Players thoughts on LD, Sund on hiring and LD LIVE

[Admin]

Sorry I wanted to embed these but their damn player automatically plays the files so here are the links to the individual interviews.

LD's coaching style (Live interview): http://i.cdn.turner....ew_coaching.nba

LD on getting JJ back (Live interview): http://i.cdn.turner....ew_jjohnson.nba

LD's journey (Live interview): http://i.cdn.turner....rew_journey.nba

LD One on One: http://i.cdn.turner....TERVIEW-1347426

Players thoughts on LD: http://i.cdn.turner....ONLARRY-1347740

Sund on hiring LD: http://i.cdn.turner....kondrew-1347725

[HawksFan87]

at the end of the day, what we think of larry drew doesn't really matter. As long as the players like him, and will play extremely hard for him. Is probably what the owners looked at,other than them being extremely cheap lol..

[BusBoyIsBack]

at the end of the day, what we think of larry drew doesn't really matter. As long as the players like him, and will play extremely hard for him. Is probably what the owners looked at,other than them being extremely cheap lol..

EXACTLY

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/swf/1.1/cvp/nba_embed_container.swf?context=nba&videoId=teams/hawks/2010/06/14/PLAYERSONLARRY-1347740

How can you watch that player reaction and not be excited or at the very least a little less disturbed with the move?

[HawksFan87]

That certainly helped me feel a little better, but I still wanna see some practices or something first before I make my final judgement..

[coachx]

I love the talk on Teague. Its nice to hear he has been at Phillips practicing through the early part of the off season while other guys vacation.

Its good to see a hungry kid like that with work ethic.

I like Drew's persona alot. He seems to be genuine and very real.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Notice the pessimists all avoid this thread

[HawkItus]

I keep looking for articles or video for when Mike Woodson was hired. I want to know the vibe was like back then.

[GameTime]

The fact that our 2nd team (coached by Drew) sometimes defeated our first team shows how much better Drew is than Woodson.

[Seano]

Having Drew clearly in his corner and completely supportive of him has to be a huge shot of confidence for Teague, and sometimes that can be all it takes for a young player, someone who believes in him and has faith in him like that, and is willing to show it. And an obvious part of developing a youngster is to not be fickle with him. If you see him as being a player and a part of your future, then you stick with him and your support of him does not waver even when he struggles, as most young players tend to do from time to time. That's called player development, and sticking with a kid through the inevitable growing pains. And somehow I feel that Larry Drew will do a much better job with that aspect of coaching than Woody ever did.

[Sothron]

Notice the pessimists all avoid this thread

Talk is cheap. The ASG continue to run their two teams as cheaply as they can. Drew may be a great coach but the only reason he was hired is because he is THE CHEAPEST head coach in the ENTIRE league.

[Admin]

Talk is cheap. The ASG continue to run their two teams as cheaply as they can.

This is absolutely not true and it's highly misleading. Heck anyone can look at the roster, see that we aren't among the lower salaried teams, and see that your statement is completely false. If you don't agree with that then can you prove that your statement is true with something even remotely factual? Seriously I keep reading statements like these and I have to wonder if some of you are familiar with the CBA. And then I have to wonder if some of you are familiar with a guy named Donald Sterling because if you were then you'd never even consider calling the ASG cheap.

Drew may be a great coach but the only reason he was hired is because he is THE CHEAPEST head coach in the ENTIRE league.

Again this is more of your opinion and it sounds like you are trying to pass this off as a fact when it's not. I'm not saying that salary was not among the considerations in our coaching search but I'd also bet that close to 100% of hirings/signings that happen in the NBA have at least some discussion relating to the salaries of those being considered for the position.

[Sothron]

This is absolutely not true and it's highly misleading. Heck anyone can look at the roster, see that we aren't among the lower salaried teams, and see that your statement is completely false. If you don't agree with that then can you prove that your statement is true with something even remotely factual? Seriously I keep reading statements like these and I have to wonder if some of you are familiar with the CBA. And then I have to wonder if some of you are familiar with a guy named Donald Sterling because if you were then you'd never even consider calling the ASG cheap.

