khaos7

I'm not a Rathbun fan. However, Nique is a bigger issue for me than Bob. I don't know how much more I can take of hearing "nimbers" "heat check" "Flip Mirry"

Plus think of Sund's history of drafting Bigs (in his Seattle days). I don't know if I trust him drafting a big.

Honestly, I'd make the decision on Joe first. I know his contract is up after 2010. However, decide know, in all likelihood, will you keep him. If so, start negotiations now and let the trickle down effect take place.

Sund's interview is up courtesy of 680

I hope they post it soon. I think everyone should hear it. It was really long interview and I believe they covered alot. He's very open and realistic in his expectations. I also feel we got a sneak peak at how negotiations will go. Just me thinking: Flip wants a contract. He may say, "I brought X, Y, and Z to the table; I want more money." Sund may counter, "You never brought X Y and Z to the table before this year. However, I agree you deserve more money, just not the amount you're asking for."

Perhaps. Although I did hear him on Pollack and Bell (a week or so ago maybe) say that last year, had they retained their pick, they would have considered trading it for a vet and that remains a distinct possibility this year. Unfortunately, 790 didn't post when he was on their afternoon show, so I can't provide a link to refer back to.

Also to add to the post, he did mention that due to economics, you'd see more players taking mid level exceptions (Bibby?). He spoke about Acie Law. He said people come down hard on guys like Law because they have the phrase "lottery pick" added to their names. He said if guys who are labeled "lottery picks" don't turn out to be superstars they are labeled as bust. He said, in the past, if you were at pick 11 for example and turned out to be a solid bench contributor, you were fine in the public's view. However, he said that perception has changed. He said Acie was the team's best on ball defender at the point and does know he belongs in the league. He said the question of whether he's a starter or not remains unknown and referenced Devin Harris's transition from Dallas to NJ, role player to All Star.

I agree. He's more engaging and doesn't act as if he has some CIA/top level secrets he's keeping confidential. I think this coming offseason, we'll really get a chance to see what he's capable of, provide ownership doesn't stand in the way.

Here are highlights from Rick Sund's interview on 680: 1) He kept Woody for continuity and believe he made the right choice (ugh) 2) He still believes the team has a lot of growing within (Horford, Smith and Marvin still improving) 3) Joe said this is the happiest he's ever been playing basketball 4) Bibby/Flip/Mo coming to Hawks have been good for Hawks...also, it's been good for their career 5) Josh/Woody deal blown out of proportion. He said blow ups happen, but they have to learn to keep it in house 6) His projection for the team at this stage was to have a winning record at home and win 15-17 games on the road. He's happy where we are, but wants to reach the 17 game goal. He said the elite teams win 20+ on the road. Solid playoff teams win 15-17. He believes we are in that playoff bracket. 7) Said tough decisions in Free Agency are ahead. He said due to the economy, the salary cap will be down and the luxury tax will too. He said he can't go into specifics, but they have to "slice the pie" in a way where they can have depth. He also said (in general terms) you may be better off letting talent go to get a superstar. He said this team has good chemistry. 8) Said he shouldn't get the bulk of the credit for what the Hawks are doing. He said the pieces were in place. However the Hawks specifically got him, so he could "connect the dots" on the team. He also acknowledged he was not the first choice of the Hawks. 9) Talked about understanding opposing teams will get calls on their home court. However, he is concerned when refs gives calls to opposing players in Phillips Arena (mentioned Lebron's game at Phillip's where we lost by a point for an example.) 10) He didn't know if our magic number is 1 or 2 games. He says you have to take into consideration tie breakers, etc. He said it wasn't an exact science.

