CBAreject

Look, the worst team has a 25% chance at the #1 pick through the lottery. OF COURSE the worst team rarely gets the #1 pick. They only have a 25% chance! BUT, it is pure ignorance to say, 'Well, I'd rather be number 2 or 3.' The #2 team has less chance than the #1 team, as does the #3 team and so on. Why would you 'be more comfortable' with less of a chance? Oh, I ask, but I actually know. With 98% of Americans, anecdotal evidence is more convincing than mathematical probability. Because you've seen the #1 team have 'bad luck' in the past, you only assume that's going to continue. What's funny is that half of the ignoramuses go the other way and say that the #1 team is 'due'. That's what they said about Cleveland last year. Those same people think that if the roulette wheel lands on red 4 straight times, it's probably going to land on black that 5th time. It's due. The trials are INDEPENDENT, PEOPLE! The 5th spin does not depend on what happened in the first 4 spins!!!!!! AUGH! Why is this so frustrating? I dunno. It's such a simple concept, but the overwhelming majority of people do not understand it. What's worse is that they don't understand it even after having it demonstrated to them. OH, and the Hawks are 4 games back of the Magic, not 6

I just realized that for the next 28 games we have the worst team in NBA history! It's kind of fun, actually. Too bad we couldn't play these guys all year so we'd set the record for fewest wins.

The only two sensible reasons for keeping Rasheed were that we might've been able to dangle him in a sign and trade, which I will thank sd79 for pointing out, and that we wouldn't have pimped out detroit. However, we should note that sign and trades generally bring back several mediocre players with lots of guaranteed money. The Detroit reason actually has more merit. So, let's summarize it: PROS: 1st round pick (Mil) Our own #1 is higher CONS: We might've used Sheed in a SNT We make Detroit a player in the FA market (we don't want this) Other pros/cons mentioned but not making my list: CONS: We might've made the playoffs (guh?) We might've resigned Sheed (gah?) We'd have earned more respect (GOH?) PROS: Bobby Sura is on our team (seriously) Let's actually think about making Detroit a player, though. Does Detroit sign Okur? They have some dough to throw at Kobe. Don't need him, you say? Pulease.

Quote: How do you know it is a weak position Reject? I know because I understand logic. Quote: By giving away Wallace ($5) without the candy bar. That just means we are going to lose. The first sentence isn't even a sentence, but I know what you mean. OMG, the $5 was NOT Rasheed Wallace. The money is the cap space (apropos?). That's what the other dude meant when he said that $5 plus a candy bar is better than just $5! We both agree that the candy bar is the draft pick. How, then, could we possibly have had BOTH Rasheed and the pick? Obviously, the $5 was CAP SPACE.... Quote: I still thought this team had a chance to make the playoffs with Wallace. That's just silly. We would've had to win 20 of 28 to sniff the playoffs. That would mean we'd be the best team in the conference for that stretch. Silly. Quote: It's a lot deeper than just adding a candy bar to $5. Let's do a little thinking before respond. Thank you. At least read my other post. Before you start calling out my weak arguements. This doesn't deserve response, but I must. I don't think??? Again, the last two sentences are not sentences. Is this important, really? Yes! We're talking about the intricacies of logical exchange, here. It takes complete thoughts to even begin to formulate a logical position. Learn how to write and spell (arguements???) before you acuse me of not thinking, bub. I have read your other posts, and I think it's lunacy to suggest we were a playoff team with Rasheed Wallace. Were we better? Quite possibly. 20/28 better? Oh my, no.

Couldn't remember. I know play was one of them. I just got worked up about all this BK bashing. I apologize for getting it wrong.

Of course Milwaukee 'STAYED' copetitive. They were competitive to start with. We were not competitive to start with, so how can we 'STAY' competitive?

"Because now a days in the NBA there is no guarantees in the draft." Dude, that's a horribly weak position. The question being asked is, 'Why would $5 and a candybar not be better than just $5.' Your answer is that there is no guarantee of candybars. So what? Even a 20% chance at a candybar and $5 is better than just $5. Bad argument.

So, you think that a computer can control which ball comes out of the hopper? That's a very chaotic system to model mathematically.

Quote: Especially after giving up a first to get both Dickau and Shareef. Have you ever taken economics? Do you understand the concept of 'Sunk Cost'? That's what those draft picks are. We cannot recover them. We should not hold on to Reef SIMPLY BECAUSE we gave up something valuable to get him. We should evaluate him for what he is worth to us right NOW. Geez.

Guys, Know I don't post much, but I do read. I've read over and over, "This is just not the way to do things." "Billy Knight sucks." When are you people going to learn? EVERY STINKING YEAR Hawks fans and front office says, 'We want to win now. Building through the draft is the wrong way to go. That's just not the way to do things.' EVERY STINKING YEAR Hawks fans say, 'Let's try to win as many games as possible so we can look respectable and get a low lottery pick!' What gives? I know it's not politically correct to ask that your team lose, but C'MON PEOPLE! What do you think the benefit is of winning 30 games instead of 20????? WHAT? WHAT DO YOU THINK WE COULD'VE DONE WITH REEF AND THEO???? WHAT?????? Many of you keep saying, 'Aw, we shoulda kept 'em and tried to build around 'em. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????? What options did we have???? You can't possibly think we were better off with that horribly flawed and capped out team! But you do! I don't understand! Some of you think we should've kept Wallace even! HOW??? He never would've resigned here! NEVER! Now, I'm not B.Knight's #1 fan. I truly believe he should've squeezed Dumars' balls a little and gotten him to offer up Darko. Some say he never would've done it. I say fine. This was the Pistons' only prayer for a championship...we held all the cards. That said, I still think we're better off with a decent pick and cap space than just cap space alone. NOW, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THIS, I don't want, 'Well, what are we gonna do with picks and space???' That's hardly the point. The point here is that we were not going to do anything with what we had. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to defend your position that we should've kept what we had.

