Need to hire the GM first.

[KB21]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about the coaches getting taken up and how the Hawks are being inactive. The fact is, if the Hawks use proper procedure in this situation, they will hire the GM first and give the GM they hire a say in the decision on the head coach.

Will that happen? I don't think it is likely, because I think ASG is content with keeping Mike Woodson and is searching for a GM that will say that he's willing to work with Mike Woodson. So, I think this GM search is essentially screwed from the get go, because they are going to automatically limit the pool of candidates to those that are willing to work with Mike Woodson, IMO.

Just in case that doesn't happen though, I wanted to state that the proper procedure of action to take here is to cast a wide net to search for a GM. IMO, it doesn't have to be someone that has GMing experience, but it does need to be someone that has a vision for what this roster and team can be.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I think ASG is content with keeping Mike Woodson and is searching for a GM that will say that he's willing to work with Mike Woodson. So, I think this GM search is essentially screwed from the get go, because they are going to automatically limit the pool of candidates to those that are willing to work with Mike Woodson, IMO.

It is reassuring to think that we might be limiting our pool of GMs to that wide group who don't want to pick their own coach, will come to work for unstable ownership, and who must support a coach who underacheived in his best season in 4 years as a head coach.

[Seano]

Quote:

---

It is reassuring to think that we might be limiting our pool of GMs to that wide group who don't want to pick their own coach, will come to work for unstable ownership, and who must support a coach who underacheived in his best season in 4 years as a head coach.

Yes. In other words a stooge, a puppet, a yes-man for our incompetent ownership group. It's a lovely thought, isn't it?

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

I'm seeing a lot of talk about the coaches getting taken up and how the Hawks are being inactive. The fact is, if the Hawks use proper procedure in this situation, they will hire the GM first and give the GM they hire a say in the decision on the head coach.

Will that happen? I don't think it is likely, because I think ASG is content with keeping Mike Woodson and is searching for a GM that will say that he's willing to work with Mike Woodson. So, I think this GM search is essentially screwed from the get go, because they are going to automatically limit the pool of candidates to those that are willing to work with Mike Woodson, IMO.

Just in case that doesn't happen though, I wanted to state that the proper procedure of action to take here is to cast a wide net to search for a GM. IMO, it doesn't have to be someone that has GMing experience, but it does need to be someone that has a vision for what this roster and team can be.

Well, I understand that we need to get a GM in here first, but top tier coach's are always in demand more than GMs. With D'Antoni, Avery Johnson, and Larry Brown available, there were actually some premium names on the market for head coaching positions this offseason. Those guys tend to get scooped up quickly, but three very talented head coaches getting moved made me eager as a fan to grab one of them.

If Avery Johnson signs somewhere else, I'll just have to sit back and wait instead of aggressively mentally willing ASG to sign him.

[NJHAWK]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think ASG is content with keeping Mike Woodson and is searching for a GM that will say that he's willing to work with Mike Woodson. So, I think this GM search is essentially screwed from the get go, because they are going to automatically limit the pool of candidates to those that are willing to work with Mike Woodson, IMO.

It is reassuring to think that we might be limiting our pool of GMs to that wide group who don't want to pick their own coach, will come to work for unstable ownership, and who must support a coach who underacheived in his best season in 4 years as a head coach. You forgot to mention the fact that the new gm wont be able to execute a trade even if all salaries are equal without waiting for the 3 stooges groups of ASG to fight with each other to approve the deal or not. The new gm also will have no say in when the coach is fired or not. The new GM will have to accept the fact thateven though he and his scouts are THE BASKETBALL PEOPLE, they will be over riden by the owners who think they know more even if all the financial aspects of the move are equal. Thats what kills me, I understand the owners giving a GM a budget or say they cant afford this trade or that signing. These guys dont just interfere with $$$, they think they know players better as well.

[KB21]

Once again, there is absolutely no credible evidence that suggests this ownership group, other than Steve Belkin, has tried to overrule the GM on personnel decisions. The only thing this group did was balk at firing Mike Woodson in February. The fans jumped on that because they were out for blood, and Woodson's blood was what they wanted. It is a typical knee jerk fan reaction. The fact is, more level heads prevailed in this, because had a coaching change been made, chances are this team probably wouldn't have made a playoff run. That isn't a defense of Mike Woodson, but it is a defense of having some stability. How many times has hiring an interim coach ever worked? The ownership made the right move by not firing him in February. Now, the right move is to explore the opportunities to improve, and the Hawks are in a situation where they need to settle the GM position first.

