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

[sturt]

ex, does anyone in your real life ever tell you something, and you go, "OH... hmmm... I never thought of that... maybe I should re-think that?"

I don't hold out any real hope/expectation of that, just given what we routinely find on this board, but thought it might be worth planting a seed that suggests, if that never happens to you, perhaps either it should, or perhaps you're a deity who would be better served devoting his energies to something more significant in the world than straightening the rest of Hawksquawk out on what is "real." Or "hypocritical." Or "revisionist."

Failing either of those, I still contend there's a job out there for you where an affinity for name-calling and verbal misdirection (ie, shell games) may be of value--no doubt, a middle school somewhere.

==================================

W, I'm sorry, my friend. I know you put a whole lot of love and care into writing all of what you just wrote, but geez-louise, by now, don't you think I know what you were going to write before I even clicked on "submit"... assuming you dialed in sometime today to read it....???

I really don't have any motivation whatsoever to pursue the same stuff with the same person ad nauseum as-if I should suspect you bring anything new to this particular question.

Truly, if I could attend a Hawks game sometime, you are one of the 3 or 4 Hawksquakers I'd want sitting beside me or nearby. But, I've learned all too well that when you and I dive into a debate, no one wins... not you, not me, and nobody on the board that has to put up with the over-the-top back-and-forth. So... I'm sorry... no offense... but I didn't read but a couple of lines of your reply, and I don't intend to read any further. Go ahead and tell me how I can't handle the truth of your reasoning... that's fine... life will go on, and I'll feel a lot better about it.

Yes, I realize that I've went a round or two with ex over the last couple of days... but take it as a compliment... I've never thought much of ex, and take a lot more joy in giving him and his lapses of reasoning the deer-in-the-headlights treatment--shining the light for everyone to see, while he freezes up, unable to respond directly to most any counterpoint raised, and grasping around for any diversionary point he can offer in a futile wish to save face. I realize that I've acted similarly toward you in the past, but that was then... now, I take no such joy in pursuing or seeing your rhetorical demise... we go back too far.

Good night.

[exodus]

YOu refuse to even discuss the mess that is the Hawks pg situation yet you somehow think that the rookie production of small forwards on other teams has some kind of relevance to the Hawks now.

You are completely out of touch with reality. You are simply incapable of talking about the Hawks present roster. You aren't interested in facts only wishful thinking and hypotheticals.

"Well if Player X was a rookie 6 years ago and his production was similar to MW right now that means that the Marvin pick wasn't that bad".

What about the Hawks pg situation right now?

"sorry that has no relevance to the MW debate"

Huh? the Hawks passed on two franchise pgs to pick MW so how is the current pg problems not relevant.

"only the past (my revisionist past) and my projected future matter. The present has no place in the discussion."

Sure thing.

Funny how you haven't made one post about Bibby or Acie this year. You do realize they play on the Hawks right?

[Guest Walter]

...how you (Sturt) can look at the current state of the Hawks, 5 years into the rebuild, without a superstar, with our top 2 and 3 players considerably below the top 2 and 3 players of contenders (the top 10 teams), nearly luxury taxed out, no draft pick this year, $24 million committed the still lame Pg position, at the stage of ending rookie contracts, and still only a 37 win team IN THE WORST EC IN MEMORY IF NOT HISTORY!...All this despite an almost unprecedented amount of draft and salary capitol!...and you, Sturt, see this team as "DONE"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It's as if you are watching in another world, another sport, another team, another time. And sadly, that is one of the not only more predictable opinions here, it is one of the most flawed.

W

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

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

The problem is while you think I'm dismissing a hypothetical situation, you're dismissing a FACT....37 wins. How good do you think Marvin and Smoove are going to get? They'll improve some but do you have any idea how much they'd have to improve for us to win 15 more games? They won't improve that much with Woody. Not enough to disguise his lack of coaching skills.

[DJlaysitup]

Let's see - 13 wins - 26 wins - 30 wins - 37 wins.

That means:

69 losses - 56 losses - 52 losses - 45 losses

106 wins - 212 losses...........Hmmmm

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

.... Sure, Paul has arguably turned out to be an elite player

How astute of you sturt to figure this out! Yes, CP3 was 2nd in the MVP voting - took a pile of stuff to the quarters.

So I would agree that he is "arguably" pretty good.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

"If you don't have the ability to be a people person with basketball knowledge you're in trouble, because what happens, I think, all too often is that it's not just about making basketball decisions anymore," Sund said. "It's about being able to get everybody on the same page. It's about management."

It appears Sund is speaking as much about BK when he says "you have to be a people person with basketball knowledge to GM" as he is when he says "they stuck with the plan" (good or bad, poorly or well executed).