Again this is more of your opinion and it sounds like you are trying to pass this off as a fact when it's not. I'm not saying that salary was not among the considerations in our coaching search but I'd also bet that close to 100% of hirings/signings that happen in the NBA have at least some discussion relating to the salaries of those being considered for the position.

I will try to respond politely to this. You note I don't insert invective comments and personal insults against people I disagree with. For someone on this site to suggest I don't know what the CBA is when I routinely have to explain it to others is laughable.

The Hawks have had the lowest payroll among Eastern Conference playoff teams for three years in a row.

The Thrashers (the NHL team the ASG owns) struggle EVERY SEASON to meet the league MINIMUM salary requirements. Let me repeat that so you understand: they have to make bad trades and sign bad contracts just to GET UP TO the MINIMUM team salary.

The ASG have hired two head coaches in the NBA and both were cheap hires as they were both assistant coaches eager for any head coaching experience in the NBA. Larry Drew is THE CHEAPEST head coach in the ENTIRE league. The ASG hired assistant coaches for the Thrashers as well and they even went almost an entire season WITHOUT a head coach because they wouldn't PAY to hire another one.

Billy Knight wanted to fire Woodson THREE TIMES and each time the ASG said NO because they didn't want to pay him to sit at home and still have to pay another head coach's contract. I had those three times confirmed with the sources I had at the time and they all said the only reason Woodson was not fired was because of money. It had nothing to do with performance.

The ASG hasn't ever spent the full MLE on any player and they don't even keep a full roster. They wouldn't buy the Chicago Wolves in the AHL so they are one of the two teams (IIRC it is still two) in the entire NHL that doesn't even own their minor league team. They wouldn't spend the money to buy it so they are forced to watch their prospects every season not get developed as they should because the Wolves care more about winning than developing talent for their big league club.

The ASG has had several chances to retain All Star talent for the Thrashers and routinely did not spend the money to keep anyone. This is why all the former Thrasher greats are on other teams. The ASG won't spend a dime more than they have to for the Thrashers. They didn't even fire Don Waddell the most incompetent GM in hockey history, they simply "promoted" him to avoid paying for another GM while still paying his salary.

I can keep going but I think I've made enough of a case for anyone whose not a blind homer to see how cheap this ownership group is.

[vext]

So, you're saying that they are being cheap because LD makes less than every coach in the league? I just want to make sure I am following your reasoning. The coach with the least amount of actual Head Coaching experience in the league makes the least amount of money right now. Is that accurate? And again, how is that a problem?

Also, did you ever think that maybe we have the smallest payroll out of Eastern conference playoff teams because we didn't overspend on Smoove, Marvin, Bibby, and Zaza? Or maybe because one of our two all-stars is still on his rookie contract? Or maybe we just can't afford to spend Cuban money because our owners aren't billionaires? It could be that they are trying to be financially responsible so that they don't have to sell our team? No, I am being serious. I literally just starting thinking about what would cause to have the smallest payroll and still make the playoffs aside from possibly just being cheap. I really think that it's because we had so many rookie contract players the first year, didn't resign Chill the 2nd year (which we should have), and were able to make decent deals last summer.

And according to hoopshype, we were the smallest payroll out of Eastern Conference Playoff teams by 1.1 million. Yeah, the owners are just so cheap. What is that? One more veteran minimum? That's not as extreme as everyone makes it out to be.

Now, for the Thrashers. The owners obviously can't really afford two professional teams and should probably sell the Thrashers or get additional backing. They should have gotten the Russian to put up 50% of the money on both teams. I mean, he's Russian. You know he likes hockey...

[vext]

Oh, but we will truly see how cheap they are this summer with Joe. We'll see how much money he gets if he walks.

[Admin]

I will try to respond politely to this. You note I don't insert invective comments and personal insults against people I disagree with. For someone on this site to suggest I don't know what the CBA is when I routinely have to explain it to others is laughable.

The Hawks have had the lowest payroll among Eastern Conference playoff teams for three years in a row.

