BK had most 4 year draft capitol of any GM...EVER?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Bottom line, BK has had some great opportunities in terms of draft slots.

Whether it has been the greatest array of opportunities by a single GM in a concentrated period of time is, at first, interesting, but in the bigger picture (... as I've cited here:

_sturt_'s earlier reply to W

), it really is not.

What's more, right now, today, at this hour, it doesn't really matter a hill of beans, since no other GM has drafted a cadre of All-Stars with their picks, either... in fact, there's only been LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, Josh Howard and Dwight Howard (, who, fwiw, reports were saying at the time BK was working day and night at trying to obtain).

So, that means, since his ascension to the Hawks throne in April 2003, there have been zero... yeah, zero... all-star game participants missed by Billy Knight in drafting.

You say, "So what. That will change eventually."

Yes, that will change, but let's be consistent, shall we????

As long as some are saying "what have you done for me lately" and considering Chil, MWill, and SWill in that light, it begs consistency to acknowledge that no player that BK passed up has distinguished himself as a player at that level... and it goes without saying, no HoFers.

The big picture? Essentially, "It's the CHAMPIONSHIP, stupid."

To wit, no one was complaining in Los Angeles after they'd won in 1982 that, in the previous draft, they'd selected Mike McGee one pick ahead of Larry Nance... what would THAT have meant to a team who was playing either Kurt Rambis or an aging Bob McAdoo at PF????... how many championships might have been won, if not for that horrendous oversight in the 1981 draft?... Few care. Showtime had their time in the spotlight because they had Magic, Worthy, and Kareem, plus a number of good-not-great players surrounding them.

Year after year it's proven that it takes a couple or three great players and a group of solid others to accomplish that, not five superstars. Recently, teams have even won with arguably only one superstar Sometimes, indeed, it IS good enough to get a good enough player and not take a chance on a player with a lower pre-draft basement who may ends up contributing nothing (... an argument much more developed in the cited post).

---

Are you sir suggesting, that for the past five years (take a deep breath now), BK has been amongst if not the best Draftmaster in the NBA?

---

No.

I never evaluated his drafts vs. others' drafts. Didn't intend to. Said it was interesting but trivial, I believe.

You want an abstract, I'm happy to oblige...

Rather, I made the arguments that (a) the topic of this thread is an insufficient measurement for evaluating a GM--perhaps like measuring weight loss simply on the basis of number of meals skipped; (b) that RotY status is a wildly insufficient for evaluating a given GM's drafts, BK or otherwise; and, © the real measurement is ultimately a championship and thus, progress toward the typical roster composition of a championship team... and all of which contribute to the point that it is ordinarily underappreciated where drafts are concerned when GMs avoid making a disaster pick (...somewhat incredible, too, that it's so easily missed since, when one goes back and looks at the annual top 10 draftees, disaster picks are as common as they are).

[exodus]

Here is the thread title

Quote:

---

BK had most 4 year draft capitol of any GM...EVER?

---

The only way this title makes any sense is if you are talking about the capital BK had BEFORE he used it.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

HE USED THE PICK ALREADY! Portland hasn't. Get real peeps.

---

It doesn't matter. If you are strictly talking about draft capital only the comparison of the available picks is valid. It doesn't matter how they were used or when. A different GM might have used them in a different way.

Phoenix traded their 2008 and 2010 first rounders for cash. If you were comparing draft capital between the Hawks and the Suns through 2010 would you include those picks for Phoenix or exclude them since they were used?

---

Does it matter when you are talking about your pay check whether you already spent it on a credit card purchase? Yes. You've already used the value of your paycheck. Can't double cash it. It's still was your money you spent.

Good grief.

If we traded ALL of our draft capital each and every year, what we got for it would still be the products of our draft capitol.

This is just a farce that people would argue against this notion.

W

---

Your argument on this is totally inconsistent with the notion of comparing draft assets.

What you are saying is that in comparing draft assets you don't look at the assets available over a window of time. You look at the picks available over time + the future picks used during that period. Thus, the picks to be analyzed are entirely dependent on what a team does with them -- which is contrary to the notion of assets which exist independent of what a team does with them.

This is a fundamental inconsistency that makes no sense according to your theory:

(a) an analysis of draft assets available to the Suns for 2007 would include:

the 24th pick in the 2007 draft;

the 27th pick in the 2007 draft;

the first round pick in the 2008 draft; and

the first round pick in the 2010 draft.