I love reading into these things whatever I want like Sturt. I don't think BK's mother would consider him a "people person". Hmmm?

W

[Joker]

I don't always see eye to eye with sturt but I agree with him 100% on this topic.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The problem is while you think I'm dismissing a hypothetical situation, you're dismissing a FACT

Sturt isn't interested in facts. He is only interested in "the plan" but a plan and 50 cents only gets you a morning paper. When you look at the facts:

1) The Hawks won 37 games in a weak conference

2) They have $23 million invested in a pg situation that is still a mess.

3) They were 2nd to last in the NBA in perimeter shooting.

4) They have possibly the shortest starting 4/5 combo in the NBA.

5) They are capped out.

6) They have no draft picks this year.

7) Their bench is lame.

All of this has to be laid at the feet of BK. Sund has his work cut out for him, unless of course to goal is to be an average team.

[Packfill]

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 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.

I thought BK said the plan was to build a championship contender, or am I mistaken about this?

History tells us that the only teams in the past 25 years to win a championship without one of the top 5 players in the game on their roster is Detroit, which accomplished that feat three times (twice with I. Thomas, who some may argue was a top 5 player, but I don't think so). Both those Detroit teams had the advantage of having hall-of-fame coaches.

Obviously "top 5" players are hard to get. Those are guys competing for MVPs each year and when you have a chance to get one, you do so, but if you miss that chance then that can cripple a franchise.

[Plainview1981]

If he had drafted the correct player... Who knows, the Hawks might be at 50 wins. But Billy doesn't understand the PG or Center position because he hasn't filled either position with a good enough player.

[Plainview1981]

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.

If Billy didn't get the best player out of this deal, he failed at his job. It doesn't matter what anybody here says, we are not paid to be a GM and our job is not to figure out the best player. That's Billy's JOB and he failed. Period.

[Plainview1981]

We just took one of the two best teams in the NBA to 7 games with one of the YOUNGEST teams in the league.

Yawn. It had more to do with what Boston didn't do than what Atlanta did do. It took Boston to the 3rd round to win a road game. That's dude to the lack of toughness they showed on the road until the Detroit series. Because of that series, Boston can't be a creditable champion.

Those 3 games in Boston speaks alot louder than those 3 games in Atlanta. The road and winning in games outside of your comfort zone shows what kind of team you really are. The Hawks had a good home record, but when you have like 12 wins on the road all year that means you're not close to being a good team.

The home wins against Boston was obviously a good thing, but you believe it means they will be much better next year with this same team you are in for a big surprise.

[Plainview1981]

ESPN and NBADRAFT.net don't get paid to select the best player for the Hawks. Billy Knight was getting paid and he failed to get the best player.

[sturt]

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.

If Billy didn't get the best player out of this deal, he failed at his job. It doesn't matter what anybody here says, we are not paid to be a GM and our job is not to figure out the best player. That's Billy's JOB and he failed. Period.

Okay, FIRST, for this particular line of conversation under the heading of this post, let's not let the point get lost so soon after it was made...

Paul was not regarded as an elite player, therefore, thinking in retrospect--since that is what one must to do in order to stay on topic and thus be relevant to THIS thread--even had BK chosen the player that most considered to be a #3-#5 pick for this draft, it is clear that, by the measure of ALL who did not have Paul as the number one pick on their list, PAUL WOULD HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR #3 IN THIS PLAN, not #2.

Therefore... if BK had chosen Paul, it would have been indicative that BK felt like he had built up enough core talent assets, and could now move on to addressing the holes in the roster. It could be argued, then, that BK's mistake was in failing to recognize that he had enough core talent assets on the roster already, and could have went ahead to address the roster's remaining needs.

SECOND... what Hotlanta reveals to us is valid. GMs are paid to be perfect... and when they aren't, they receive the criticism they deserve.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

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.

If Billy didn't get the best player out of this deal, he failed at his job. It doesn't matter what anybody here says, we are not paid to be a GM and our job is not to figure out the best player. That's Billy's JOB and he failed. Period.

Okay, FIRST, for this particular line of conversation under the heading of this post, let's not let the point get lost so soon after it was made...

Paul was not regarded as an elite player, therefore, thinking in retrospect--since that is what one must to do in order to stay on topic and thus be relevant to THIS thread--even had BK chosen the player that most considered to be a #3-#5 pick for this draft, it is clear that, by the measure of ALL who did not have Paul as the number one pick on their list, PAUL WOULD HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR #3 IN THIS PLAN, not #2.

Therefore... if BK had chosen Paul, it would have been indicative that BK felt like he had built up enough core talent assets, and could now move on to addressing the holes in the roster. It could be argued, then, that BK's mistake was in failing to recognize that he had enough core talent assets on the roster already, and could have went ahead to address the roster's remaining needs.