The Thrashers (the NHL team the ASG owns) struggle EVERY SEASON to meet the league MINIMUM salary requirements. Let me repeat that so you understand: they have to make bad trades and sign bad contracts just to GET UP TO the MINIMUM team salary.

The ASG have hired two head coaches in the NBA and both were cheap hires as they were both assistant coaches eager for any head coaching experience in the NBA. Larry Drew is THE CHEAPEST head coach in the ENTIRE league. The ASG hired assistant coaches for the Thrashers as well and they even went almost an entire season WITHOUT a head coach because they wouldn't PAY to hire another one.

Billy Knight wanted to fire Woodson THREE TIMES and each time the ASG said NO because they didn't want to pay him to sit at home and still have to pay another head coach's contract. I had those three times confirmed with the sources I had at the time and they all said the only reason Woodson was not fired was because of money. It had nothing to do with performance.

The ASG hasn't ever spent the full MLE on any player and they don't even keep a full roster. They wouldn't buy the Chicago Wolves in the AHL so they are one of the two teams (IIRC it is still two) in the entire NHL that doesn't even own their minor league team. They wouldn't spend the money to buy it so they are forced to watch their prospects every season not get developed as they should because the Wolves care more about winning than developing talent for their big league club.

The ASG has had several chances to retain All Star talent for the Thrashers and routinely did not spend the money to keep anyone. This is why all the former Thrasher greats are on other teams. The ASG won't spend a dime more than they have to for the Thrashers. They didn't even fire Don Waddell the most incompetent GM in hockey history, they simply "promoted" him to avoid paying for another GM while still paying his salary.

I can keep going but I think I've made enough of a case for anyone whose not a blind homer to see how cheap this ownership group is.

First off I'm only going to comment on the Hawks since I don't follow the Thrashers and know nothing about their situation.

Now let me get this straight in your estimation because they haven't spent the full MLE on any player that is a reason to call them cheap? It is a little deceptive to use the term "ever" as that implies a long period of time when the truth is that we only qualify for the MLE when we're over the cap at the beginning of the offseason. Now I'm not sure if there is a site out there that lists whether a team qualified for the MLE on a year by year basis that we can go back and look at but from my memory over the last 6 years I believe we've had the MLE available to us once, maybe twice. I could be wrong on that but I'm fairly sure that 4-5 of those 6 years we had cap room. Of course in that case we'd have that cap room to spend so I'm going to assume that by your definition unless the ASG spends every dollar possible each offseason then you consider them to be cheap. Am I correct in making that assumption? Let's not forget that the ASG were being screwed over by one of their fellow owners on an annual basis, they lose money on the Hawks every year, and the fact that until last year the only decent or better FA that wanted to play for the Hawks over that 6 year period is Joe Johnson so it's not like FAs were beating down the Hawks doors to sign here and the ASG were turning them away. So were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

As to us having the lowest payroll among EC playoff teams I have to once again make the argument that in order to build up a teams payroll on a year by year basis and without having massive contracts to move around you must draft players that will eventually require big contracts. The Hawks have failed to do that all 6 years so they lose out on getting to pay big money to the likes of Chris Paul and Brandon Roy but if they had drafted those players the current payroll would be 20 million higher than it is now. So where would that put the Hawks among the EC playoff teams as far as payroll goes? I'm going to assume among the highest but feel free to look that up yourself. The blame for that does not lie with the ASG but it lies with Billy Knight failing to draft a star player for 5 consecutive years. Had he drafted one or more I'm absolutely certain the ASG would have paid them fairly because they've shown time and again that they will sign our guys coming off of rookie contracts to fair deals. So were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

Please name for me the big name high salaried head coaches that wanted to coach the Hawks back in 2003 when they hired Woody. That's right there weren't any so again were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

As far as believing the reason why BK wasn't allowed to fire Woodson was because they didn't want to pay 2 coaches I guess you'd like us to take your word that you had sources at the time and although I don't want to get Hawksquawk into that mess again I hope you'll understand my skepticism for not believing that was the primary reason for blocking his termination since that was never made public knowledge by a reputable source. I'd also like to point to the fact that they gave Woody a 2 year extension for 2008 and 2009 and I'd have to image that if the reason why he wasn't fired before was because of not wanting to double pay a coach that they wouldn't have given im that extension. So were they being cheap here? The answer is most likely not.