That's one of the reasons I wanted Avery Johnson here. The Spurs teams he played on could run and gun, play pick and roll, or whatever the situation dictated. They also played solid D. I felt he tried to bring that to Dallas, but the collection of talent he had seemed to want to play Donnie Ball (high offense/no defense) rather than make key stops. The Hawks, I believe are more equipped to play that style. I believe Horford brings more to the table inside than Dampier. Bibby is servicable enough where he can run a time. Joe is tougher than Dirk (IMHO) and more willing to play D. I think Acie would thrive being under him and learned how to be a point guard in this league from a guy who successfully led his team. This may be the only question I would have because of the way he handled Kidd/Harris. However, Harris was never on the end of the bench the way Acie is. Josh is the wildcard. Because he's never played for anybody other than Woodson, we don't know if he'd listen to Avery. But assuming he did, he could have played a role similar to the one Josh Howard plays (second scorer/defensive specialist), provided Avery could get through to him. However, with the ownership debacle, we'll never know. I just believe Avery would have brought a style of play on offense to the Hawks plus stress the defensive fundamentals Woody preaches.

Hope you're right. It really depends on which Hawks team takes the floor.

I got it off of ESPN.com this morning. Even if Houston's is now over .500, the fact remains several teams that could be considered "good" have bad road records.

Even with all of that being said, we have a penchant for bringing out the best in scuffling teams.

And that my friend is sad...

Josh is clearly wrong for cursing out Woody. I'm not a Woody supporter by any stretch of the imagination. However, as the head coach, he deserves respect from his players that should accompany the position. They can have disagreements. Disagreements can be a good thing if you learn from them (ask anyone who has been married for a while in a successful marriage). Having said all that... The improvement the Hawks have experienced, IMHO, is due to the players maturing in the league and playing games, rather than Woodson's X's and O's. If you have talent and play in the league long enough, the game will slow down for you. It's call natural progression. And with a team of young guys, they progressed together. We have a team built to run. Yet, he prefers a slowed down game. His offensive sets lack movement and are predictable at best. I think your record would/should improve every year if you have a bunch of high 1st round draft picks on your roster. Yes, it's a player's league. Woody ain't the one missing free throws. He's not the one jacking up bad shots. He's not the one leaving 3-point shooters unguarded. He's not the one missing defensive assignments. However, A good coach can be the difference between 5 to 10 wins in a season based of how he manages rotations, puts players in the proper places to excel and developing players. From a defensive standpoint, I think Woodson has developed some of his young talent. However, their are two sides of the ball and on the other side of the ball, I believe Woodson has done his players an injustice. How did Josh improve his post moves? He went to Hakeem. Marvin's 3's? Before Price came aboard, he went to one of the coachs at UNC. Horford? His moves are still mechanical and a lot of his points come on put backs and cleaning up the boards (not plays drawn up for him). Don't get me started on Acie. I dogged Diaw when he left here. When he had success with the Suns, I said he was a product of the system. Now, he's with Larry Brown and he's still productive. I believe this collection of talent would thrive under a better coach. I can't think of one time where I said Woody drew up a play and it was a game changing one. Those moments don't come along that much. However, when they do, it looks like Woody never comes through. I say this...D'Antoni's Knicks is a mismatched collection of talent. However, they've played somewhat better than expected and they have a style on offense. What is our identity? Pick N Roll? Stanford Offense? Run and Gun? That's a direct reflection on coaching.

Houston 16-17 Portland 13-19 Utah 13-20 Dallas 16-19 Miami 12-19 Philadelphia 13-17 What do all of these teams have in common with the Hawks? They are all over .500, would be in the playoffs today, but have losing records on the road. Not included is Denver which is 17-17 on the road. I wouldn't call any of the teams above as bad. I wouldn't call them great either. They are good. They protect their home court. As irresponsible as it is to call the Hawks world beaters because they have a solid home record, it is equally irresponsible to call them a bad team because they lose on the road. Look, we're just one year removed from making the playoffs. We're still learning how to win. We learned how to win at home and now we have to learn on the road. It's a progression. People are drinking too much of John Kincade's Kool-Aid.

