Hatertots

Agreed. After beating the Miami, New York, Jersey, Chicago stories into the ground they just need a new angle on the LeBron talk.

Today's post over at David Berri's Wages of Wins blog is about our surprising 2009 Atlanta Hawks, especially young Mr. Smith. My link My favorite part:

Ex, I enjoy reading your posts because, whether or not I agree with your overall point, your arguments are thoughtful and well-constructed. With regards to Josh Childress, I feel like your point, as I interpret it, is somewhat dishonest. If I'm reading your post as you intended it (and it's possible that I'm not), you're essentially saying: Billy Knight no longer has a job as a GM because he fails to maximize the value of his draft position. In evidence of that, consider that sixth overall pick Josh Childress is no longer in the NBA, and that Shelden Williams and Marvin Williams, 5th and 2nd picks respectively, were drafted ahead of substantially more productive players. While it's factually correct that Josh Childress no longer plays in the NBA, the insinuation that this fact is somehow tied to player performance (since the above quotation focuses on relative player performance) is incorrect. Childress no longer plays in the NBA because Olympiakos- due to lack of salary cap and tax laws more favorable to players- could offer him a much, much better salary than any NBA team. In the summer of his restricted free agency, Childress drew interest, IIRC, from the Hawks, Spurs, Lakers, and a few other teams. This past offseason the Bucks tried to sign Childress. But no one can come close to offering him the type of money he can make in Greece. Childress plays in Europe by choice, not because of lack of interest or poor performance. On the subject of Billy Knight (this part isn't specifically addressed to you, Exodus), I'm a proud BK hater. I only liked one of his FA moves (Bibby for crap) and two of his draft picks (Smoove and Horford). But in this nine page thread of hate and love, I haven't seen one post acknowledge that the Hawks never fired Billy Knight. He was offered a one year contract after our playoff run (just like Mike Woodson) and he declined to accept that offer. Given last year's success, he might very likely still be Atlanta's GM if he'd signed the contract (thank God for small miracles). But as it stands, Billy Knight left us, not the other way around.

I would love to trade JJ for Gasol, but I agree with the posters who think LA wants to keep him. After all, they did just advance to the Finals in consecutive years and he played a big role in making that happen. I thought there were a few good options for upgrading the roster this past offseason both in free agency (Lee or Sessions) and the draft (Lawson or Dejuan Blair). I'm not expecting any big roster changes mid-season, although if they did trade JJ, here's two trades I wouldn't mind seeing go down: JJ and a 2010 unprotected to Miami for Wade (assuming he told the Heat FO he had no intention of staying with them). JJ to the Kings for Kevin Martin and filler (Hawes or Udrih or Nocioni). Obviously the Wade scenario is just a pie in the sky fantasy; the Heat are 5-1 and would never dream of trading a guy on D-Wade's level to a division rival. But Sacramento totally sucks, they play out west, and they have no shot at making the playoffs. They could rent an All-Star, ditch a semi-bad contract (Udrih, I suspect) and set their sights on next year. And while Martin isn't a big name (probably because he plays for the Kings) he makes a lot of threes (39% career), gets to the line (85% career), and doesn't turn over the ball much. Players that score at his rate while preserving possessions (30.1 ppg and 1.4 TO for 2009-10) are hard to come by. I don't believe he's a Wade or Kobe caliber of shooting guard, but he could be the player that bumps the Hawks from an exciting playoff afterthought to a serious threat to Boston, Cleveland and Orlando, like Billups transformed Denver into a playoff threat last year. Oh, and he's locked up to a reasonable deal. Which is also important.

I think any realistic Chris Paul trade scenario includes the doodoo taco that is Peja's contract. They'll make nearly $28 million combined next year.

