Truth and Rumors

[Zone034life]

ajc.com

Truth and rumors with Blog Z!

By Sekou K Smith | Saturday, May 31, 2008, 11:08 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

SMYRNA - Now that the Hawks have their new general manager (Rick Sund) and the top-secret double undercover search is finally over, we need to get to the truth.

And who better to assist us all in that endeavor than our resident dagger thrower Mr. Blog Z.

Five quick questions and answers with the Michael Jordan of smack talkin’:

Q. Did the Hawks really get turned down by both Dennis Lindsey and Chris Grant? Z. No. Lindsey never even had a formal interview. Grant, meanwhile, was close to getting the job but negotiations broke down before a contract could be agreed upon. It’s disingenuous for either man to say that they turned the Hawks down, because it simply is not true.

Q. But Rick Sund wasn’t the first choice, was he? He came out of nowhere. Z. That’s not entirely true. He was not the first choice. But he interviewed for the job weeks ago, not last Tuesday night. He was a member of the “short list” that never made it to the public. He was one of the original candidates and could have finished second if the Hawks had come to terms with Grant. But there’s a reason people wait to announce something like this. The contracts have to be signed first. And when it came time to sign, Sund’s name was on the bottom line.

Q. But so many people believe what they read about both Grant and Lindsey turning the job down. Isn’t that yet another black eye for the Hawks? Z. Look, people choose to believe nonsense all the time. I’ll admit it’s fun to believe the hype sometimes. Few of us can resist. But try and think about this thing logically. No other team has seen fit to make either Mr. Grant or Mr. Lindsey a general manager, so the Hawks’ decision to go in another direction isn’t really so radical. They could both turn out to be very good GM’s some day. But until then, we’ll never know. Lindsey’s been a candidate before elsewhere. But Grant wouldn’t get an interview for a GM job anywhere else. The only reason he made the Hawks’ list is because of his history with the franchise. Keep it real.

Q. So is Sund Michael Gearon’s sock puppet or what? That’s what the rumor mill says. Z. You better hope that’s now how this is going to work. And nobody hires a 34-year NBA veteran to be a “sock puppet.” The Hawks need someone capable of guiding the franchise in a way that no owner is capable of doing, and I don’t care who that owner might be. That doesn’t mean Sund won’t have to answer to the owners in some form or fashion, just as Billy Knight did before him. But that also doesn’t mean he’ll be taking direct orders from them on basketball issues either. He’s the man on all things basketball now, the same way Knight was up until the February trade deadline.

Q. That brings us to the fifth, final and most frequently asked question. What’s the call going to be on Hawks coach Mike Woodson’s and who makes it? Z. My gut says he comes back (Knight was going to be retained as well but wasn’t interested in a one-year extension). But I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it. And Sund makes the call. He has to. If the ownership crew had decided to make Woodson a guarantee that he was going to be the coach next year no matter what, they’d have done it already. Sund’s two weeks of evaluation will be huge. If he sees red flags and believes a change needs to be made, then he’ll have the leeway to do just that. We’ll all know a whole lot more in two weeks.

Now that we’ve finished with those pleasantries, can we please get back to the other business at hand?

Sund has more pressing issues than our friend Blog Z. He has team to figure out, franchise-altering decisions to make and a culture to change.

Since the powers that be around here won’t let us do all Hawks all the time in the newspaper, there’s some spillover from our Sunday package on Sund that didn’t make the cut.

He addressed a few pertinent issues regarding this team that you might find interesting.

— Sund on how to handle negotiations with the Joshes (Smith and Childress, and isn’t it time we came up with a better way of identifying these cats?): “We made the playoffs with this team. There’s no question are goal is to keep them both. There can be difficult moments in negotiations but that’s because players need to do what’s best for them and the organization needs to do the same. But eventually it comes together if it’s handled correctly. And hopefully it will be.”

— Sund on team chemistry: “In most cases it evolves, chemistry, as opposed to being directed. That’s how success and leadership develops. You can’t tell me that the last month of the season and the playoffs that the chemistry wasn’t better than it was in November and December, and I obviously [wasn’t] pay close attention to it then. I think it’s good that they made the playoffs this year and it’s good they got a taste, but it’s also beneficial that they didn’t really get there either. I think these players will look at that and realize that we’re not there yet. But if we get there it will really be exciting and fun. And that chemistry hopefully evolves during that process. The main thing is keeping everyone focused on winning. The general manager has to do the best he can to make sure the entire focus is on winning. Trying to create a winning culture. Some of that can be a little bit more directed than evolved.”

