Sund about BK/ASG: "They stayed with the plan."

[sturt]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=team...ype=team_report

Quote:

---

After 30-plus years in the NBA, new Hawks general manager Rick Sund can appreciate a situation where a team hatches a plan to rebuild a franchise and actually sees it through.

That’s why he wasn’t at all shy about voicing his desire to Hawks ownership to continue that process as Billy Knight’s replacement.

It took nearly three weeks, since his interview, and the last minute breakdown of negotiations with another candidate, Cleveland’s Chris Grant, before it actually happened.

But now that he has the job, Sund is eager to get started.

“They stayed with the plan,” Sund said. “From ownership to Billy to the coaches to everyone involved. They stayed with the plan. There are highs and lows in the process. And you’re not totally there yet. But you love to see that type of progress.”

Something to chew on for those who consider the whole idea that BK had a plan to be wishful thinking... another person--in this instance, someone who has been an outside observer and whose opinion ought to count for something-- gets it, in spite of the highs and lows in the process that others irrationally focus upon.

And don't tell me he was patronizing his new employer... the man could have said all kinds of positive things and accomplished that, without saying this. Plus, there's no indication that he's the disingenuous type.

Now what was "the plan?" I can't quote anyone, but the puzzle of what was intended just isn't (and hasn't been) that hard to put together.

1. Dismantle the old team, get as far below the cap as possible, and grin-and-bear-it while your team naturally accumulates high draft picks... pick up other draft picks and young free agents as opportunities present themselves.

DONE... the part of the plan that no one has ever disputed.

2. Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around. Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action.

DONE... JJ... and then, there was a hot pursuit to acquire the pick to get Dwight Howard... however, the second player never really came to fruition according to plan.

3. Draft, at first, with the idea of accumulating assets more than accumulating assets at particular positions; draft for the long term, not the short; be as content to go with the player with a lower ceiling if, in your evaluation, the higher ceiling candidates also have a higher potential to bust. Always take 2nd round picks seriously and do your homework. Be careful in free agency... only obtain young players on the cheap who appear to have a future but have somehow fallen through the cracks.

DONE... Diaw, Childress, Smoove, MWill, ZaZa... and Ivey, Salim, and Solomon.

4. At the point where the asset base seems to have mostly accumulated, use the draft and free agency to fill-in around the primary assets you've gained.

DONE... though certainly with some substantive lows... Shellhead and Speedy... to go along with the apparent highs... Horford and Law

5. Keep the primary assets together as best you can, with a mind toward developing a higher level of chemistry than can otherwise be developed.

DONE... WITH CAVEATS... until the acquisition of Bibby, the roster was essentially without significant turnover through the BK years... and of course, the great thing about the Bibby trade is that none of the core assets of the roster were affected... but, of course, the caveat is that it is NOW that we get to find out if #5 remains intact.

Now....

Whether any particular poster here agrees with my presentation of the facts here (sure to be a handful, but I'm not kidding myself as-if the majority concurs)... perhaps you would agree that Sund's history with Dallas in the franchise's infancy seems particularly congruent with this situation, and that he's likely to follow a similar path to when the Mavs got to the playoffs for the first time in 83-84, and to how the Mavs proceeded over the next few years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans...vericks#1984-85

What immediately stood out to me as I looked at this... is that, before there was Petro, Swift, and Sene... there was Wennington, Blab (who can forget?), and Tarpley... Tarpley's career ended in a drug-related thud, but at first, he gave the Mavs a serious inside presence.

That stood out... and, maybe more(?) significantly to our situation... that trades intended to add players to the core of the team during those years were non-existent... though, trades intended to give up some current talent for future draft picks occurred on occasion.

So, unless the man has had a change of heart... and that does happen, of course... if he conforms to the Mavs history, it would predict that Smoove and Chilz will be re-signed and "#5" will remain intact.