In absolute terms (ie not relative to the competition), the Hawks' offseason moves look lateral to me. The same faces are coming back and we replace Flip with Crawford, our new bench chucker de jour, and next year's team will probably look a lot like the product we've seen on the floor the past two years. A probable playoff team but definitely not a contender without a youngster becoming a superstar (something I think is unlikely). Relative to the East, Cleveland may have improved with the Shaq trade, Boston's fortunes will rise and fall with the health and play of KG, PP, Allen and Rondo, and Orlando's addition of Vince increases the gap between the Eastern elite and the 4-8 seeds. Getting Miller and a (hope)fully healed Agent Zero means the Wizards are taking someone's playoff ticket (I'm looking at you, Detroit). When I look over this free agent class, however, I think the Hawks missed out on some very nice pieces, namely Ramon Sessions, Trevor Ariza, Marcin Gortat, and David Lee. I'm not saying it was realistic for us to acquire all, if any, of these players (especially in the case of Lee), but all four were (are) available and you can make the case that each one would've been an upgrade over the incumbent Hawk, especially if you're a fan of D. Berri's work in sports economy, which rates Sessions as significantly more productive than Bibby, Ariza and Gortat as about twice as productive as Williams and Zaza, and Lee as roughly three times more productive than Smoove. Personally, I would've loved seeing the Hawks (any team really, but especially the team I root for) trot out a lineup of Wins Produced All-Stars like Sessions/ Johnson/ Ariza/ Lee/ Horford with a producer like Gortat eating up 20-25 minutes backing up the 4 and 5. Of course, if it failed, Sund would be out of a job in a hurry while success doesn't always ensure security, so I don't blame him for playing it safe.

I think Marion would make a great addition to the Hawks, but I remember reading somewhere that his numbers are much more impressive at PF than at SF. Broken down by position: FGA, eFG%, FTA, iFG, Reb, Ast, TO, Blk, PF, Pts, PER SF 16.4 0.472 2.8 56% 9.1 2.8 2.6 0.9 2.2 17.8 15.2 PF 19.3 0.536 3.9 55% 16.5 3.7 2.1 1.4 1.6 23.7 26.5

I think you're dead on about Gortat. He's another "super-sub" type who has the ability to come off the bench and score a handful of efficient points in the flow of the game and excel in a non-scoring aspect, rebounds in Gortat's case. In Zaza's role, I'd guess he could give the Hawks 7 pts 8 reb and around 1.5 blk. He's sneaky good and a solid pickup for any team that gets him. If Sund can pry away Gortat from Orlando and Ramon Sessions from the Bucks, I'll take back every snarky Saer Sene comment I've ever made.

Thanks, Dolfan, glad you enjoyed it. I agree that Lee would be the most realistic of those three, but unfortunately,he doesn't add any size down low. It would also be great if the Hawks could arrange a swap of draft positions in the trade as well, although given the supposed weakness of this draft class, I'm not sure how much difference there is between the ninth and 19th selections (other than their price tags). I'd really like to see the Hawks go BPA in the draft and make a run at Ramon Sessions for a PG solution. He's younger than Bibby and should come cheaper and he almost matches Bibby's production but without the 3pt shooting. Plus next year is his 3rd in the NBA, the proverbial "breakout" year for young players, so maybe the Hawks catch a break and pick up a guy who takes his game to the next level in an Atlanta uni.

In a league where Tyson Chandler gets traded from New Orleans... and then stays with New Orleans, it's hard to believe any trade rumor until I see the guy at a press conference holding up a new jersey with different team colors. But, since it's also fun to speculate, why not? Chad mentioned Portland, NY, Dallas, and Cleveland as teams with owners deep pocketed enough to make this happen. Since we're just speculating, I'm going to speculate that this is a talent-for-talent trade and not a cost cutting maneuver. Since Cleveland only has one intriguing talent (and I don't think he's available) let's cross them off. Dallas: their talent's too old, and their youth doesn't have enough talent. New York has one player I'd consider moving Smith for (I can already hear keyboards clicking away furious responses questioning my intelligence, Hawks fandom, and possibly my sexual preferences): David Lee. Assuming that Josh had to go, a 26 year old guy who posted 16ppg and 11.7 rpg on 55% shooting is pretty good value in return, especially if you're at all worried about being on the receiving end of an expiring contract poop sandwich like we handed the Kings for Bibby. I hear Lee getting knocked for his defense, but his defense would have to be pretty terrible to negate an efficient 16 and 12. The homerun swing would be a trade centered around Smith for Portland big man Greg Oden. It's hard to imagine the Blazers letting go of Oden after one season, but it's not impossible given Oden's injury history and his penchant for picking up fouls like they're made of money. Especially when they're getting back a guy who's only two years older than Oden, got to 500 blocks faster than any player in NBA history, and is more athletic than every player except LeBron and Howard. It's a high risk, high reward trade for both teams. Are Oden's knees structurally flawed? Will Josh learn how to play basketball? Can either player realize his vast potential? Is moving Josh a gamble? Absolutely. But since it's not a given that he becomes an All Star PF (let alone a HoF'er) so is keeping him. The "Ooops, I crapped 'em!" blockbuster dream trade would be Josh and Joe to New Orleans for Chris Paul and Tyson Chandler, giving us one of the bigger front courts and one of the top 3 back court players in the NBA. Spice up the bench with a lil' something (Gortat or Sessions, perhaps the return of J Chill?) and suddenly the East is four contenders deep. Could it happen? If the Hornets were desperate to slash payroll, they could do worse by their fans than renting Joe for a year and picking up Smoove's vast untapped potential, but I'll give New Orleans' front office more credit than that. But, hey, it's the offseason. Let a man dream.

