey just because he has been around two very well run, professional organizations that seem to attract quality coaches. The Hawks need a good coach and some roster tweaks to get to the next level, although I am not sure the current nucleous has the goods to realistically contend for a championship (but obviously the only way it will is with a great coach). In the past twenty-five or so years the only teams to win a championship are ones with a top 5 player (LA with Magic, Boston with Larry, Chicago with MJ, Houston with the Dream, San Antonio with Duncan, LA with Shaq, etc.) or veteran laden teams with hall of fame coaches (Detroit, with Chuck and with Larry).

On first blush, I have to agree that hiring Grant may be a worst case scenario, particularly if he comes right out and says he wants to retain Woody. If that happens then it would appear that he indeed is a "yes" man and that ASG is pulling the strings. Hopefully, if he indeed is hired, he can prove me wrong. It will also be interesting to see what type of contract the new GM gets. Is it a market contract? Personally, I really want a GM that has no ties to the organization and will be given total control by ownership.

Despite what JJ said I have a hard time believing he would be upset if Woody is sent packing. Everything else he has said this year is completely contrary to the notion of Woody staying.