SECOND... what Hotlanta reveals to us is valid. GMs are paid to be perfect... and when they aren't, they receive the criticism they deserve.

Paul was regarded as an elite prospect. There are multiple primary sources that evidence he was regarded as one of the top point guard prospects to come along in years.

[Cwell]

WTF Paul was an elite prospect he could have went just as high if he came out as a freshman which everyone thought.Wake was lucky to have him 2 years.I could tell the first game I watched him he would be great.He was a freshman nobody would shut up about.Nobody knew who that damn 6th man was till the draft.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Paul was not regarded as an elite player...Therefore... if BK had chosen Paul, it would have been indicative that BK felt like he had built up enough core talent assets, and could now move on to addressing the holes in the roster. It could be argued, then, that BK's mistake was in failing to recognize that he had enough core talent assets on the roster already, and could have went ahead to address the roster's remaining needs.

It wasn't "BK's failings to recognize that he had enough core talent assets on the roster already" or his failure to assess accurately the sheer overwhelming impact Paul (or to a lesser degree, Deron) would have that was BK's problem, it was the failure to accurately assess MW's potential and the likelihood he would reach it. Truth is that we STILL don't have "enough core talent" as is evident by the fact that our top 2-3 players are significantly statistically less than the top 2-3 players of contending (top 10) teams! Moreover, the OVERWHELMING positional value of and need at Pg verses the positional glut at Sf with Childress, Diaw, JS, and Al Harrington meant that a GM smart enough to WEIGH ALL THE FACTS across the spectrum of need verses talent when selecting a high lottery player meant that any assessment of relative talent that indicated Paul and/or Deron were at least remotely close to MW suggested them over MW. I think we all understood that Paul and Deron were AT MINIMUM franchise Pgs meaning 10 year high quality (top 10) starters and AT LEAST occasional all-stars at the position and should assume that even BK was aware of this. This was the BARE MINIMUM standard that MW not only had to equal but exceed significantly given he played a less valuable position we had no need in filling.

The majority of the problem lies in that BK wasn't a good enough talent evaluator to realize that MW was not remotely close to as talented as the hype he was receiving after UNC's title run would indicate and wasn't the type of lead player personality to ever reach anywhere near his meager potential. I watched 15 UNC games that year and knew that MW simply wasn't a lead player or as remotely as talented as people wanted to believe about him. It was so obvious to me I was shocked by all the hype he got. It wasn't like he was a super talented guy content to play quiet and remain in the shadows or even disappear in big games or at big moments. That's a bad enough indictment but the truth was he simply wasn't THAT talented. If he were THAT talented, in today's basketball world he would have been the 2nd or 3rd highest ranked HSer the previous year and could have carried his HS team to at least a winning record. I've seen players like Dontonio Wingfield, marginal NBA talents (in his case a head case), carry their otherwise empty of talent HS teams to overwhelming winning records.

BK MAY have accurately assessed the team's (currently remaining) need for a superstar but he did nothing else right. It may have been this assessment that further clouded BK's questionable judgement (although the promise to and selection of SW the following year indicated the only consistent thing about BK's high lottery selections to that point were that they were horrendously wrong headed and not based upon either a BPA or need philosophy). He may have thought, "we still need a superstar" and panicked. Regardless, BK didn't have to predict the superstardom of Paul or early all-star ability of Deron. He simply had to determine that MW had not only significantly greater talent but a significantly greater likelihood of reaching said potential than Deron or CP3. It was the most important decision of his job, it wasn't as difficult to get right as people who "hype" the "consensus" would want to suggest, all BK had to do was look past the hype within his research (something we found he was loath to do the next year with his failure to tryout ANYBODY), and he blew it as badly as he could. Good riddance.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Truth

is that we STILL don't have "enough core talent" as is evident by the fact that our top 2-3 players are significantly statistically less than the top 2-3 players of contending (top 10) teams! Moreover, the OVERWHELMING positional value of and need at Pg verses the positional glut at Sf with Childress, Diaw, JS, and Al Harrington

Truth and facts are of no interest to sturt. Revisionist history and wishful thinking are his focus.

[Traceman]

You and I disagree on Marv's potential but BK still missed. I think it is possible for Marv to become a 22/7/3 guy who shoots a high percentage and plays great D (All Star caliber numbers) and yet BK will STILL have missed because both Paul and Deron are significantly better than that.

Bottom line is that Marv may yet become the player that BK envisioned but that player is not going to be better than Paul or Deron. In my opinion, BK's error was not so much over-valuing Marvin as it was under-valuing Paul and Deron.