Matt Ryan with the 3rd pick worked out pretty good.

I'd be all for getting David Lee if the Hawks could pull it off without giving up a core player. Not sure if NY is actually thinking about trading him, but his name keeps popping up in rumors. Also, Richard Hendrix, a second round pick by Golden State, put up excellent numbers in college and in the D League before Nellie cut him- not sure why, but I think the reasons were financial rather than performance based. He's 250, 9' 1" standing reach with excellent strength and he's available. Could be a decent defensive PF/C at the NBA level (along the lines of Kurt Thomas), wouldn't hurt to give him a shot.

Fascinating, as always. Thanks for your input, Diesel.

Crimedog- The only thing I'm keen to do is discuss basketball. You claimed in an earlier post that if JJ didn't have ball handling responsibilities or didn't have to face double teams, he would be 'fresh' and be more productive like Manu Ginobili, who has a point guard in Parker and a low post threat who faces double teams in Duncan. Presumably, your point is that acquiring Duncan would make Joe a more efficient player. I pointed out a situation in which Joe played with an MVP point guard and a huge offensive threat in Amare, yet Joe offered nowhere near the scoring efficiency that Manu does. For his career, Joe has produced a shade over one point per shot attempt (about 1.18 in seasons where he's gotten 35+ minutes), regardless of the talent level or skill set of his teammates. Therefore, I'm skeptical of any claim that Joe's efficiency can be raised by adding Duncan. According to that argument, we should have expected a huge decrease in Joe's scoring efficiency when he left Phoenix for Atlanta, but that never happened.

Crimedog- The only thing I can look at is what they did in the games. And in the games they played last season (and every other season) Manu was the more productive shooting guard. The argument that Joe would play better if he had a better point handling the ball and didn't face so many double teams gets thrown around a lot. What you might find surprising is that in Phoenix, where JJ played under those exact ideal conditions, his numbers hardly changed at all. Atlanta Joe takes more shots and, as a result, scores more points than Phoenix Joe and Atl Joe gets slightly fewer rebounds than Phx Joe (I'm guessing that pace accounts for this marginal difference) but any way you slice it, there's no evidence that Joe was a radically better player when he played with Nash, Amare, and Marion. His scoring efficiency was basically the same (with the exception of a one season spike in 3p%, and even that had less impact on his points per shot than I would've thought). Joe Johnson, regardless of the jersey on his back and the teammates at his side, has played like Joe Johnson throughout his career.

Joe needs something like 6 more possessions than Manu to get 20 points. Six possessions that could (and probably would) go to Duncan instead. Plus, Manu gets more rebounds and steals. I don't think it's even close between those two guys once you take efficiency and possession advantage into account. Smith does some really great things on the court and he does some really horrible things with all those ugly turnovers he commits and his poor shot selection. I'm of the opinion that Atlanta's best players are somewhat overrated, especially considering how few games those players have won the past few seasons. Based on roster talent, I'd take L.A. (if Bynum comes back healthy, they go from better to much better than a Duncan-led Atlanta squad) and Boston still has KG, a talent equal to TD, and Paul Pierce, who I think is much better than Atlanta's second best player. They also have Rondo, who made Bibby look bad. Those are the two teams that I think would clearly be better than the Hawks. New Orleans, which got rid of the terrible Jannero Pargo and added a good player in James Posey, is at least as good as that Hawks team. Dallas (Nowitski, Kidd, Howard, Diop) and Utah (Boozer, Williams, Okur, Kirilenko, Milsap) would be close, too. And Detroit is still an elite team that we couldn't just walk through if we met in the playoffs. If we had signed someone like Baron Davis in the offseason, then sure, make that trade. But I think we come up short of being a frontrunner, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice Al just to be a top 5 team that ends up as an also ran.