What's more.... if his experience with the Mavs teaches us anything about what we're about to experience, I would remind you that d*ck Motta remained the coach of the Mavs from inception through the team's first four playoff appearances. Of course, the difference is that Motta had amassed a significant coaching resume prior to coming to Dallas, most of it with the Bullets as I recall (and thus, many games against the Hawks)... and further, Sund had no professional relationship with Woodson prior to this season... so it's not as easy to reach a conclusion about the name of the Hawks' 08-09 head coach with any confidence.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=team...ype=team_report

Quote:

---

After 30-plus years in the NBA, new Hawks general manager Rick Sund can appreciate a situation where a team hatches a plan to rebuild a franchise and actually sees it through.

That’s why he wasn’t at all shy about voicing his desire to Hawks ownership to continue that process as Billy Knight’s replacement.

It took nearly three weeks, since his interview, and the last minute breakdown of negotiations with another candidate, Cleveland’s Chris Grant, before it actually happened.

But now that he has the job, Sund is eager to get started.

“They stayed with the plan,” Sund said. “From ownership to Billy to the coaches to everyone involved. They stayed with the plan. There are highs and lows in the process. And you’re not totally there yet. But you love to see that type of progress.”

Something to chew on for those who consider the whole idea that BK had a plan to be wishful thinking... another person--in this instance, someone who has been an outside observer and whose opinion ought to count for something-- gets it, in spite of the highs and lows in the process that others irrationally focus upon.

And don't tell me he was patronizing his new employer... the man could have said all kinds of positive things and accomplished that, without saying this. Plus, there's no indication that he's the disingenuous type.

Now what was "the plan?" I can't quote anyone, but the puzzle of what was intended just isn't (and hasn't been) that hard to put together.

1. Dismantle the old team, get as far below the cap as possible, and grin-and-bear-it while your team naturally accumulates high draft picks... pick up other draft picks and young free agents as opportunities present themselves.

DONE... the part of the plan that no one has ever disputed.

2. Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around. Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action.

DONE... JJ... and then, there was a hot pursuit to acquire the pick to get Dwight Howard... however, the second player never really came to fruition according to plan.

3. Draft, at first, with the idea of accumulating assets more than accumulating assets at particular positions; draft for the long term, not the short; be as content to go with the player with a lower ceiling if, in your evaluation, the higher ceiling candidates also have a higher potential to bust. Always take 2nd round picks seriously and do your homework. Be careful in free agency... only obtain young players on the cheap who appear to have a future but have somehow fallen through the cracks.

DONE... Diaw, Childress, Smoove, MWill, ZaZa... and Ivey, Salim, and Solomon.

4. At the point where the asset base seems to have mostly accumulated, use the draft and free agency to fill-in around the primary assets you've gained.

DONE... though certainly with some substantive lows... Shellhead and Speedy... to go along with the apparent highs... Horford and Law

5. Keep the primary assets together as best you can, with a mind toward developing a higher level of chemistry than can otherwise be developed.

DONE... WITH CAVEATS... until the acquisition of Bibby, the roster was essentially without significant turnover through the BK years... and of course, the great thing about the Bibby trade is that none of the core assets of the roster were affected... but, of course, the caveat is that it is NOW that we get to find out if #5 remains intact.

Now....

Whether any particular poster here agrees with my presentation of the facts here (sure to be a handful, but I'm not kidding myself as-if the majority concurs)... perhaps you would agree that Sund's history with Dallas in the franchise's infancy seems particularly congruent with this situation, and that he's likely to follow a similar path to when the Mavs got to the playoffs for the first time in 83-84, and to how the Mavs proceeded over the next few years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans...vericks#1984-85

What immediately stood out to me as I looked at that before there was Petro, Swift, and Sene... there was Wennington, Blab (who can forget?), and Tarpley... Tarpley didn't turn out so bad, though.

That... and... that trades intended to add players to the core of the team during those years were non-existent... though, trades intended to give up some current talent for future draft picks occurred on occasion.

So, unless the man has had a change of heart... and that does happen, of course... if he conforms to the Mavs history, it would predict that Smoove and Chilz will be re-signed and "#5" will remain intact.

What's more.... if his experience with the Mavs teaches us anything about what we're about to experience, I would remind you that d*ck Motta remained the coach of the Mavs from inception through the team's first four playoff appearances. Of course, the difference is that Motta had amassed a significant coaching resume prior to coming to Dallas, most of it with the Bullets as I recall (and thus, many games against the Hawks)... and further, Sund had no professional relationship with Woodson prior to this season... so it's not as easy to reach a conclusion about the name of the Hawks' 08-09 head coach with any confidence.