I do seem to get a general sense from you that if they aren't spending every single penny available to them every single year that you are going to call them cheap when the truth is that there has been a combination of a lack of options and spending wisely that have contributed greatly to what they spend annually.

[Admin]

Oh, but we will truly see how cheap they are this summer with Joe. We'll see how much money he gets if he walks.

Unfortunately that will only be true if Joe wants to come back and we don't offer him a reasonable contract. It's entirely possible that Joe could sign for less than he made last year with some team and that he wouldn't re-sign with the Hawks regardless of whether or not they trumped the other offer.

[DJlaysitup]

at the end of the day, what we think of larry drew doesn't really matter. As long as the players like him, and will play extremely hard for him.....

But you see - that is the problem - the fact that they like him doesn't mean they will play hard for him. I have been in a similar situation before in the navy (as an officer in charge of a department on a ship that sailed the Med). The guy I relieved from duty was a total jerk (Bobby Knight type) and everybody wanted me to come in and be the "breath of fresh air" - y'know - a nice guy. I quickly realized that I couldn't do that too much. Granted I was a much nicer guy than the other guy in practice,..... but I still held firm to the chain of command so as to not allow my position to be compromised.

Edited June 16, 2010 by DJlaysitup

[Diesel]

EXACTLY

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/swf/1.1/cvp/nba_embed_container.swf?context=nba&videoId=teams/hawks/2010/06/14/PLAYERSONLARRY-1347740

How can you watch that player reaction and not be excited or at the very least a little less disturbed with the move?

I'm actually glad that the players like him and that he will bring ball movement from left to right.

[Sothron]

First off I'm only going to comment on the Hawks since I don't follow the Thrashers and know nothing about their situation.

Now let me get this straight in your estimation because they haven't spent the full MLE on any player that is a reason to call them cheap? It is a little deceptive to use the term "ever" as that implies a long period of time when the truth is that we only qualify for the MLE when we're over the cap at the beginning of the offseason. Now I'm not sure if there is a site out there that lists whether a team qualified for the MLE on a year by year basis that we can go back and look at but from my memory over the last 6 years I believe we've had the MLE available to us once, maybe twice. I could be wrong on that but I'm fairly sure that 4-5 of those 6 years we had cap room. Of course in that case we'd have that cap room to spend so I'm going to assume that by your definition unless the ASG spends every dollar possible each offseason then you consider them to be cheap. Am I correct in making that assumption? Let's not forget that the ASG were being screwed over by one of their fellow owners on an annual basis, they lose money on the Hawks every year, and the fact that until last year the only decent or better FA that wanted to play for the Hawks over that 6 year period is Joe Johnson so it's not like FAs were beating down the Hawks doors to sign here and the ASG were turning them away. So were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

As to us having the lowest payroll among EC playoff teams I have to once again make the argument that in order to build up a teams payroll on a year by year basis and without having massive contracts to move around you must draft players that will eventually require big contracts. The Hawks have failed to do that all 6 years so they lose out on getting to pay big money to the likes of Chris Paul and Brandon Roy but if they had drafted those players the current payroll would be 20 million higher than it is now. So where would that put the Hawks among the EC playoff teams as far as payroll goes? I'm going to assume among the highest but feel free to look that up yourself. The blame for that does not lie with the ASG but it lies with Billy Knight failing to draft a star player for 5 consecutive years. Had he drafted one or more I'm absolutely certain the ASG would have paid them fairly because they've shown time and again that they will sign our guys coming off of rookie contracts to fair deals. So were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

Please name for me the big name high salaried head coaches that wanted to coach the Hawks back in 2003 when they hired Woody. That's right there weren't any so again were they being cheap here? The answer is absolutely not.