Diesel- 1. If I thought trading Al Horford would net the Hawks just the one championship next year, without hesitation, he's gone. I'll help him pack his bags. Let me be clear, I love Al Horford, but I love titles more. I just don't think this trade makes the Hawks a clear favorite to win the title. 2. Didn't I propose another trade, with the Lakers for Bynum, that I felt did give us the chance to contend for a title? How is trading for a kid with superstar potential when healthy somehow an acceptance of mediocrity? 3. I'm saying next year, adding Tim Duncan and subtracting Al Horford makes us the third or fourth best team in the league. That's the basis for not making the trade. We'd be much better, but not good enough. And that's the worst place to end up after making one of these trades. 4. The Hawks team that took Boston to seven games got its collective anus blown out in every road game. That team also lost its best bench player this offseason. Sure, Tim makes it a more competitive series, he's a much better player than Al. But is he 25 or 30 more points than Horford on the road against one of the top defenses in the league better? After all, the Spurs lost to L.A., who in turn got killed by Boston. But if you're going to ignore, ya know, what actually happened in the playoffs and just declare that putting Duncan next to JJ (who actually isn't as good as Manu) and Bibby (worse than Tony Parker) makes the Hawks the de facto favorites to win the title and that Boston or L.A. or New Orleans or even Detroit won't have anything to say about it, then man, do us all a solid and not call anyone else a homer ever again.

The trade with S.A. doesn't make sense to me because I think we'd be grabbing an aging vet and going into win now mode without the horses to win an NBA title. We're kinda like the Mavericks after that trade, a 50 win team that has next to no chance at winning it all. Boston and L.A. and New Orleans would all still be ahead of us, IMO. And I can't see the Spurs pulling the plug on their All-Star trio because that is a step back over the next few years, which is all that team has. To me, the trade proposal seems disjointed from the standpoint of both rosters.

Diesel- Personally, I don't think the trade with San Antonio makes sense, for either team, so I couldn't see making the deal. However, a deal for a younger player might be something I'd go for since the window would be longer, Detroit and Boston would see their squads get weaker with age, and we as fans could hopefully get more than 2-3 years of playoff basketball. Some people mentioned Dwight Howard, but we all know he isn't leaving Orlando any time soon. But would you trade Al Horford for Andrew Bynum? I think Andrew is easily the better player of the two, but he's coming off an injury that was thought to be minor at the time, but that was in January and the timetable for his return kept getting pushed back and now it's not certain how much the injury will affect his game. Normally, a guy like Bynum would be unavailable, but in situations like this, it's possible a team would be willing to deal a guy they normally wouldn't. IMO, that's a pretty intriguing swap for both teams. For the Hawks, this trade would net them a very young player (just like the rest of the squad) who, if healthy, makes them a much better team. He's made huge strides in his time in the league, and while some have knocked his work ethic or his desire to get better, the fact that he has improved so much makes those comments seem pretty baseless. The real risk is that the guy might never fully recover or that he might be injury prone throughout his career. But the reward is that he could also end up being just as good as Dwight in a few years. On the other side, L.A. already has a championship caliber team, with or without Bynum. Adding Horford to the Lakers gives them a young big with leadership skills beyond his years who rebounds, scores efficiently and is a likable, handsome fella. In other words, he's a perfect fit for Los Angeles (the team and the city) and I think he puts them over the top in their quest for another title. Plus, since Horford isn't a threat to go 23 and 11 Shaqtastic, no one's gonna say the title wasn't all Kobe's doing. It's a risk, but in the best case scenario, we get a young big who shows legit superstar potential to build a contender around in the East and L.A. wins another championship. Doesn't get much better than that. So, would you trade Horford for Bynum?

Lol, I thought the point of being tall is that you don't have to jump, Frank! Seriously though, Fazekas posted great college numbers (albeit in a weak conference) and once he caught on in LA he averaged nearly 5 ppg on 57% shooting and snagged nearly 4 rpg in just under 12 mpg. He doesn't have the bulk yet, only 235. I'd love to see him get 10-15 minutes a game in Atlanta's big rotation and see what he can bring. I'm always intrigued by a guy who has good shot selection and hits the glass (especially at the low price that Fazekas will fetch). Childress was the only player on Atlanta's bench with those skills last year. I think he could be a player in the mold of NY's David Lee, not flashy but effective. Whichever team gives him an opportunity will be making a low-risk investment that could pay off handsomely in on-court production. I wish the Hawks would take that risk.