The Suns "USED THE PICKS ALREADY" for money for this year's team.

That doesn't make much sense but appears to be your position.

(b) Consider this hypothetical. Assume the Trailblazers had their heart set on OJ Mayo. The Trailblazers gave up their 2008 pick previously to NY on the draft day in 2006. In a convoluted trade, the Trailblazers trade the #1 overall pick in 2007 for the 2008 first round picks of the Sonics and Grizzlies and reacquire their own 2008 first round pick from the Knicks (to whom they previously traded it) in the hopes they land Mayo.

Accordingly to your analysis, do you include the #1 overall pick in the draft as an asset of the Trailblazers? You shouldn't because they didn't use it for something in hand (much like you didn't include the #3 overall pick for the Trailblazers because it was traded for other picks that you included).

Likewise, you can't include the 2008 picks because the picks Portland acquired have not been "USED ALREADY."

If you do include the 2008 picks acquired by Portland, how is their own 2008 first round pick a 2007 draft asset when they reacquire it in a trade but not a draft asset if they simply didn't trade it in the first place?

If you don't include the 2008 picks used by Portland but do include the #1 overall pick, how do you square that with not including the #3 overall pick that could have been used on Paul, Deron, etc. that you did not include for Portland?

* * * *

The only logical way to analyse draft assets or capital is to take a period of time and look at the assets available to a team during that time. If you want to include future assets, you need to do it consistently - otherwise there is no legit way to make a comparison. If you include one team's future pick as draft capital in a window of time, you need to include the future pick as capital for the other team.

The analysis of how well a team has used their draft capital is an entirely different analysis.

[Swatguy]

Quote:

---

No.

I never evaluated his drafts vs. others' drafts. Didn't intend to. Said it was interesting but trivial, I believe.

You want an abstract, I'm happy to oblige...

Rather, I made the arguments that (a) the topic of this thread is an insufficient measurement for evaluating a GM--perhaps like measuring weight loss simply on the basis of number of meals skipped; (b) that RotY status is a wildly insufficient for evaluating a given GM's drafts, BK or otherwise; and, © the real measurement is ultimately a championship and thus, progress toward the typical roster composition of a championship team... and all of which contribute to the point that it is ordinarily underappreciated where drafts are concerned when GMs avoid making a disaster pick (...somewhat incredible, too, that it's so easily missed since, when one goes back and looks at the annual top 10 draftees, disaster picks are as common as they are).

---

I see.

Your respond reminds me of reading as some continue to suggest the three year record of the Hawks as the worth of the GM's performance. It seems a team as gutted as " a burned done house" should have won more than 13 games. Perhaps so but how many more? Averaged 22 and then 23 year old players of the team should have won more than 26 and then (injury riddled) 30 wins.

Shame on BK managing a team of the youngest ever and second youngest ever teams not making the playoffs.

I guess I'm one of the few that anguishly enjoy watching this team grow and develop. It is important to consider the drafting of 7 guys that are starters and rotation players. these seven would be starters or rotation players with any or every team in the league. No Bust. For me, witnessing Yearlings mature to Stallions are worth the wait.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Dude you should never try to argue with AHF. He is absolutely right here.

The products of our draft capital are the

players we acquired in the draft or

through trades by using our capital.

---

You don't think JJ is the product of "trades by using our draft capital". THAT is the point. We traded our 2008 pick (now) for JJ 2 years ago. It no longer belongs to us and was USED by us to acquire talent.

Portland hasn't traded or otherwised used their 2008 pick.

WTF are you people thinking trying to argue the most obvious of points?!? WE USED THE 2008 PICK ALREADY. Portland hasn't. Get a clue.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Dude you should never try to argue with AHF. He is absolutely right here.

The products of our draft capital are the

players we acquired in the draft or

through trades by using our capital.

---

You don't think JJ is the product of "trades by using our draft capital". THAT is the point. We traded our 2008 pick (now) for JJ 2 years ago. It no longer belongs to us and was USED by us to acquire talent.

Portland hasn't traded or otherwised used their 2008 pick.

WTF are you people thinking trying to argue the most obvious of points?!? WE USED THE 2008 PICK ALREADY. Portland hasn't. Get a clue.

W

---

Now you are no longer arguing about draft capital. That is an argument about how we have used our draft capital.