Wow. So everything is "done" and we are still a 37 win team with a maxed out payroll. Yeah, let's continue this great "plan". I hope he was talking about the roster itself and not the coaching. As of right now all we can change is the coach because of our payroll. But SOMETHING has to change cause Bibby for a full year (yeah right) alone isn't going to make us win 10 more games.

As of right now we are what we are folks. We had ample games to view this. If we don't change coaches and/or roster, then we will continue to be what will be. I sometimes wonder if some of you are actually OK with that.

[sturt]

Sinner, so do you totally dismiss the idea that young 20-something players tend to get better as they approach their mid-20s?

While you're contemplating that, here's some more Mavs history to consider... notice how about 4 years of gradual improvement blossomed into 5 years of contention.

Quote:

---

That first team had a record of fifteen wins and sixty-seven losses for the 1980-81 season. It had been feared that Dallas, with its rich football tradition, would not support the Mavericks; however, that first season the team finished a respectable eighteenth in the league in attendance. By the 1985-86 season the Mavericks had set an NBA record by filling Reunion Arena to 99.4 percent of its capacity. The next three seasons, the club increased its win total by thirteen, ten, and five wins, respectively. The 1983-84 season marked the first time that the club won more games than it lost, and it marked the team's first playoff appearance. The Mavericks won that first playoff series, known as Moody Madness, over the Seattle Supersonics in dramatic fashion. That same year Mark Aguirre became the first Maverick to ever play in the NBA All-Star game. The next two years the team finished with identical 44-38 season records, losing both years in the early rounds of the playoffs. The 1986-87 season marked the Mavericks' first and only Midwest Division championship. The team finished with a best ever record of 55-27 and was one of the premier franchises in the league. However, they lost their first round playoff series to the underdog Supersonics. After the season, another shock came as

d*ck

Motta resigned as head coach. John MacLeod became the second coach and promptly took the Mavericks to the finals of the Western Conference playoffs. They even extended the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers to the seventh and deciding game of that series.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/...es/DD/xod4.html

[exodus]

Quote:

---

There are highs and lows in the process.

The problem is that there have been far too many lows and really only 1 (Boston series) high.

Making progress from a 13 win game season isn't that tough. Going from 37 wins to 50 wins is tough.

Quote:

---

And you’re not totally there yet.

Very true. Winning 37 games in a historically weak conference can't be seen as "mission accomplished".

I wonder how spending $23 million next seasn on pgs that aren't that good fits into the plan.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Whether any particular poster here agrees with my presentation of the facts here (sure to be a handful, but I'm not kidding myself as-if the majority concurs)... perhaps you would agree that Sund's history with Dallas in the franchise's infancy seems particularly congruent with this situation, and that he's likely to follow a similar path to when the Mavs got to the playoffs for the first time in 83-84, and to how the Mavs proceeded over the next few years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans...vericks#1984-85

What immediately stood out to me as I looked at this... is that, before there was Petro, Swift, and Sene... there was Wennington, Blab (who can forget?), and Tarpley... Tarpley's career ended in a drug-related thud, but at first, he gave the Mavs a serious inside presence.

That stood out... and, maybe more(?) significantly to our situation... that trades intended to add players to the core of the team during those years were non-existent... though, trades intended to give up some current talent for future draft picks occurred on occasion.

That wiki list is incomplete. They only show drafts and trades on draft day up until the 04-05. So from that 83-89 period we don't see anything except draft day. I imagine the Mavericks still made trades and free agent moves during that time that aren't posted.

[KB21]

sturt, didn't you know that at 22 years of age, Josh Smith isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Marvin Williams isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Al Horford is as good as he will ever be. Come on, get with the program. Didn't you know that the experts on Hawksquawk know more than the NBA experts.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

sturt, didn't you know that at 22 years of age, Josh Smith isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Marvin Williams isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Al Horford is as good as he will ever be. Come on, get with the program. Didn't you know that the experts on Hawksquawk know more than the NBA experts.

