Are Hawks half empty or Half full?

[Gray Mule]

Pessimestic view: The glass is half empty.

Optimistic view: The glass is half full.

Same amount in both glasses - Your answer depends on your

outlook.

Check out the projections for the Hawks record for this

season. If I remember correctly, they play an 82 game

schedule. Winning half would require 41 victories,

which seems to be about what everyone expects.

So, are we half full or half empty?

I firmly believe we're half full. Why? Because of

the age of our roster for one thing. We have no one

who we are really counting on who we're hoping to get

one more year solid production before they retire.

Another plus is our second unit. I gotta believe that

the Atlanta Hawks second unit will be as good or better

than any other team's in the NBA.

Another plus. Our GM now says, our rebuilding is complete.

The desired pieces are now in place. For a picture

puzzle to complete a picture, all parts must be available.

With the parts available, it's now up to MW and his staff

of assistant coaches.

Injuries really hurt us last season. We all know that.

As bad as that was, a lot of good came out of that.

Why? Look at all the playing experience that our young

players recieved. That's now an asset.

And another thing. These players have been together

for a while. Hawks don't have a lot of new faces this

year. In the past few years we have had.

This year, our kids are all grown up and ready to

strut their stuff!!

GO HAWKS !!!!!

[Guest Walter]

We're certainly more than half full but the hard part isn't the first 60% towards a championship, it's the last 40%. WE've already lost this coming year's pick and future picks should be lesser. We better be 80+% of the way there and the players we lose because we can't resign them all better be insignificant. Not likely.

W

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

We're certainly more than half full but the hard part isn't the first 60% towards a championship, it's the last 40%. WE've already lost this coming year's pick and future picks should be lesser. We better be 80+% of the way there and the players we lose because we can't resign them all better be insignificant. Not likely.

W

---

I'd rather have two top 10 talents this year, than one top 10 talent this year, and a guy that we may take somewhere between 10 - 20 next year. Without that #11 pick this year, the entire dynamic of this season, and the way we deal with the vet PGs, would dramatically change.

At some point, the value of 1st round picks become less important than actually acquiring talent, especially if you already have talent on the squad. The great thing about having 2 picks this year, and none next year, is that we can pretty much set the core of the roster right now, for the 2008 season.

And it also enables us to see exactly how much to spend on both Joshs, who CAN easily be retained, barring Smoove really breaking out as a player. And if that happens, that's great in itself. So we only part with Chill, give Smoove his money, and still have enough left over to add one or two cheap but crafty vets to the squad.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Injuries really hurt us last season. We all know that.

As bad as that was, a lot of good came out of that.

Why? Look at all the playing experience that our young

players recieved. That's now an asset.

This year, our kids are all grown up and ready to

strut their stuff!!

GO HAWKS !!!!!

---

Last year was a blessing in disguise. Those injuries allowed Smoove to grow as a scorer and allowed Shelden to get some confidence with more playing time at the end of the year. Most importantly those losses due to injuries gave us some extra ping pong balls to get the #3 pick.

If we would have stayed healthy and won 38 games that would be great but we would not have Al Horford's future production.

[jerrywest]

If we had 5 more wins, Pacers and Suns would have taken the 10th and the 11th pick respctively. No Horford, no Acie. Dodged a Sura.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The great thing about having 2 picks this year, and none next year, is that we can pretty much set the core of the roster right now, for the 2008 season.

---

Now that's the silliest bit of "optimism" I've heard. Couldn't we apply that rule to every year? Are you suggesting it would be best if every year we knew there wouldn't be an influx of new talent? How about last year? If we hadn't had two, top 11 picks we would've already known our starters for this yera last year. What a positive!

At a time when we may have to let a Josh go the new talent could be sorely missed or the capital badly needed. Retaining both Joshes means a Williams, maybe two Williams go.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

We're certainly more than half full but the hard part isn't the first 60% towards a championship, it's the last 40%. WE've already lost this coming year's pick and future picks should be lesser. We better be 80+% of the way there and the players we lose because we can't resign them all better be insignificant. Not likely.

W

---

really? did Billy Knight drop it on the Marta? did it fall out of his pocket?

I thought we traded it for Joe Johnson. please clarify.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The great thing about having 2 picks this year, and none next year, is that we can pretty much set the core of the roster right now, for the 2008 season.

---

Now that's the silliest bit of "optimism" I've heard. Couldn't we apply that rule to every year? Are you suggesting it would be best if every year we knew there wouldn't be an influx of new talent? How about last year? If we hadn't had two, top 11 picks we would've already known our starters for this yera last year. What a positive!

At a time when we may have to let a Josh go the new talent could be sorely missed or the capital badly needed. Retaining both Joshes means a Williams, maybe two Williams go.