You're participating in an internet discussion forum, there's no doubt you're wasting your time. That said, yes, those guys are all pretty good from behind the arc. Is there anything else they do that you like about their respective games, Eazy? Personally, I think Paul's outstanding play has to do with the fact that he happens to be one of the 10 best basketball players on planet Earth. Taking Peja off the team won't change that, so I don't think we can credit him with much (if any) of Paul's success. And the fact that not one team ponied up for Pargo's services tells me all I need to know about how solid he is as a guard, but I still looked it up anyway. Jannero Pargo averaged 8.1 ppg on 39% shooting last year (34% from 3) and was horrific in every other category: 1.6 rb, 2.4 ast, and < 1 blk and stl per game. Compare that with Miami's Chris Quinn, also a guard, who scored 7.8 ppg on 42% shooting (40% from 3) and also chipped in more assists, rebounds and steals. Objectively, neither is great, although Quinn is a 2nd year player who was much improved from his rookie year while Pargo is a 6 year vet. But you like Pargo and dislike the marginally superior Quinn, and it seems others on this board share that opinion. Why? Because Jannero Pargo played four good games against Dallas in the playoffs and we all saw those games. Hell, I thought Pargo was really good too until I looked up his career numbers, which stink. I'd love to provide you other examples of how New Orleans is a very top heavy team in terms of talent, but I won't waste any more of your time, Eazy.

The NBA made hand checking illegal in the early part of this decade. This rule change has generally enhanced the value of guard play, and Steve Nash has particularly benefited from it. The Mavericks also didn't think Nash was MVP material, but they grossly underestimated the impact of the change, which made Nash a top 3 PG. This miscalculation probably cost the Mavs a title. This rule change is also the reason why I cringe whenever I see those "Player X is as good as MJ" articles. Peja I do like, though he's basically a one-dimensional shooter type. And Bonzi and Wright were alright, but they hardly played. If you don't play, you can't really make too big of an impact. Peterson doesn't offer much other than 3pt shooting. Pargo is a marginal NBA talent; isn't he out of the league now? I don't really see those guys as too big of an upgrade from what Miami has. Eazy, what do you look for in a good roleplayer? Personally, I don't like bench guys who need to take shots (with notable exceptions like Manu Ginobili). I like roleplayers who offer efficient, opportunistic scoring and possession advantage (rebounds), which leads to more scoring opportunities for people I actually do want taking shots. Those guys tend to be the cheapest in terms of contract cost and they offer lots of value. Guys like Carl Landry of the Rockets or the Spurs' Kurt Thomas. People call them 'energy' guys, a term that seems almost synonymous with 'doesn't waste possessions with bad shots and comes up with the ball a lot.' Ben Wallace started off as an energy guy and ended up being a major contributor to that championship Pistons squad. I think many NBA teams would be better off trying to fill their benches with those types of players, rather than trying to fix their scoring deficiencies with shooters who couldn't crack the starting rotation of another team. IMO, that just makes the problem worse.

Other than Wade, I'd want Manu Ginobili on the Hawks. His outside shooting is terrific, hard to stop when going left, good defender and he picks up lots of offensive fouls with his floppery (which I might have a different opinion on if he played for Atlanta).

Eazy, I have to disagree with your claim that every good team I mentioned from last year had a solid supporting cast. Outside of their top 3, New Orleans was one of the worst teams in the NBA, and yet they won, if I recall correctly, 56 games last season and finished second out west. So, while it is a team game, clearly the best players have a disproportionate influence on the outcomes, and that's to be expected. The best players play the most minutes, they take the most shots, etc. If Chipper could take every third at bat, you'd expect the Braves to be a much better hitting team, even if they had a couple of scrubs who hit below the Mendoza line, right? That's effectively how it is in basketball. You can go the entire game without letting Smush Parker take a shot (an advisable strategy). Also, Marion injured his back toward the end of last season, limiting his effectiveness. However, before that, he averaged over 16 points and 10 rebounds on 49% shooting (33% from downtown). And he threw in 3 steals. Very Matrix-like numbers. So it doesn't seem to me like Marion is a 'system guy,' a label that can be more accurately applied to NFL players. Basketball players tend to be who they are, regardless of teammates, coaches, or styles of play. In fact, I wrote a post about this during JJ's slump last year comparing his Phoenix numbers to his Atlanta numbers. Apart from a one year spike in his 3pt %, they're virtually identical, even more so if you adjust for pace, which I did not. I agree that Wade is injury prone, though. It's to be expected with the way he gets punished taking it to the rim. But, as they say, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Anyhow, I know this thread is supposed to be about the Hawks and their SI ranking and not Miami's, so I'll quit going off on this tangent. I don't know how I ended up getting so sucked into this, I don't even like the damn Heat.

Is Nick Fazekas still available? That guy will be a very savvy pickup for some team, and by some team, I mean probably the Spurs.