Whether we used the 2008 pick or not does not affect how much draft capital we have had available to us. For that reason, the 2008 pick of the Hawks is relevant while the Portland pick is not when examining the question "have the Hawks made good use of their draft capital." However, when asking which team has had more draft capital at its disposal, you either need to include both 2008 picks or neither. The question of the total assets should not turn on how a team has chosen to use them.

[AHF]

Apologies for the bold. I didn't realize that was on.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The question of the total assets should not turn on how a team has chosen to use them.

---

Exactly. It doesn't matter if they were used to pick a player or in a trade.

Walter doesn't even understand his own argument. For as long as i have been on this site Walter has been arguing that another GM would have done a better job using our draft picks. Then he is going to turn around and say it doesn't matter what picks we had if they were already used.

A different GM might not have done the JJ trade but apparently Walter doesn't understand this.

Incidently the 21st pick in last years draft should be counted as part of our draft assets even though it was used in the JJ trade.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Now you are no longer arguing about draft capital. That is an argument about how we have used our draft capital.

---

...or not well. When did I specifically say that we used the 2008 pick well or not well? Please site it specifically.

This is an inane attack on a correct position.

Quote:

---

Whether we used the 2008 pick or not does not affect how much draft capital we have had available to us.

---

WTF?

Uh, if we used it it most definitely was used. How difficult is that to grasp?

I'm not arguming that every future draft pick "available" to us is "draft capital". I am arguing every draft pick USED is USED and therefore is USED draft capital.

Hello?

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Walter doesn't even understand his own argument. For as long as i have been on this site Walter has been arguing that another GM would have done a better job using our draft picks. Then he is going to turn around and say it doesn't matter what picks we had if they were already used.

A different GM might not have done the JJ trade but apparently Walter doesn't understand this.

Incidently the 21st pick in last years draft should be counted as part of our draft assets even though it was used in the JJ trade.

---

What's that again? You can't even make up my position much less repeat it, much less get it right, much less quote it.

My position is this: FUTURE draft capital (a 2008 draft pick for example) is not CURRENT draft capital unless it is utilized NOW (or beforehand). That means future picks that are not used CURRENTLY remain future draft capital and not current draft capital. However, ONCE A DRAFT PICK IS USED (our 2007 picks), TRADED (our now, certain to be given, 2008 pick), or (in the case of Pheonix with theirs) DISCARDED, be it a future pick or not, IT HAS BEEN USED and constitutes current draft capital.

AHF, Ex, ANSWER THIS...

Can a pick that is already traded or used to gain an existing commodity (i.e. not a player stashed away overseas or another future draft pick) somehow be considered "future" draft capital?

The answer BTW is no. Once a pick is traded for an existing commodity it is not "future" capital. THERE IS NO INBETWEEN HERE! You cannot insist something is NOT future capital but also insist it's somehow not current capital.

You guys can't tell me that the 2008 pick is OUR "future capital". Then what is it? Is JJ even a part of this team?

Moreover, this isn't an argument about how the pick was used but THAT it was USED. IT HAS BEEN USED! I personally think the pick was used well. BUT IT WAS USED!

...

BTW, I counted the 21st pick in last year's draft (I called it the Philly pick and wasn't sure of it's actual draft position so I labeled it a 30th pick = 1 "point"). It was worth more apparently. An even more lopsided winfall in favor of the Hawks bx EVERY OTHER TEAM.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Can a pick that is already traded or used to gain an existing commodity (i.e. not a player stashed away overseas or another future draft pick) somehow be considered "future" draft capital?

---

You still don't get it. it doesn't matter whether it was future, present or past draft capital. What matters is that it was draft capital that existed in the time span that you designated.

What first round draft capital did the BK have available for use for the Hawks?

2003 Diaw pick, don't remember the number

2004 6th, 17th

2005 2nd

2006 5th, 21st

2007 3rd, 11th

2008 ?

Those are the picks BK had avaiable. What you don't understand is that once you USE a pick it is no longer draft capital. It becomes a player. In other words you have unused draft picks and then you have players.

Used draft picks aren't like used cars. Last years 5th pick isn't the 5th pick anymore. It is Shelden Williams who has less value than a typical 5th pick as you have stated numerous times. And Marvin obviously has less value than the typical 2nd pick. Childress has less value than the typical 6th pick.

Since the value of these picks all when down when they became "used" ie turned into players, that pretty much kills the title to the thread.

The very concept of "used draft capital" is nonsensical.