They will have to get a LOT better to carry the Hawks to a 50 win season, assuming no major trades are made.

Meanwhile some of the guys BK passed on decided not to wait until their mid-20s to perform at a high level.

[sturt]

fanatic, just to clarify, I was only interested in the transactions from the point of the Mavs first playoff appearance (83-84), in order to give some hint as to what Sund's philosophy might be for a team in that circumstance... such as his new employer. Does he tend to take any core players and trade them?

But another major factor that I failed to cite is that the collective bargaining agreement and free agency was VERY different in that time than today... so, maybe it's not really worth reading too much into what the Mavs did in 1983 and what Sund will do 25 years later in 2008.... in fact, make that a "probably."

[Diesel]

Old friend staying with the plan is noble and I don't think anybody here disagrees with the plan itself. It's about how the plan was carried out.

Most particularly...

Quote:

---

2.

Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around.

Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action.

DONE... JJ... and then, there was a hot pursuit to acquire the pick to get Dwight Howard... however, the second player never really came to fruition according to plan.

JJ, Smoove and Horf was definitely a good pickups but most of the disagreement comes with the many times that franchise players were missed for no good reason. More particular.. in the best position that we've had to get good quality players AND NEED.. .and BK couldn't execute.

Like it or not, the outsider coming in has a great task before him. He has to go into BK's workshop... pick up all the pieces that BK was working on and see if he can make something out of them. I think more than anything else, this is the greatest difficulty. Lost opportunity. BK had great opportunities to take this team to higher heights. How many teams get 4 straight stabs at the lottery? I hope Sund is up for the Job!

[Atlantaholic]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

sturt, didn't you know that at 22 years of age, Josh Smith isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Marvin Williams isn't getting any better, and at 21 years of age, Al Horford is as good as he will ever be. Come on, get with the program. Didn't you know that the experts on Hawksquawk know more than the NBA experts.

They will have to get a LOT better to carry the Hawks to a 50 win season, assuming no major trades are made.

Meanwhile some of the guys BK passed on decided not to wait until their mid-20s to perform at a high level.

Yes. And it's not like Marvin and JS' development have been so great from year to year that it guarantees that they will improve dramatically in their mid 20s... Marvin is virtually the same player, and Smoove's Basketball IQ refuses to go up by an iota.

It's dumb to say that they WON'T get better, but to put all your chips on two young players, who in their third and fourth years respectively, haven't really shown any type of consistent greatness, is a heck of a gamble... and a lousy freaking plan.

People use age as an excuse for the Hawks, but what they don't understand is that it isn't an excuse, but a PROBLEM.

The reason we are so young is because we have been terrible, (and picking in the lottery every year) and have failed to bring in good veteran contributors

The fact we are so young and inexperienced is one of our biggest problems... yet people act like it's something to lean on.

[exodus]

Not only was the execution bad but i think the "plan" was flawed from the beginning. I think BK felt that a true pg wasn't necesary, hence passing on Paul/Deron and then saying JJ would be the pg.

Not only is that thinking flawed in general but it is even more of a problem given the current era. The rules change taking out the hand check has given pgs much more freedom and speeded up the game, putting even more of a premium on pg play.

By the time BK realized the need for a pg the opportunities to get one were minimal and that is why we will be spending $23 million on pgs next season with still major question marks about the position.

Having a plan doesn't mean much if the plan is flawed and/or isn't well executed.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Old friend staying with the plan is noble and I don't think anybody here disagrees with the plan itself. It's about how the plan was carried out.

Most particularly...

Quote:

---

2.

Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around.

Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action.

DONE... JJ... and then, there was a hot pursuit to acquire the pick to get Dwight Howard... however, the second player never really came to fruition according to plan.

JJ, Smoove and Horf was definitely a good pickups but most of the disagreement comes with the many times that franchise players were missed for no good reason. More particular.. in the best position that we've had to get good quality players AND NEED.. .and BK couldn't execute.

Like it or not, the outsider coming in has a great task before him. He has to go into BK's workshop... pick up all the pieces that BK was working on and see if he can make something out of them. I think more than anything else, this is the greatest difficulty. Lost opportunity. BK had great opportunities to take this team to higher heights. How many teams get 4 straight stabs at the lottery? I hope Sund is up for the Job!