I think we should trade something to the Wiz for Brown....not so much because Brown is so good. No, I think we could make the Wiz better by giving them Reef or Theo in some deal for Brown. That way, we get a decent prospect, and they get better, so they pass us in the standings. If we trade Reef, we won't win another game all season. Good strategy.

The Wiz are led in FG% by Jarvis Hayes, who's dropping 'em in at a cool .405 clip. That's horrible that he's their best shooter...absolutely horrible. .405? Ick!

"But, basically, you trade away a player for three guys that can't get the job done. Those are the Bulls CORE players. That would be like us trading Theo, Reef and Terry for McGrady. There is no incentive. " You seem to think we still have a chance to build around JT/SAR/Theo. Dude, our players can't get the job done either. Will we ever win with JT? No, so what's the point in keeping him. If some team were stupid enough to trade us good, young talent for some of our garbage, I'd take it. Sure, Curry is not Shaq. Crawford is not Jason Kidd. We can't get those players, though. If we can get some young guys with upside, we have a future. As it stands, we have none. Play, we are not the worst team in terms of our present roster, but we are the worst team in terms of future. Orlando has a better future, because they have at least one good, young player to build around. We are stuck because we traded all of our draft picks for horrible players, and all we have is a team full of ALBATROSSES! If we can get bailed out by trading for Harrington and having some semblance of a future, I'll take it. It won't make us champions, but it will give us hope.

OK, I hate to lay into you, since we've never formally spoken, but I can't resist. First, you tell Diesel that he makes no sense, that he's totally absurd. However, he's clearly cited statistics indicating that our best lineups are those without JT. He provides compelling evidence that JV should play with our starters. Sure, you might disagree, but to say that he makes NO SENSE is ridiculous. Your argument? "JT averages 19 ppg. We can't bench him!" That doesn't mean much, friend. Big Dog averaged even more and we traded him for some axle grease. You're the one lacking sense. Second, you claim that Diesel has made a "bad analogy"? Wha? The only analogy that he made was in comparing JT to Bobby Jackson. You didn't mention that, though, so I'm confused. Third, if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, you should at least spell correctly (absurb?). Same goes for 'non sense at all'.

The answer is 75.12 inches, which is roughly 6'3", or 6.25 feet.

Reef for Curry and Crawford???? First, Chicago wouldn't do it, and they should be shot if they did. Second, Reef for either one of those players is a good trade in terms of talent OR contracts. Both of those guys will improve...Reef will not. Crawford plays like he wants to win....Reef does not. Curry? I like him. He's a little soft still, but I still think he's one of the best centers ALREADY. He's a big body, and we just don't have that. Curry at center and Theo at PF would be a nice combination. Crawford and JT in the backcourt would, too. Too bad the Bulls aren't stupid enough to do it. At any rate, I'm glad you're not our GM because you would let this deal go by the boards if we ever had a chance at it.

...except Diaw, that is. I think that he's going to be a valuable role player in 4 or 5 years.

I think that CC is just drawing a (rather large) paycheck from the Hawks. He'll never contribute again. That game against LA after we traded Mutombo was his last hurrah. He was darn good in that game, too....just as good as in the Knicks game.

So, we were born at roughly the same time. Tight! It's good to be 20-something....

Try year 5, but game 4 is hardly midway. JT hasn't learned to be a PG by now, and I do not believe he ever will. Can we win with him despite that? Maybe, but it would take 4 other savvy players to pull it off. JT is terrific, but I think we're foolish to think he's going to magically transform into a PG when he hasn't been thus far.

We could possibly build around Harrington. We cannot build around Ratliff. I, unlike some folks, like Ratliff. However, I think his shot blocking is offset by his lack of rebounding. I'd trade him for Harrington.

Hendu? C'mon! Henderson is not as bad as he used to be. He's learned to accept the backup role and he's productive off the bench. BUT, I'd trade him for almost all of the guys Hotlanta listed. I don't really like Mo Taylor, but he's much better than Hendu offensively.

I was one of the FEW that wanted him. He is one of the very few to come out in the draft in the past 5 years that a team could build around. The others would be Lebron and perhaps Stoudamire. Of course, I'm sure that many people here still insist that he's not that good. Actually, I agree that he's not....yet. BUT, he'll be the second best center in the NBA this season, and we traded him (and some other stuff, mind) for Reef. Yes, I know they drafted Gasol, but you understand... Ah well, you don't get many chances to draft an all-star center.

So far, I've seen the following: "The Hawks will have to take advantage of the nights when opponents are unprepared and won't have their legs because they have been out to the strip clubs the night before. That's probably going to be Atlanta's best defense: the strip club trap" The Hawks are rated as the worst team in the Eastern Conference, should therefore finish dead last, and are the second worst in the NBA, next to the Jazz (they're not rated much worse). ESPN doesn't know who's on our bench, particularly Nazr, Diaw. Dion Glover is rated a 3 out of 10. A 3/10? ESPN thinks Alan Henderson typically starts and plays the 2 or 3. (Why else would they say SJax' playing 2/3 will keep Henderson on the Bench?) Chad Ford says we'll win 24 games or less. Many say the fans have no hope. The power poll says that the fact that our team considers losing Obinna Ekezie significant doesn't bode well. They don't realize that it's only because he played phenomenally for a few games. We do have Henderson, Nazr, and Nailon, so it's not like he was counted on for a top 8 slot anyway. They have no clue.