— Sund on handling the post-playoff taste the Hawks are coming down from: “When they got beat, I’m sure they were ready to tip it off for October the next day. I hope the fans are, I hope the city is. But you can’t get too low on the lows and can’t get too high on the highs. Because there are going to be lows next year and you got to stay healthy. But I worry about both ends of the spectrum. Because if you’re not ready to be elite and you get too high on the back end of say a four or five game winning streak, you’re in trouble.”

— Sund on change for the sake of change: “The structure of the team has already been started. There was a game plan. I think it would be foolish for anybody to come in and try to change the game plan of a team that is already pointed in the right direction. And I used pointed because you want to become an elite team. If you do that you have a legitimate shot to compete at a championship level. Everywhere I’ve gone that’s been the goal. Our focus is to become elite and then you have a chance to compete for that championship.”

— Sund on what constitutes elite: “To me, you have a heck of a chance to compete for that championship in the playoffs by getting that home court advantage. Eight teams [four from each conference] start out on that platform. And if you can be one of those top eight teams you’ve got a chance. That was our goal in Detroit. Let’s become elite. The goal is always to become elite. You have to take that step first.”

— Sund on the Hawks’ apparent lack of extra curricular personality theatre: “That’s a huge plus and a real feather in Billy Knight’s cap. He did a great job with the character of this team. That helps because one of the real problems with everybody is the highs and lows of the season. And it’s accentuated a bit with younger players. It’s easier to deal with that when your core players are young but have good character. You’re still going your issues and your highs and lows and you just have to be able to deal with them.”

[DrReality]

This info gives me hope.

[DJlaysitup]

FIRE WOODY !!!

[Cwell]

Quote:

---

FIRE WOODY !!!

exactly what I was thinking

[KB21]

This info should teach you to not always believe what you read from the national media about the Hawks.

[DrReality]

It's not the media that I believe or not it is the actions/inaction of the ASG over the past few years. "If there is one thing that man learns from history, it's that man does not learn from history." Hope this is not true for ASG.

[Packfill]

Here is the question though, why couldn't the Hawks and Grant agree to a contract? This article suggests he was the first choice (scary as that may be).

Was the inability to get a contract due to financial/economic considerations (salry/number of years) or other issues (authority, etc.)?

[WraithSentinel]

Hawks probably refuse to get him a copy of NBA Live or NBA 2K. I heard a rumor of him saying if he doesn't have one of those two games he will not be able to be an effective GM.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

Here is the question though, why couldn't the Hawks and Grant agree to a contract? This article suggests he was the first choice (scary as that may be).

Was the inability to get a contract due to financial/economic considerations (salry/number of years) or other issues (authority, etc.)?

I don't think they wanted to pay Grant what a normal GM would make. Which isn't too bad, considering he doesn't have experience as the GM. I'm actually glad we didn't hire another assistant GM. It's obvious by hiring a 34 year vet that we're taking our front office in another direction.

[Zone034life]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here is the question though, why couldn't the Hawks and Grant agree to a contract? This article suggests he was the first choice (scary as that may be).

Was the inability to get a contract due to financial/economic considerations (salry/number of years) or other issues (authority, etc.)?

I don't think they wanted to pay Grant what a normal GM would make. Which isn't too bad, considering he doesn't have experience as the GM. I'm actually glad we didn't hire another assistant GM. It's obvious by hiring a 34 year vet that we're taking our front office in another direction.

I think you hit it on the head. Grant looked at this opportunity and saw dollar signs. To bad for him ASG looked at him as a cheap discount to all the other candidates. Grant has to put in more time and gain more respect before he garners top salary. The vidoe guy thought he was about to get paid.Lol!

[DrReality]

He's been around long enough to know that his chances were difficult if he didn't have the right circumstances. What if it wasn't money but he wanted to have the power to make the decisions without the owners looking over his shoulder. Could be either one or both?