Even had Paul been drafted, he wouldn't have fallen under this point, Dies... he'd be another name under #3. Sure, Paul has arguably turned out to be an elite player, but if anyone was predicting that at the time, they weren't part of any consensus. Among those who wanted BK to draft Paul or Deron Williams, most were only looking for BK to fill a need with a good player, not as if Paul or Williams were going to become elite players. But BK wasn't looking to fill a need, especially with all of those predicting great big things for MWill.

As for the "make something out of them" comment, I obviously think that's nuts and... using my new favorite term... EEYORE-ISH. We just took one of the two best teams in the NBA to 7 games with one of the YOUNGEST teams in the league. As KB points out in so many words, you have to be really, really looking out of mud-colored glasses to think that this team has now hit its ceiling, as-if Sund has to scramble turn over the roster before anyone figures out how poor the talent level actually is. Crazy talk.

If Sund is going to make a big change, to my way of thinking, it will have to come on the sidelines. I'm still very much in the middle on that debate, without any definite conclusion. But historically it seems like there does tend to be a change at the helm at this juncture for many teams that have went on to something the former coach just might not have been capable of delivering... Phil Jackson replacing Doug Collins leaps to mind, but I feel certain with a little research I could plow up a few others. And yet... there's a good argument for letting Woody continue, too. The general consensus of a one-year deal is certainly a good rational middle ground, but I'm going to give Sund the benefit of a doubt regardless.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Sure, Paul has arguably turned out to be an elite player, but if anyone was predicting that at the time, they weren't part of any consensus.

Oh really?

Quote:

---

NBA Comparison: Isiah Thomas

Strengths: Paul is the consummate point guard. He is a mature leader, wise beyond his years. He can score and get into the paint and drop the catchable pass with the best of them. A 3 point marksman that will knock it down if given room. His foot quickness makes him a capable ball hawk on defense when he picks his man up. To lead the ACC in steals as a freshman tells you a little about his defensive ability. His character and heart on and off the court make him a GM's dream.

Will have a chance to be a star in the league

, and it will be his passion for the game that will keep him from falling off.

Weaknesses: At under 6 foot, he's very small for the pro game. His intangibles and athleticism help to make up for it some. Improved strength and a year of maturing will help him avoid the dreaded sophomore jinx that Chris Thomas suffered a two years ago. Point guards are judged by their teams play, and with his team this year should reflect the type of player he is, a Champion.

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/chrispaul.asp

Quote:

---

Dynamic, Explosive, Electric, Dominant only a few of the words used to describe Chris Paul's game.

Paul is one of the better all-around PG prospects to come along in the past decade,

and there isn't much about his game that isn't a strength.

The first thing you notice about Paul is his explosiveness with the ball. There really isn't anybody that can stop him from getting to the basket, with his dynamite first step and ability to get the ball above the rim before shot blockers can alter it.

Furthering this strength is Paul's ability to recognize offensive opportunities and exploit them. He understands how to get by defenders on the break, and is relentless at pushing the ball and getting to the basket. If he sees a potential help defender slacking, he will be at the rim before that defender realizes what is happening. Paul is a master of things like splitting defenders, and changing pace to gain that miniscule opening he needs.

While he certainly has the open court speed of a TJ Ford, Dee Brown, or Raymond Felton, none of those point guards break down the defense off the dribble and consistently get to the basket as effectively as Chris Paul.

As a floor general, Paul might not quite have the creativity of the truly great pass-first point guards, but he runs an offense effectively and is very efficient with the ball. Paul has incredibly quick hands, as his nearly 2.5/1 assist-to-turnover ratio would indicate. At Wake Forest, Paul ran an offense full of players that needed consistent shots, and always shared the ball quite nicely. He understands tempo, distributes the ball in an intelligent fashion, and always finds the open man.

Some might question why a player of Paul's obvious talents only averaged 15 points per game, and was so inconsistent as a scorer on a night-by-night basis. Rest assured that this is only because of Paul's role as a distributor, and the fact that he played on a team with numerous other capable scorers.

