I guess that "Monday trade" isnt happening

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, establishing the cap will have ramifications esp. for those teams worried about the luxury tax. FWIW I still expect at least one trade before training camp starts with so many expiring contracts on our team and the glut at PG.

---

What I find funny is that now we have a glut at PG. Seems like before the draft, all everybody wanted was PG's.

---

We had a glut of backup PGs before the draft. Everyone wanted a young starter in the draft.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Answer: We've just plain needed ASSETS... talented players that other teams would want... pieces that could allow BK to trade for other pieces that would fill other roles.

---

I don't see how this comment has relevance to anything. So Childress, Marvin and Shelden are assets but Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy aren't?

What is this supposed to mean? How do you determine which player is an "asset" and which one isn't?

Quote:

---

With the #5 or #6 or #8 pick, it's entirely reasonable to think that you may want to choose a "safer" pick... in that territory, it's at least as important NOT to pick that REAL DUD guy as it is to pick the real steal.

---

LOL. So taking a skinny, slow forward who shoots from his chin was less of a risk than taking someone bigger, faster with an orthodox shot? OK

In 2004 the Hawks had hardly anyone under contract at the time of the draft. Their rebuilding process was just starting. That is the perfect time to go with potential, as BK did at 17.

The following year, having drafted 3 forwards the previous year and needing a pg, then you decide to go with potential in Marvin?

Quote:

---

Childress was one of three guys all grouped together in most 2004 pre-draft analysis... he was the oldest and deemed the safest pick of the three. BK, remember is accumulating assets, so he goes safer instead of riskier.

At #17 that year, there are at least as many duds as there are contributors... he goes riskier instead of safer with Josh Smith. Obviously, his bet was well-informed and paid off.

---

So with picks 1 and 2 you go for potential, then with picks 5-8 you go safer, but with pick 17 you go with potential again. Can you say arbitrary?

The only logical pick was Smith. Again in 2004 the Hawks were in total rebuild mode, Smith was the hometown project with a high ceiling, the pick made sense at the time.

The rest of them, not so much.

This year is the only year that i can see any logic in BK's lottery picks, although i am not sold on Horford at all. However the only other real options were Yi and Conley. Yi has bust written all over him. Conley (who i would have picked) does have a weak shot and since the Hawks need scoring i can understand passing on him, even though i disagree with it.

I would say Law is the best lottery pick BK has made for us to date. If he had blown that pick then the Hawks would really be screwed.

[TheDude]

not to mention we got one of the best point guards in college out of harrington...

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Answer: We've just plain needed ASSETS... talented players that other teams would want... pieces that could allow BK to trade for other pieces that would fill other roles.

---

I don't see how this comment has relevance to anything. So Childress, Marvin and Shelden are assets but Deng, Paul/Deron and Roy aren't?

What is this supposed to mean? How do you determine which player is an "asset" and which one isn't?

---

Slow down, ex... in your haste to criticize, you glazed over the part about risky vs. safe.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

With the #5 or #6 or #8 pick, it's entirely reasonable to think that you may want to choose a "safer" pick... in that territory, it's at least as important NOT to pick that REAL DUD guy as it is to pick the real steal.

---

LOL. So taking a skinny, slow forward who shoots from his chin was less of a risk than taking someone bigger, faster with an orthodox shot? OK

---

Geez, ex, if he was THAT bad, why did ANYONE project him anywhere close to Deng or Iggy?

Try as you might to revise it, the record shows the three of them were grouped together as being approximately equal.

And if you wanna take aim at the unorthadox thing, seems a little convenient to overlook how unorthadox Mr. Deng's play was/is.

I understand though... as a BK butcher, you have an agenda, so it's a little tough to see the real, actual, whole picture of what happened.

Quote:

---

In 2004 the Hawks had hardly anyone under contract at the time of the draft. Their rebuilding process was just starting. That is the perfect time to go with potential, as BK did at 17.

---

At #17, yes... chances are, at that slot, you're going to end up with a dud anyhow, and besides, the homegrown player will sell some tix at worst.

At #6, if they're all relatively rated the same, safer is better than risky... don't want a repeat of the last young, high-ceiling #6 pick (DerMarr)... HAVE to come out of #6 with SOMETHING to show for it.

Quote:

---

The following year, having drafted 3 forwards the previous year and needing a pg, then you decide to go with potential in Marvin?

---

Yes. Read again and let the logic tickle your brain a little longer than two seconds and, I promise, it will make sense... otherwise, don't bother.

Quote:

---

So with picks 1 and 2 you go for potential, then with picks 5-8 you go safer, but with pick 17 you go with potential again. Can you say arbitrary?

---

Can you say "agenda?"

You just can't have read and understood what I wrote, and come to that conclusion... you just can't.

Unless you are a card-carrying BK butcher.

I think the evidence clearly shows what the problem is here...

(This is a waste of time, so I'm cutting off comment here...)

[AHF]

I understand your argument, Sturt. It is a reasonable one but I disagree with one of the premises. I think when you are trying to acquire assets for your team you always go for the best prospect rather than using some sliding scale approach of risk v. safety where you go risky at 1-3 and safer at 5-8, etc.