[sturt]

You're needed in the Psychiatric Ward, please.... there's more HS trouble.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You're needed in the Psychiatric Ward, please.... there's more HS trouble.

---

I'm on it. Trust me the squabble i had with you was nothing compared to some of the "issues" i have had with Walter.

Funny thing is that i wind up agreeing with him fairly often, but his stance generally is further to the extreme than mine and makes me wince at times.

Like this thread. he took my quote from arguing with you and twisted it, putting me in the uncomfortable position of defending BK who you know i don't have a very high opinion of.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Trust me the squabble i had with you was nothing compared to some of the "issues" i have had with Walter.

---

(ummm... you speak as if that's supposed to surprise me.... (????)

Never mind me... I'm just an observer...)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trust me the squabble i had with you was nothing compared to some of the "issues" i have had with Walter.

---

(ummm... you speak as if that's supposed to surprise me.... (????)

Never mind me... I'm just an observer...)

---

Surprise you? No but i thought it might amuse you.

FYI in spite of what you might think i generally am not the type to hold grudges, even though i can be a bit rough when i get riled up. You may find me defending you on something down the road if i happen to agree with you.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

My position is this: FUTURE draft capital (a 2008 draft pick for example) is not CURRENT draft capital unless it is utilized NOW (or beforehand). That means future picks that are not used CURRENTLY remain future draft capital and not current draft capital. However, ONCE A DRAFT PICK IS USED (our 2007 picks), TRADED (our now, certain to be given, 2008 pick), or (in the case of Pheonix with theirs) DISCARDED, be it a future pick or not, IT HAS BEEN USED and constitutes current draft capital.

AHF, Ex, ANSWER THIS...

Can a pick that is already traded or used to gain an existing commodity (i.e. not a player stashed away overseas or another future draft pick) somehow be considered "future" draft capital?

The answer BTW is no. Once a pick is traded for an existing commodity it is not "future" capital. THERE IS NO INBETWEEN HERE! You cannot insist something is NOT future capital but also insist it's somehow not current capital.

---

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about the capital available to teams over a period of time or future unused capital available to teams?

The two concepts are completely different. Of course, a used pick is not unused capital. However, when examining the total assets available to a team you can't differentiate between future and present assets.

For example, if in the fall of 2006 you measure the draft capital for two teams from 2004-2009:

Team A has:

2004 #5 pick

2005 #8 pick

2006 #1 pick

rights to its future first round picks in 2007, 2008, 2009

Team B has:

2004 #11 pick

2005 #2 pick

2006 #3 pick, 25th pick

rights to its future first round picks in 2007, 2008, 2009

Those are the draft assets available to the two teams.

In terms of totalling up the assets over a period of time, it does not matter in the slightest what players were taken or whether a team does something with its rights to first round picks in future years. Those are the set of assets available to the two teams in the draft.

If Team B gets an offer that would involve trading away its future 2007 and 2009 picks, what Team B decides to do with that offer (accept or reject it) doesn't change the draft capital that was available to Team B over that period of time. It is totally irrelevant to assessing the total draft captial available to Team B whether Team B trades those picks away or keeps them. It is highly relevant to how well Team B has used that draft capital. Those are two separate questions.Just for the sake of clarification, how Team B utilizes its assets is a different issue from the assets that were available to it.

The present rights to future picks is an asset that is presently available to all teams. Whether they use those present rights to future picks wisely is one issue. What the total array of assets available to a team is a different question. What future unused draft assets are available to a team is a third separate question, although it is one that bears into the analysis of how wisely a team has used its assets because present rights to future picks have real value. Once you start counting the rights to future picks for one team and ignoring the rights to future picks for another team, you are no longer addressing the question of the total assets available to the two teams.

[Diesel]

I'm was watching Gonzales testify yesterday...

You guys remind me of this!! Double talk and hypotheticals when there is no need for hypotheticals.

[AHF]

Please let me know if you find my last post unclear because I already discussed this same issue with the actual picks of the Hawks, Trailblazers, Suns, etc. and it is apparent that I am not communicating my point effectively to Walter.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

and it is apparent that I am not communicating my point effectively to Walter.

---

You are communicating it fine. He is just too wrapped up in himself to see the obvious.

Why is the title to the thread in the past tense? Because he is talking about the draft capital that BK had before he actually used it. Therefore this "used draft capital" concept he has invented is just confusing him.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Double talk and hypotheticals

---

Such as?