In addition to his ability to break down defenses off the dribble, Paul has developed into a great outside shooter, hitting 47% of his 3-pointers this season. He can score in a variety of ways, whether it set shots from the outside or acrobatic, floating drives from the mid-range.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/

Quote:

---

Similarities: Isiah Thomas

Notes: Former McDonald's All-American. A Winston-Salem native who always dreamed of playing at Wake Forest. Has struggled with the decision of whether to leave school due to his loyalty to the program. Bobcats GM Bernie Bickerstaff is a huge fan and would love to keep Paul in state as part of his rebuilding of the Bobcats.

Positives: Paul is T.J. Ford with a jumper.

He's lightning quick, has unbelievable court vision, is a superb decision-maker and shoots the lights out from the field and the 3-point line. He pushes the ball relentlessly on offense and already is one of the best penetrators in the game. Despite the pace he plays out, he keeps turnovers to a minimum. His defense is also top notch. He'll be one of the steals leaders in the NBA when he gets there.

Negatives: Size does matter in the NBA and Paul just barely cracks 6 feet, the bare minimum for point guards in the league. Allen Iverson is the last player under 6-foot-8 to go No. 1. Teams wish Paul was stronger, but given his age they believe that will come.

Summary: Paul is the complete point guard prospect. He's quick, athletic, shoots the ball extremely well, and most important, is a true floor general who knows how to lead.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/d05/tr...?playerId=18716

Looks like revisionist history is another part of your continuing quest to avoid reality.

How many "next years" do we have to go through to see quality results? And what results are we waiting for, a .500 record?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Marvin is virtually the same player, and Smoove's Basketball IQ refuses to go up by an iota.

Holic, like anyone else, you're entitled to your position, but I think most observers without a dog in the fight would look at the games, look at the stats, and say that's just not even remotely correct.

Marvin did this season what many of us were crying about last off-season--the failure to show us more than occasional flashes of his talent, but to actually take over some games and lead the team to wins. He had never showed that before. Now, he has.

Now... let's see if he can do it more often or not.

His detractors obviously aren't anxious for this to get out, but in terms of his age compared to other star SFs who were in the NBA at the age 21, he appears to hold his own. His scoring was 20.6 per 48, which trumps anything that

Stojakovic (18.8),

Jefferson (18.6),

Artest (18.6),

Wallace (18.5) and

Turkoglu (15.1)

... had done by age 21.

His rebounding was 8.0, which virtually ties him with Turkoglu (8.1), and trumps

Jefferson (7.3),

Stojakovic (6.7), and

Artest (6.6).

All of which suggests that we hold the panic down to a low roar, eh?

Regarding Smoove, there were direct arguments to the contrary put forward by coaches, players, and commentators as recently as the Boston series. The consensus on that is that Smoove always had the raw talent, but that his stature from year to year has grown based on the fact that he continues to learn the game to a greater degree.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

His detractors obviously aren't anxious for this to get out, but in terms of his age compared to other star SFs who were in the NBA at the age 21, he appears to hold his own. His scoring was 20.6 per 48, which trumps anything that

Stojakovic (18.8),

Jefferson (18.6),

Artest (18.6),

Wallace (18.5) and

Turkoglu (15.1)

Again with the avoidance of what is happening now. Marvin has just played his 3rd season of big minutes and his production is nothing special.

Meanwhile our pg situation is still a mess which somehow doesn't merit any mention in your "analysis".

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Even had Paul been drafted, he wouldn't have fallen under this point, Dies... he'd be another name under #3. Sure, Paul has arguably turned out to be an elite player, but if anyone was predicting that at the time, they weren't part of any consensus. Among those who wanted BK to draft Paul or Deron Williams, most were only looking for BK to fill a need with a good player, not as if Paul or Williams were going to become elite players. But BK wasn't looking to fill a need, especially with all of those predicting great big things for MWill.

Well, see the problem is that Williams may have been consensus #2 but that's only if you're not looking at the Hawks roster. Hawks roster said that there's no need to draft another Sf. We had drafted 4 Sfs under BK already: Diaw, Chillz, Smoove, and Donta... .Plus we had Al Harrington. When you need a PG or C, drafting another Sf No matter how talented he could be 10 years down the road was not a smart pick.