The fact is, Mike Woodson isn't a great head coach, but he also isn't nearly as bad as some make out on this board. The Hawks can most definitely improve, but this isn't a case where anyone would be better than Mike Woodson.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

BK's still in contract until Jul 1st so I think he's still the GM until then. Having two GMs helps though...

[Guest Walter]

...important.

Two years ago it was the #5 pick which BK blew, the trading of Harrington which BK ended up doing well with, and the last potential use of cap space with the signings of Lo and Speedy which BK also blew.

The next year it ended up being a a gift lotto pick at 3 and the Indy pick at 11, both our last chance at a superstar. Can't complain about Horford and Law is still an unknown given inconsistent minutes and ops.

This year it's a new GM, should be a new coach, and the contracts of JS and JC.

I agree, KB, that whatever GM we get it should be without the need to retain Woodson. I-F Woodson had one more year on his deal or even an existing deal, I could see keeping him for part of the year, but we have to fully resign him. 3-4 more years of Woodson guaranteed is simply not acceptable to me and shouldn't be acceptable to a new GM wanting to best build this team. I hope our ownership can forget the many mistakes of Billy KNight enough to get out of the way and let any new GM run this team.

W

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think ASG is content with keeping Mike Woodson and is searching for a GM that will say that he's willing to work with Mike Woodson. So, I think this GM search is essentially screwed from the get go, because they are going to automatically limit the pool of candidates to those that are willing to work with Mike Woodson, IMO.

It is reassuring to think that we might be limiting our pool of GMs to that wide group who don't want to pick their own coach, will come to work for unstable ownership, and who must support a coach who underacheived in his best season in 4 years as a head coach.

A sobering reality indeed.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Once again, there is absolutely no credible evidence that suggests this ownership group, other than Steve Belkin, has tried to overrule the GM on personnel decisions. The only thing this group did was balk at firing Mike Woodson in February. The fans jumped on that because they were out for blood, and Woodson's blood was what they wanted. It is a typical knee jerk fan reaction. The fact is, more level heads prevailed in this, because had a coaching change been made, chances are this team probably wouldn't have made a playoff run. That isn't a defense of Mike Woodson, but it is a defense of having some stability. How many times has hiring an interim coach ever worked? The ownership made the right move by not firing him in February. Now, the right move is to explore the opportunities to improve, and the Hawks are in a situation where they need to settle the GM position first.

The fact is, Mike Woodson isn't a great head coach, but he also isn't nearly as bad as some make out on this board. The Hawks can most definitely improve, but this isn't a case where anyone would be better than Mike Woodson.

Now that Sam Vincent and Issiah Thomas have been fired I am not sure there are any coaches left worse then Woodson.

[KB21]

And had the Hawks hired Mike Brown instead of Mike Woodson in 2004, you would be sitting here saying the same thing about Mike Brown.

[Cwell]

maybe not.Brown plays guys like Daniel Gibson.He would have never had a chance under Woody.Woody would have played Damon Jones 30 minutes a game and buried Gibson on the bench.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

And had the Hawks hired Mike Brown instead of Mike Woodson in 2004, you would be sitting here saying the same thing about Mike Brown.

Why is it that Portland, despite being a younger team, won more games then the Hawks - and this despite missing Oden for the entire season (imagine if the Hawks did not have Horford all season)?

Why were the Bulls able to win a playoff series and have a winning season in '06-'07 despite being equally youthful as the the '07-'08 Hawks?

The Hawks won 30 games in '06-'07. During that season JJ, Smith, Marvin and Childress all missed significant time. The Hawks won 37 games in '07-'08 and were one of the healthiest teams in the league and added more experience (from Smith, Marvin and Childress), Horford and Bibby (for part of the season). What a breakthrough performance by Woody!!!!!!

Why have the Hawks young players improved so slowly as compared to other young players in the NBA? Marvin was a number 2 pick three years ago and is still a complimentary player. LaMarcus Aldridge was a number 2 pick two years ago and is a go-to guy for his team. Josh Smith still hasn't corrected any of his obvious flaws from his rookie year. Childress is almost the same player he was as a rookie. Shelden, Salim, Solo and Law have not made any progress, and in the cases of Shelden, Salim and Law, one could argue they regressed.

Why don't the Hawks run an offense? They have a veteran backcourt so you would think the two guys that handle the ball much of the time could get them into some kind of offensive set.

Avery Johnson won 67 games last year despite having Jason Terry playing heavy minutes at point guard! It is not like he had Steve Nash to work with (except for the first 16 or so games of his head coaching career).

What are Woody's excuses?