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

[Packfill]

You could argue that BK undervalued the point guard position throughout his tenure with the Hawks, forcing him to draft law this year and subsequently trade for Bibby.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

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.

And the only real quick fix for our situation is a new coach. We can't do to much with trades (nothing significant anyway) or pick up any HQ FA's. We have to hope we are a better team than we've been putting out on the floor. I honestly believe our team is better than 37 wins and they showed that against Boston. But if Sund doesn't get us a new coach this year, we may be looking at yet another re-build.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

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.

Good thing we've already been walking around on crutches for the entire Atlanta Hawks life. It would be hard to cripple an already sad franchise.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

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.

Ok, here is where you and I (and the rest of the NBA world outside of Hawks fandom) disagree. BK was far from simply being imperfect. The man was below average. Way below average for 2 NBA teams now.

I can tell you're one of those "glasses half full" guys but you are way off on your judging of BK. Now I'm not saying BK is an idiot. He has probably forgot more basketball blah blah blah. But when you're getting paid to be one of the top 30 NBA minds in the world you have a lot to live up to. The guy got us some decent young talent but that is where his positives stop and he did that by putting together a lousy team year after year. It was a horrible cycle that had to come to an end.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

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.

W

Exactly. The only way that draft would have panned out is if Marvin became an MVP type of player. That is the only way that pick made any sense. He had to know that there were 2 pgs that were legit NBA players for the long haul.

I disagree with you on the rest of our team (I think we have more talent than you think Walter) but you are right on about that pick.

[Plainview1981]

He has not fixed the PG problem, the center problem, or the coaching problem... The lack of depth or the ability to put a TEAM together. He was alittle more than a flawed GM. He was bad. I'm not sure what his overall record is as a GM, but I can tell you that it's pretty d@mn bad.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

He has not fixed the PG problem, the center problem, or the coaching problem... The lack of depth or the ability to put a TEAM together. He was alittle more than a flawed GM. He was bad. I'm not sure what his overall record is as a GM, but I can tell you that it's pretty

d@mn

bad.

So tell us how you really feel.

I know that wasn't meant to be funny but i couldn't help but laugh reading that.

[Plainview1981]

I wonder who has a higher winning percentage? Woody as a coach or Billy as a GM. It's got to be somewhere in the 25-28% range somewhere.

[DrReality]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He has not fixed the PG problem, the center problem, or the coaching problem... The lack of depth or the ability to put a TEAM together. He was alittle more than a flawed GM. He was bad. I'm not sure what his overall record is as a GM, but I can tell you that it's pretty

d@mn

bad.

The current pg's could be the answer to our problem . . . with the right coach. Same is true for our bench. We have guys that were not used to develop them. And I don't know if it's possible to pull the team together with the ownership debacle going on. That is not to say that I'm a BK fan, I'm not. But I think there are decent chances that we have a lot of the pieces needed to get this thing right, I just don't think they were utilized appropriately by our coach. If Sund doesn't do something with Woody now it's going to bite him in the arse.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

Ok, here is where you and I (and the rest of the NBA world outside of Hawks fandom) disagree. BK was far from simply being imperfect. The man was below average. Way below average for 2 NBA teams now.

I can tell you're one of those "glasses half full" guys but you are way off on your judging of BK. Now I'm not saying BK is an idiot. He has probably forgot more basketball blah blah blah. But when you're getting paid to be one of the top 30 NBA minds in the world you have a lot to live up to. The guy got us some decent young talent but that is where his positives stop and he did that by putting together a lousy team year after year. It was a horrible cycle that had to come to an end.

Humor me and imagine for the moment that the Hawks do what Sund's mid-to-late 80s Mavs did after a similar kind of long-term plan and lay-the-foundation progression... if you aren't familiar, essentially the Mavs first administration took a slow-growth approach, heavy on draft picks, not particularly concerned with W/L records, and thus a bad 1st four years, followed by their first playoff year in 83-84, and then four years of being among the best in the conference.

Question 1: Would you say that such an eventuality would be a unlikely? I assume so. Why is that?

Question 2: Assuming the worst outcome over the next 4-5 seasons, BK's legacy is what it is, and your opinion is substantiated. Assuming the best, on the other hand, how would you say a person should evaluate that? Is BK to be evaluated only on what was achieved during his actual tenure? Given what you've said, I assume so. Why is that?

Interested in your thoughts.

(By implication, not so interested in others since theirs are fairly established and, at this point, repetitive... not that that matters to any of them. )