Quote:

---

As for the "make something out of them" comment, I obviously think that's nuts and... using my new favorite term... EEYORE-ISH. We just took one of the two best teams in the NBA to 7 games with one of the YOUNGEST teams in the league. As KB points out in so many words, you have to be really, really looking out of mud-colored glasses to think that this team has now hit its ceiling, as-if Sund has to scramble turn over the roster before anyone figures out how poor the talent level actually is. Crazy talk.

I agree that there's some natural growth that will take place with our beloved hawks BUT... Basketball is a game of matchups. We're a bad matchup for them, when we're not intimidated. That's what showed in the series. Our strength was Joe Johnson and his shooting along with other guys stepping up. However, that only happened at home. Away from home out of our comfort zone, we got smashed. That's partly because we're really young, but also because Boston young players played better at home (Hello Rondo).. The point is I won't totally trust that matchup advantage because down the stretch, we looked horrid against the league. We were 4 & 11 against playoff teams after the aquisition of Bibby. That's 4 wins, 11 loses. So whereas we looked good against the Celtics in the playoffs (when we could take our time and focus).. in the regular season, we wasn't so great against good teams. The teams around us are getting better.... we can't afford to do nothing.

Quote:

---

If Sund is going to make a big change, to my way of thinking, it will have to come on the sidelines. I'm still very much in the middle on that debate, without any definite conclusion. But historically it seems like there does tend to be a change at the helm at this juncture for many teams that have went on to something the former coach just might not have been capable of delivering... Phil Jackson replacing Doug Collins leaps to mind, but I feel certain with a little research I could plow up a few others. And yet... there's a good argument for letting Woody continue, too. The general consensus of a one-year deal is certainly a good rational middle ground, but I'm going to give Sund the benefit of a doubt regardless.

I will say this. Sund doesn't have an easy job. And our team does have some obvious areas to work on. Such as:

Smoove: PF or Sf.

Marvin: Starter or Bench.

Horford: PF or C.

Law: Ready to take the Reigns or Should we look elsewhere?

Salim: Kick or Keep?

Zaza: Is it time to move you?

Chillz: Resign?

Smoove: How much?

JJ: Sf or SG?

and most importantly:

Who will be the assistant coaches?

[sturt]

This is one of the more ridiculous assertions you've EVER made in a thread where I was a participant... and that's saying something.

First, let's use one of your sources...

- NBAdraft.net called MWill an "elite level athlete" who "has tremendous potential." Oh... and they considered him worthy of the #2 pick in the draft... AHEAD, s'helpme, of Deron Williams. (That wasn't common, but it wasn't unheard of, either)

- While I couldn't locate DraftExpress' mock draft for that year, they said of MWill that he "appears to be on the verge of becoming the special player many thought he would be."

- I don't have ESPN Insider, so I can't go there, but feel free to add to the conversation if you'd dare to offer some COMPARABLE data, and not just whatever you decide to cherry pick to make your point.

For the sake of argument, let's see how many mock drafts featured a Chris Paul pick over a Marvin Williams pick...

- CBS Sportsline (Meija): Williams #2, Paul #4***

- CollegeHoops.net: Williams #2, Paul #5

- Fanballl.com: Williams #1, Paul #4

- USA Today: Williams #2, Paul #5

- RealGM: Williams #2, Paul #5

- ESPN.com: Williams #1, Paul #4

- SI.com: Williams #3, Paul #4

- InsideHoops.com: Williams #2, Paul #4

- HoopsHype: Paul #2, Williams #3

***Note: I found that there was apparently two other CBS Sportsline columnists who produced mocks, one of which evidently selected Paul #2, Williams #3

You charge "revisionist" and "hypocritical" pretty freely, my friend... you ought to take more care so these things don't explode in your face so easily.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

His detractors obviously aren't anxious for this to get out, but in terms of his age compared to other star SFs who were in the NBA at the age 21, he appears to hold his own. His scoring was 20.6 per 48, which trumps anything that

Stojakovic (18.8),

Jefferson (18.6),

Artest (18.6),

Wallace (18.5) and

Turkoglu (15.1)

Again with the avoidance of what is happening now. Marvin has just played his 3rd season of big minutes and his production is nothing special.