---

It may be too early to say this but i think Childress and Shelden might not be here this time next year.

As far as the roster goes the major hole to me is a center with size who can play legit D.

In terms of being title contenders it is pretty much entirely dependent on how our young guys develop. Not the most comforting thought but that is reality.

[Guest Walter]

Yeah the marta. That's it. Good one.

We don't have capital coming our way so our talent (and positional) situation is AT ITS BEST with JJ. You may think that is enough, but then again you thought we'd win 40 games last year. I love shiny, happy fans, particularly when despite being realism haters they fall in line with me more than they would care to admit.

A 2-win increase over your previous prognostication? Sounds like you got you lunch handed to you last year and are still hurting from it.

W

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Yeah the marta. That's it. Good one.

We don't have capital coming our way so our talent (and positional) situation is AT ITS BEST

with

JJ. You may think that is enough, but then again you thought we'd win 40 games last year. I love shiny, happy fans, particularly when despite being realism haters they fall in line with me more than they would care to admit.

A 2-win increase over your previous prognostication? Sounds like you got you lunch handed to you last year and are still hurting from it.

W

---

Better to be shiny and happy as opposed to cold and dark Waldo.

So what you are saying is Billy Knight shouldn't have made that Joe Johnson deal then, correct?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Better to be shiny and

happy

as opposed to cold and dark Waldo.

---

No, better to be right (eh hem, Brandon Roy over Shelden Williams and 34 wins vs 40 win projections for last year). You don't have to like what I say or like how I say it GSUteke, but it has objectively proven to deserve a considerable more respect than whatever you say even when you aren't love/hating on me. I await one of your "I'm sorry Walter" emails.

I've NEVER said BK shouldn't have made the JJ deal, always insisted he had to, and always accepted the deal with the belief that had it not broken down in the open that we could've gotten JJ for less.

I JUST said that BK's deal for JJ meant that whatever talent we have NOW is the most we can expect to have. Resignings start the next offseason. We can't keep everyone over the next 2-3 years. If the glass is only half full (or empty) the reality is that there isn't a source remaining from which to fill it. Comprende numbskull? JJ deal not bad, but JJ deal coming to its fruition means the rebuild is done. If it isn't "done" well enough as I fear and expect, then our half full glass won't fill itself.

W

[drzachary]

Better to be right than wrong?

It's better to accurately predict a team's failure than to hope for its success? I would clearly think that it would be better to be wrong, if being right means the team continues to falter.

You and I have different perceptions of fandom. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but yours is very foreign to me.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Better to be right than wrong?

---

Uh, yeah.

Quote:

---

It's better to accurately predict a team's failure than to hope for its success?

---

It's better to accurately predict PERIOD, end of discussion. Predominately historically INACCURATE prediction suggests a greater likelihood of future INACCURATE prediction and vice versa. If you are like GSUteke and can't predict the best prospects or the team's winning percentage worth a d@mn then don't expect people to RESPECT your prediction no matter how much they LIKE them or want to believe their rosey-ness.

Quote:

---

I would clearly think that it would be better to be wrong, if being right means the team continues to falter.

---

I didn't know I had such power. That my being right or accurate MAKES the team or its prospects worse off. I'm accurate.

Quote:

---

You and I have different perceptions of fandom. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but yours is very foreign to me.

---

Yours is less accurate historically. Mine is more accurate historically.

It is better to guage a team accurately than to guage it inaccurately, PERIOD.

In NO OTHER area of your life would anyone believe it's better to INACCURATELY but optimistically guage the strength of a stock, the value of your home, etc. It's ALWAYS better to be accurate, to be right, to be correct. It is through accurate appraisals that improvement can be first measured and then met. Otherwise, we remain a 45 win team that NEVER wins 35 games because fans and the front office are too busy being rosey and WRONG.

W

[gsuteke]

I thought perhaps the venerable DrZach who is the most tolerant character on this board would be able to explain "it" but alas I was wrong.

You see Zach you forgot to ask what Waldo is a "fan" of.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Better to be right than wrong?

---

Uh, yeah.

Quote:

---

It's better to accurately predict a team's failure than to hope for its success?

---

It's better to accurately predict PERIOD, end of discussion. Predominately historically INACCURATE prediction suggests a greater likelihood of future INACCURATE prediction and vice versa. If you are like GSUteke and can't predict the best prospects or the team's winning percentage worth a d@mn then don't expect people to RESPECT your prediction no matter how much they LIKE them or want to believe their rosey-ness.

Quote:

---

I would clearly think that it would be better to be wrong, if being right means the team continues to falter.

---

I didn't know I had such power. That my being right or accurate MAKES the team or its prospects worse off. I'm accurate.

Quote:

---

You and I have different perceptions of fandom. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but yours is very foreign to me.

---

Yours is less accurate historically. Mine is more accurate historically.