Your entire statement is is on point. Yet, it shows how sinful, disgusting, and awful the system is. The doctrine of Cash Rules Everything Around Me applies to the NBA as well, I guess.

It looks like the Pistons have a similar gripe...

Let me preface this statement by saying the Hawks would have lost regardless of the refs Saturday. They played that bad. That said, I think the problem, with the NBA at least, is that people take the stance that you have to play through the refs. The problem is, you can play through the refs, limit your complaints...and still lose. The reverse needs to happen; refs need to be called to task. The refs should have limited impact on the outcome of games. However, more times than they should, they impact the game in an adverse way. I was watching the Heat/Pistons game. Affalo was guarding Dwayne Wade. He barely tapped him and the refs called a foul. I was in absolute agreement with Jeff Van Gundy (great basketball mind) who said "guys have to be able to play defense." However, if Lebron, Kobe, or Wade have the ball, the refs stand in awe and blow the whistle at the slightest touch. However, if a team is young or doesn't have star players, the refs aren't inclined to call that same call. It is sickening. Regardless of the "un-written rules", it's not right. The calls in the Dallas/Miami series and the Lakers/Blazers series years ago were atrocious. It's easy to say "players should keep their composure." However, when everything you've been taught in terms of defense, goes out of the window during the playoffs, because Kobe/DWade/Lebron has the ball, that becomes disheartening. I don't care if it's Lebron James or Mike Conley...a foul is a foul. But, it doesn't work that way and it makes watching games sickening at times. In light of the Tim Donaghy scandal, it adds to the scepticism many of us have in the games. One memory still resonates in my mind; the Hawks played the Jordan Bulls in the playoffs. After a string of questionable calls going ONE WAY, Dikembe got fed up and told a ref, "I'm not ready to go home." This stuff happens in the NBA FAR too often. What I love in the NFL is this. Refs make bad calls in both leagues, but rarely do you hear "the Cowboys get all the calls." They could easily call pass interferece our holding on a bunch of calls to keep drives going for marquee games. But rarely does that happen. The NBA? That's another story... I'd challenge Al Horford's statement with this. If it weren't profitable or wise to talk to refs, why does Lebron James and Kobe Bryant do it all the time? Not talking to refs has sure taken Joe Johnson a long way. Granted, it shouldn't be on a Rasheed Wallace level. However, if they are consistanly missing calls, human nature does come into play.

At the end of the day, I don't think Billy was doofus like some of us thought he was or a genius like a small minority of us might claim. I think he had a gambler's mentality. That mentality paid off with JJ and Josh Smith. It had mixed returns with Marvin. He overplayed his hand with Shelden. He had some gamblers luck getting Horford at 3 and not losing the pick. If we stick with the poker analogy, did he win or did he ultimately lose at the table?

You are right. This is the type of question that would lead people to say what woulda/coulda/shoulda. However, it should be conversation geared towards reflection. After a decade or so of awful basketball, we finally have a winning team! We're playing good ball right now. How much recognition does Billy deserve for this? Does BK have the right to sit back in his LazyBoy and say "I told you so" because this team is built for the long haul and finally got over the hump of losing year in and year out? Or, do we say, we're happy to be winning, but we could have been doing this a long time ago? I think, by hitting the 41 win mark, these are timely questions.

I think any one who puts forth the argument that you pass up on more talented players to get more draft picks in the future is grasping at straws. If BK did that, that would be the dumbest strategy ever, in terms of building a team. I do think, however, after winning our 41st win (assuring we won't have a losing season in the first time in years) this post is timely because (supposedly) we're starting to see the fruit of the Hawks labor. The question is, was Billy a genius or an idiot by going the route he chose.

Good points. Rebuttal anybody?