Meanwhile our pg situation is still a mess which somehow doesn't merit any mention in your "analysis".

More shell game... when you don't like the results, change the criteria. Not worth my time to comment further. The plan had highs, it had lows. But it was a plan.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

More shell game... when you don't like the results, change the criteria. Not worth my time to comment further. The plan had highs, it had lows. But it was a plan.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Talking about the reality of the Hawks current roster is a shell game but talking about Peja, RJ etc at 21 isn't?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

And don't tell me he was patronizing his new employer... the man could have said all kinds of positive things and accomplished that, without saying this. Plus, there's no indication that he's the disingenuous type.

When someone says, "don't tell me he was..." one can be assured that whatever follows was the truth that said someone can't choke down.

Quote:

---

Now what was "the plan?"...1. Dismantle the old team, get as far below the cap as possible, and grin-and-bear-it while your team naturally accumulates high draft picks... pick up other draft picks and young free agents as opportunities present themselves.

This was never anybody's complaint with BK, but deconstruction is one of the simpler processes in GMing just as in argumentation. BK garnered an significant amount of cap space and number of draft picks. He just remarkably came out with so little despite spending so much.

Quote:

---

2. Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around. Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action.

JJ isn't the kind of talent you build a franchise around. Sorry to say it but he isn't. He's a 2nd option, but not a 1st on a contending team. JS is not a 1st option either. Truth is we continue to have over the last two years two, especially when considering three, "top" players that DO NOT contend with the top 2 or 3 players of the top 10 teams in the league. BK did NOT come close to achieving this "standard" of yours by statistical definition no matter how you slice the stats.

He did pass on Paul and Roy who do and/or likely could represent such a player, Deng, Iggy, and Deron who might, and of not "considered" lower picks like Jefferson, Bynum, and Gay who also will. That's pretty d@mn sad.

Quote:

---

3. Draft, at first, with the idea of accumulating assets more than accumulating assets at particular positions; draft for the long term, not the short; be as content to go with the player with a lower ceiling if, in your evaluation, the higher ceiling candidates also have a higher potential to bust. Always take 2nd round picks seriously and do your homework. Be careful in free agency... only obtain young players on the cheap who appear to have a future but have somehow fallen through the cracks.

DONE... Diaw, Childress, Smoove, MWill, ZaZa... and Ivey, Salim, and Solomon.

You're smoking crack right? As far as "assets" Deng had and still has 10 times the trade value as Childress. Really, none of this makes sense. It sounds like you are making excuses for your own blind ass support of BK rather than any "plan".

Quote:

---

4. At the point where the asset base seems to have mostly accumulated, use the draft and free agency to fill-in around the primary assets you've gained.

DONE... though certainly with some substantive lows... Shellhead and Speedy... to go along with the apparent highs... Horford and Law

Definitely, you're higher than a kite.

Quote:

---

5. Keep the primary assets together as best you can, with a mind toward developing a higher level of chemistry than can otherwise be developed.

DONE... WITH CAVEATS... until the acquisition of Bibby, the roster was essentially without significant turnover through the BK years... and of course, the great thing about the Bibby trade is that none of the core assets of the roster were affected... but, of course, the caveat is that it is NOW that we get to find out if #5 remains intact.

By assets do you mean the least of 3 high lotto picks in 3 consecutive years? What good has come of "keeping them together"? Wouldn't we have been better served by drafting Paul or Deron, Deng or Iggy, Roy? Wouldn't we have been better served by immediately trading MW for a #2 pick the following year (Aldridge) or trading him simply before his value plummeted? Talk about your brass rings. We held onto the worst we could draft for as long as we could until we were forced to make moves under conditions where we are likely to get less for them. I do not feel better or reassured.

...

Frankly, this was Sund lip service. He's been at this game 30 years and it seems hasn't alienated a front office person over his career. I expected a more discerning mind from you Sturt. "They stayed with the plan" isn't positive or negative and your characterization of the "plan" and it's degree of success is totally laughable.

W