It is better to guage a team accurately than to guage it inaccurately, PERIOD.

In NO OTHER area of your life would anyone believe it's better to INACCURATELY but optimistically guage the strength of a stock, the value of your home, etc. It's ALWAYS better to be accurate, to be right, to be correct. It is through accurate appraisals that improvement can be first measured and then met. Otherwise, we remain a 45 win team that NEVER wins 35 games because fans and the front office are too busy being rosey and WRONG.

W

---

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

In NO OTHER area of your life would anyone believe it's better to INACCURATELY but optimistically guage the strength of a stock, the value of your home, etc. It's ALWAYS better to be accurate, to be right, to be correct. It is through accurate appraisals that improvement can be first measured and then met. Otherwise, we remain a 45 win team that NEVER wins 35 games because fans and the front office are too busy being rosey and WRONG.

W

---

Amazing! And people wanted this dude back to say this kind of stuff!

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In NO OTHER area of your life would anyone believe it's better to INACCURATELY but optimistically guage the strength of a stock, the value of your home, etc. It's ALWAYS better to be accurate, to be right, to be correct. It is through accurate appraisals that improvement can be first measured and then met. Otherwise, we remain a 45 win team that NEVER wins 35 games because fans and the front office are too busy being rosey and WRONG.

W

---

Amazing! And people wanted this dude back to say this kind of stuff!

---

"Star Wars" wouldn't have been nearly as good without Darth Vader

[thesheedera]

Darth Vader was cool though.

[AHF]

Walter may be saying it harshly, but I don't think a bottomline of "I can't affect the standing but I hope that I can see the basketball world accurately" is offensive in anyway. I don't think Walter is saying he hopes the Hawks will lose, just that he would rather see a spade as a spade than buy into false promise or underrate a team that isn't given its due. I don't have any problem with that. I think he may be selectively picking between his success stories and his failures in terms of predicting but his first choice in the draft has usually been right and on the Hawks' pick he has been pretty good so on that he has a pretty good track record.

All that said, I personally hope he is wrong this year both about the draft and about the Hawks.

And I think he would agree he would rather the Hawks exceed his prediction this year and every year!

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Darth Vader was cool though.

---

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

I've NEVER said BK shouldn't have made the JJ deal, always insisted he had to, and always accepted the deal with the belief that had it not broken down in the open that we could've gotten JJ for less.

---

Glad you realize that. Also realize this. A 13-win team is in little position to play "chicken" on a deal, when trying to get a rising young star like JJ was. Giving up 2 draft picks plus Diaw, was no big deal in my eyes. Personally, I would've given them Harrington + the conditional pick, but maybe they didn't want Harrington. But giving up 2 draft picks, in order to get a rising young star, is a fair trade in my book . . . especially when you look at the overall talent on the team 2 years ago.

Quote:

---

I JUST said that BK's deal for JJ meant that whatever talent we have NOW is the most we can expect to have. Resignings start the next offseason. We can't keep everyone over the next 2-3 years. If the glass is only half full (or empty) the reality is that there isn't a source remaining from which to fill it.

---

This is simply NOT TRUE. A flat out LIE, if you will.

We can easily keep this core group together for the next 2 seasons, if we choose to re-sign Smoove and Chill. You're making way more out of this than should be made.

When you look at the contracts on the books right now, we can basically go in ANY direction we want to, in regards to player personnel.

For the 08 - 09 season, we already have 8 players under contract ( JJ, Speedy, Acie, Al, Solomon, ZaZa, Marvin, and Shelden ). If you add Smoove and Chill to that mix, that makes 10. So that core group can easily be here for another 2 years.

If Marvin hasn't made a quantum leap as a player, you do the same to him going into the 2008 season regarding an extension, as we're doing with Chill and Smoove this year.

A contract decision on Shelden, as far as an extension, does not have to be made until the Summer of 2010.

Let's go the other way. Say we have another sub-par season this year. We then are in a great position to completely restructure the team, with all the expiring contracts and even with Smoove and Chill becoming RFA's. If a ridiculous offer comes across for Smoove, and the Hawks deem him expendible, then we can easily ask for something from the team trying to get Smoove, in exchange.

The issues you bring up, aren't really that pertinent to even discuss right now, because of all the directions we could go in regards to player personnel. And whatever direction we go in, will be determined by how we do this season.

If we're good, BK will keep the team intact, much like the Bulls did last year with some of their young guys. If we're bad, he can trade away "assets" to bring in veteran players. So the upgrade can take place that way, with veteran players coming in, instead of hording more draft picks that need time to develop.

The rebuild may well indeed be done. But that doesn't mean that we don't tweak the lineup every now and then. We are one of the few teams, with the flexibility to do that, even after we sign Smoove and Chill.