As far as believing the reason why BK wasn't allowed to fire Woodson was because they didn't want to pay 2 coaches I guess you'd like us to take your word that you had sources at the time and although I don't want to get Hawksquawk into that mess again I hope you'll understand my skepticism for not believing that was the primary reason for blocking his termination since that was never made public knowledge by a reputable source. I'd also like to point to the fact that they gave Woody a 2 year extension for 2008 and 2009 and I'd have to image that if the reason why he wasn't fired before was because of not wanting to double pay a coach that they wouldn't have given im that extension. So were they being cheap here? The answer is most likely not.

I do seem to get a general sense from you that if they aren't spending every single penny available to them every single year that you are going to call them cheap when the truth is that there has been a combination of a lack of options and spending wisely that have contributed greatly to what they spend annually.

You can't say an ownership group is not cheap when it owns two franchises in Atlanta and won't even debate on one of them. The Thrashers are an absolute laughing stock in the NHL because of how cheap the ASG runs them. The Thrashers debacle ALONE proves as an ownership group they are cheap. The poster above you said they were so cheap they should even sell the Thrashers because they can't afford to own them! How is that NOT cheap? :cant believe:

As for the Hawks, let's see what you got here. You don't disagree the ASG never uses the MLE. You don't disagree the Hawks have had the lowest payroll among Eastern Conference playoff teams for three years running. You don't disagree the Hawks hire cheap assistant coaches to be head coaches. You don't disagree Larry Drew is THE cheapest head coach in the NBA. You don't disagree the ASG won't even let the GM keep a full roster for goodness sake.

I'm trying to find a fact in here that supports your argument and I'm not seeing anything. All I see is your opinion that the team never had a high priced coach interested in it which I have never heard before that post and that because we don't have bad contracts or drafted well we didn't have to overspend on players. Ok...? Where are some facts that showed this team ONCE IT GOT to the playoff level has spent appropriately to make it a better team?

There are no facts. Only opinions. I have never said I expected the ASG to spend every penny on this franchise. Not once. I said they are cheap and the facts prove my point in spades. I don't even need to get into the whole Woody not being fired for financial reasons to show this. They have had a chance every offseason and regular season for three seasons and more now to show their financial backing of this team does extend more than it has and they have failed to do so. The Thrashers for goodness sake barely make the league team MINIMUM salary.

There are facts that show how cheap this ownership is and the only disagreement over that resides in the realm of opinion. I tend to let facts stand over opinion.

[Buzzard]

You can't say an ownership group is not cheap when it owns two franchises in Atlanta and won't even debate on one of them. The Thrashers are an absolute laughing stock in the NHL because of how cheap the ASG runs them. The Thrashers debacle ALONE proves as an ownership group they are cheap. The poster above you said they were so cheap they should even sell the Thrashers because they can't afford to own them! How is that NOT cheap? :cant believe:

As for the Hawks, let's see what you got here. You don't disagree the ASG never uses the MLE. You don't disagree the Hawks have had the lowest payroll among Eastern Conference playoff teams for three years running. You don't disagree the Hawks hire cheap assistant coaches to be head coaches. You don't disagree Larry Drew is THE cheapest head coach in the NBA. You don't disagree the ASG won't even let the GM keep a full roster for goodness sake.

There are facts that show how cheap this ownership is and the only disagreement over that resides in the realm of opinion. I tend to let facts stand over opinion.

They are reportedly trying to sell the Thrashers. Two ways most ownerships go with that. One is slash payroll and make the team more affordable to buy and the other is to have a Yankees type team and get a high price. Not going to go any further with the Thrashers since I do not follow Hockey; but it seems to me if they really want to dump the Thrashers they are making the best of a bad situation by making them affordable.

As far as the Hawks, we have a very young team and until last season we had one all-star. I do not see how payroll could be much higher given our ( blown) draft picks and players. I do not doubt for one moment that the ASG wants to keep payroll down. That is just smart business to not overpay for players; but at the sametime once we resign Horf and if we retain JJ, our payroll will in all probability jump into the top 15. That is not cheap but it is frugal. In fact a lot of owners may very well consider us a model, if we continue our upward trend and keep payroll below the top ten....

Edited June 16, 2010 by Buzzard