Risk and safety are always part of the equation when evaluating prospects. I don't think, however, that it makes sense to pass on high upside guys like Skita and Amare at 5-8 because you can take lower upside guys who are less risky unless the balance of the player's resume simply weighs in his favor. Upside, safety, risk, skills, athleticism, length, strength, etc. are all factors in an evaluation of a player.

IMO, you always go for the guy who has the best grade when you are acquiring assets for a team. That may be the most risky guy, it may be the safest guy or it might be someone in between, but it is the guy who on balance is the best prospect.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I understand your argument, Sturt. It is a reasonable one but I disagree with one of the premises. I think when you are trying to acquire assets for your team you always go for the best prospect rather than using some sliding scale approach of risk v. safety where you go risky at 1-3 and safer at 5-8, etc.

---

Thanks, AHF... I can always depend on you for an adult kind of response.

Of course, there's a relativity in all of this that has to come into play... if three players are all essentially grading-out at the same tier of talent, but one is older and more proven, yet with seemingly a lower ceiling, then, in that situation I think the other variable of importance is whether you are merely attempting to accumulate assets or whether you are attempting to fill a particular need for a particular skill set on the current roster.

If the three players are clearly on different tiers, then I go with your assertion--you go with the best prospect.

Are we both in the same ballpark, or am I missing a distinction you intended?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Slow down, ex... in your haste to criticize, you glazed over the part about risky vs. safe.

---

Nice dodge

Quote:

---

Try as you might to revise it, the record shows the three of them were grouped together as being approximately equal.

---

And Childress was consistently ranked at the 3rd best of the group. And that is what he is.

Quote:

---

And if you wanna take aim at the unorthadox thing, seems a little convenient to overlook how unorthadox Mr. Deng's play was/is.

---

Unorthodox? Shooting midrange shots and taking it to the basket is unorthodox? That is news to me.

Quote:

---

Yes. Read again and let the logic tickle your brain a little longer than two seconds and, I promise, it will make sense... otherwise, don't bother

---

You mean the logic that 1-2 picks are almost certain not to land someone like Kwame, Stro, Candiman or Bradley?

Quote:

---

Unless you are a card-carrying BK butcher.

---

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle. I gave credit for BK in this years draft but you have to paint me as a butcher so you won't have to defend your nonsensical comments logically.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Slow down, ex... in your haste to criticize, you glazed over the part about risky vs. safe.

---

Nice dodge

Quote:

---

Try as you might to revise it, the record shows the three of them were grouped together as being approximately equal.

---

And Childress was consistently ranked at the 3rd best of the group. And that is what he is.

Quote:

---

And if you wanna take aim at the unorthadox thing, seems a little convenient to overlook how unorthadox Mr. Deng's play was/is.

---

Unorthodox? Shooting midrange shots and taking it to the basket is unorthodox? That is news to me.

Quote:

---

Yes. Read again and let the logic tickle your brain a little longer than two seconds and, I promise, it will make sense... otherwise, don't bother

---

You mean the logic that 1-2 picks are almost certain not to land someone like Kwame, Stro, Candiman or Bradley?

Quote:

---

Unless you are a card-carrying BK butcher.

---

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle. I gave credit for BK in this years draft but you have to paint me as a butcher so you won't have to defend your nonsensical comments logically.

---

I quit with "Nice dodge."

I wrote what I wrote... you ignored an important point... one might call that "dodging"... so, it's incumbent on the one on the other side of the net to return serve... not mine to serve again when you just whiffed on the first serve.

If you'd like to have an intelligent, respectful conversation, I'm here.

If you'd like to just sit back and pot-shot this and that to the ends of your own agenda, I'm not.

That simple.

[uga2006]

Quote:

---

I guess that makes up for....

Childress over Deng, Iguodala, and Al Jefferson

MW over (insert point guard here)

Shelden over Roy, Foye

Then again, no it doesn't.

---

Umm what has Foye done exactly? Average 10 ppg and 2 assists per is not anything to be excited about.

[exodus]

Again you avoided discussing your comments

Quote:

---

So the logical question is, "What has the circumstance been with the Atlanta Hawks the last four years that prompted BK to make the draft choices he made?"

Answer: We've just plain needed ASSETS... talented players that other teams would want... pieces that could allow BK to trade for other pieces that would fill other roles.

That's different than being on the cusp of playoff contention or in playoff contention, when you have one or two holes you specifically want to plug.

---

That was you comment about assets. It was after this that you changed the subject to talk about risks. However you still haven't, and probably won't, explain your assets comments because they don't make sense.

You are doing the Diesel dance well.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

I guess that makes up for....

Childress over Deng, Iguodala, and Al Jefferson

MW over (insert point guard here)

Shelden over Roy, Foye

Then again, no it doesn't.

---

So it doesn't make up for it?

So you're saying Josh Smith isn't as good as Deng, Iguodala, and Jefferson?

You're saying Marvin Williams AND Shelden Williams AND Acie Law isn't as good as Roy, Foye, or a PG from 2005.