The Hawks are on the verge of having their first winning season in years. Rick Sund is to be commended for acquiring the likes of Flip Murray and Mo Evans to give us a decent bench. However, the vast majority of our key players were acquired by BK: Joe Johnson: the infamous trade that set the organization into a tailspin netted us an All-Star. Phoenix, who most people thought got the better end of the deal with two picks/Diaw no longer have Boris and gave up the pick that gave Boston Rajon Rondo in a trade. The other pick is Robin Lopez. So all the Suns have to show for the trade is Lopez and cash. Whereas, the Hawks have an All-Star, a guy who gets league wide recognition from the likes of Hubie Brown/Mark Jackson on ESPN telecast, a member of team Jordan (and team USA), and a go to scorer. However, some would argue that he lacks leadership and will not show up at key moments in a game. Is he a 1st or 2nd option? Josh Smith: Diamond in the rough at 17 in the 2004 draft. Jay Bilas labeled him the guy that would most likely be a bust. Yet, he is a premier shot blocker, a guy Jalen Rose labeled the most atheltic guy in the league besides King James, and a double double waiting to happen. His win in the slam dunk contest gave the Hawks positive pub during their 13 win season. He has the most upside of any Hawks player. Yet he is known for having mental lapses during games and has had several run ins with the head coach. BB IQ is questionable. Marvin Williams: Has the sweetest jumper on the team. He has stepped up in his fourth season and carried the scoring burden when JJ was in a slump. When Horford or Smith was out due to injury, he took it upon himself to rebound the ball and attack the glass. He has improved his three point shot. The discussion has now switched to whether he or Josh Smith actually fits the team better. That said, he has a mysterious back injury and has never quite lived up to his 2nd overall pick status. He's become a solid pro, yet still remains in the shadow of Chris Paul/Deron Williams. Mike Bibby: With out question, the Hawks have become a winner since BK traded for him. He is shooting the best 3 point % of his career. While not a true pass first PG, he has solidified the PG position and is a backcourt a threat in tandem with JJ. He brought an intangible to the team: swagger. However, some would argue he's lost a step and is a defensive liability. Was traded to the Hawks for Shelden Williams, a guy who was traded ahead of Brandon Roy. Some question whether the Hawks would have needed Bibby if they drafted Roy. Zaza Pachulia: Not a flashy or intimidating big guy. However, he has played quality minutes off the bench. He is a proficient offensive rebounder. His stance against Kevin Garnett in the 2008 playoffs helped to energize his team and fans. Does Milwaukee regret letting him go? He doesn't go strong to the whole and plays smaller than his size at times. Al Horford: One word: leader. Has drawn comparisons to Buck Williams. He came into the league and provided a toughness and a desire to win the Hawks have lacked. He is evolving into a double double machine. He let the Celtics know in the playoffs the Hawks would not be intimidated. However, his offensive moves are mechanical at times. Is he playing out of place? Is he a four or a five? Acie Law: An enigma to some. He is the Hawks best penetrating guard and defensive point. Although some likened him to Mark Jackson, he has yet be given the opportunity to lead the team due to injury and the acquistions of Bibby and Flip Murray. Speedy Claxton: Since his acquistion, he has seldom played due to injury. He has one more year on his contract. He could be a viable trading piece, due to his expiring contract. Honorable Mention: Solomon Jones, Josh Childress (we still have his rights) Given the players that Billy Knight brought over, strengths and weaknesses considered, how do we truly evaluate him? Is it too early to judge? Is the franchise in better shape because of him (much to Belkin's chagrin)? Was he right to draft a bunch of 6'7 / 6'9 guys? On one hand, people suggest this cripples us in the paint. On the other people say this makes a switching defense tough to attack because everyone is the same size. Did he have a vision that equates to a winning formula? Did he stock this team with talent where we will compete for years? Or did passing over Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Brandon Roy only slow down the evolution of the team? Did he leave us in a good cap situation? Or did he set the team up by acquiring a bunch of players whose contracts will be up for extension around the same time? In totality, I believe all of these points must be considered.

I caught that too! It was a funny exchange. Woody went on to tell him, "You're going to get a nice note from me!"