Yeah we'll just freaking see about that

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I understand your argument, Sturt. It is a reasonable one but I disagree with one of the premises. I think when you are trying to acquire assets for your team you always go for the best prospect rather than using some sliding scale approach of risk v. safety where you go risky at 1-3 and safer at 5-8, etc.

---

Thanks, AHF... I can always depend on you for an adult kind of response.

Of course, there's a relativity in all of this that has to come into play... if three players are all essentially grading-out at the same tier of talent, but one is older and more proven, yet with seemingly a lower ceiling, then, in that situation I think the other variable of importance is whether you are merely attempting to accumulate assets or whether you are attempting to fill a particular need for a particular skill set on the current roster.

If the three players are clearly on different tiers, then I go with your assertion--you go with the best prospect.

Are we both in the same ballpark, or am I missing a distinction you intended?

---

I think we are in the same ballpark. I just woudn't qualify the approach by saying that I would go with the best prospect if the guys are on different tiers.

Assuming 3 players are on the same tier as prospects, I still look to balance all those factors and see who adds up to be the best prospect overall. That might be the riskiest player or the safest player and it might only be a slight edge but I go with the best grade overall.

If you aren't drafting to acquire assets that will impact the analysis.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

You are doing the Diesel dance well.

---

So be it... and you, the Walter dance.

Congrats.

[exodus]

I didn't think you could explain your assets comment. I guess you realize it doesn't make sense and it's too late to edit it.

You will be hearing about it again though.

[exodus]

I have a question to really test your intellect.

In 2004 BK had Childress as the 3rd ranked player behind Howard and Livingston. How did he come up with this ranking?

Does anyone think sturt will answer this? I think he will just eat chips and avoid the issue, pretending to be smart.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I think we are in the same ballpark. I just woudn't qualify the approach by saying that I would go with the best prospect if the guys are on different tiers.

Assuming 3 players are on the same tier as prospects, I still look to balance all those factors and see who adds up to be the best prospect overall. That might be the riskiest player or the safest player and it might only be a slight edge but I go with the best grade overall.

If you aren't drafting to acquire assets that will impact the analysis.

---

Obviously, what we're headed toward is a discussion of probability statistics: ie, if player X grades at 91, player Y grades at 92, and player Z grades at 93, what does the difference in those numbers actually mean, and does the "1.0000" difference translate to a meaningful, "significant" difference or is it more likely associated with random error.

That's "probably" too intricate and futile to discuss without some hard formulas and specific players in front of us around which to build a discussion.

Suffice it to say, at least where I'm concerned, conventionally-predicted risky vs. safe IS a factor, and current team circumstances IS a factor, in addition to actual player grades... if one can acknowledge that, then I believe one must be competent and able to give BK the benefit of a doubt that his drafts have not been without some amount of solid rationale.

Probability stats are going to make it difficult to hit a homer every time... sometimes, in certain situations, it's enough to get a bat on the ball and drive in the runner from third instead of taking the chance of striking out.

BK had a strategy. That's smart. He's followed that strategy. That's smart. Unfortunately, the results of that intelligence are only now beginning to become apparent... but they ARE becoming apparent, by any rational person's assessment.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I have a question to really test your intellect.

---

So, YOU will sit in judgment of MY intelligence?

...yeah, right...

Look, I'm normally considered by my friends to be a relatively humble guy.

But that doesn't mean that I'm a fool... if you'd asked me what is 2 + 2, you'd be prepared to pot-shot it... that's just how you've shown yourself to be, ex... consistently.

You'll frame "the dance" how you will choose to, according to your agenda (which, now, doesn't seem to be so much being a BK butcher as it is trying to make up for some missed ego gratification as a child), but the outside observer understands that my ignoring you on this topic is the only logical, sensible, mature response.

EDIT: Cute alliteration, though... "Stump the Sturt"... I like that.

[exodus]

I guess your BK nutriding has it's limits. I don't think even you could justify, in your own mind, how BK had Childress ranked as the 3rd best prospect in that draft.

And in case you missed it i haven't been bashing BK over this years draft, which i would be doing if i was really a "butcher".

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Suffice it to say, at least where I'm concerned, conventionally-predicted risky vs. safe IS a factor []

in addition to

actual player grades...

---

The difference between your view and mine is not that far apart but can be summarized as follows:

Suffice it to say, at least where I'm concerned, conventionally-predicted risky vs. safe IS a factor in determining actual player grades...

[Admin]

like people are trying to make him seem. No he wasn't the most NBA ready player in the draft but practically all of the draft forecasters said that he could come in and contribute right away and that he would continue to get better for a few years and that his ceiling was extremely high. I still believe every single one of those statements.

Honestly I believe the only risk picks that BK has made were taking Smoove when Nelson was a much safer pick and taking Diaw when there was a lot unknown about him.

BK has proven time and again that high in the draft he is going to take a player that at the very least will be a very solid contributor. In the middle to later parts of the first round he will gamble on a player and in the 2nd round he looks to fill specific roles on overlooked players.