Wretch

But, I don't have a problem with Musselman. As a matter of fact, if BK isn't even looking at Fratello...then this should already be in the works. To me, it just doesn't make sense to fire an "up-and-coming" coach just to hire another; and while I would put Musselman in this catagory, I like what I heard about him as an assistant here. Despite the negative press he's gotten, I've heard he's a great motivator. Fratello excluded, I think he's much better suited to go forward with than what's available on the market.

Tearing sh#t up! He just got lost in tht LeBron/Melo hype. That's about it. I love what's going on down in Miami and I really look for those guys to come out strong next season. They need to go after a guy like Ratliff next year...they are a post presence away from being a force in the East. Too bad they're all tide up with salary between Eddie Jones and Brain Grant.

And there's nothing to say that we don't acquire TWO stars. Ego has nothing to do with drafting. The NBA is nothing BUT guys, creme of the crop, playing with ego. It is a coach's responsiblity to manage that. And truthfully, the only way to build a successful team is to find a coach that can manage ego - whether it be vets or rookies.

Quote: You take any two of those player and let them start their careers together, one of the two will not develop into the star they become. You can bank on it. You are not using logic here. You're using opinion based on what, I have no idea. First of all, there have been guys drafted only a couple of years apart that have completely turned around franchises. Miami is not in the playoffs without Dwayne Wade and all those guys. Cleveland doesn't come close without LBJ and Boozer. Denver is NOT the same team without Nene and Melo. What is Phoenix without Marion and Amare? The Mavericks are a joke without Nowitski and Finley. Orlando would have never played in the Championship game without Shaq and Penny. What would Chicago have been without Pippen and Horace grant (acquired in the same year) or Jordan drafted just 3 years earlier? Detroit drafts Allan Houston in 1993 and Hill in 1994, two years later, they're in the playoffs. I could go on and on. These players could have all been drafted in the same year, the results would have been the same or better. It isn't how closely they are drafted together that determines success. If that were the case, teams would wait 4 or 5 years between draft picks to give each one time to develop on their own...that's just absurd. There is no rule of thumb saying you can't take two players in one draft, or even one year apart. You put Melo and LBJ on the same team, and there is no way that one of them becomes a "role player." That draft picks have turned out that way has NOTHING to do with how closely they were drafted together and EVERYTHING to do with their potential. Quote: Ok, if it's not a dream, tell me of a team in the last 15 years who has done it.. Can you think of one? There aren't many teams that have been able to come out of the lottery with TWO top prospects. So there isn't much room to debate here. The Clippers are one team, but for the umpteenth time...the Clippers have BAD MANAGEMENT. They took Olawakandi over Bibby and have been selecting front court players in every draft that I can think of for the passed decade; They even traded for yet another ESTABLISHED frontcourt player in Elton Brand. Besides, the fact of the matter is, most of the teams that have improved over the years have done more than just draft players. Look at a team like Denver. They drafted all those players, but they signed some guys too. Are they the same team without Boykins and Andre Miller? Maybe, maybe not...but certainly without Carmelo and Nene, they are still a lottery team. And they've STILL got Nikoloz Tskitishvili who could turn out to be something good. Quote: You guys continue to fight and ignore the simple truth. TOP 10 PICKS HAVE EGOS, EGOS THAT CLASH. You put two egos like that on the same team and expect them to BOTH develop into stars, you are begging for failure. If you have two egotistical players, then you might have problems. However, that is true even with veteran players. All guys that come in through the draft don't neccessarily have egos. What are you basing this on??? Shaq and Penny didn't have problems taking that young team to the finals. Pippen, Jordan, and Horace grant didn't have problems. Houston and Hill led that team to the playoffs. I don't see any ego problems down in Miami. Ego didn't stop the Nuggets turnaround. And yeah, inflated egos are the Clippers' biggest problem. Quote: As I said in another post, TOP 10 PICKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ROLE PLAYERS. You take two and you are guaranteeing that one of them will either leave and become a star or stay and become a role player. The ONLY way that I agree with you here is if you draft the SAME KIND OF PLAYER IN THE SAME OR SUCCESSIVE DRAFTS. That is EXACTLY what the Clippers have been doing. They passed Bibby over for Olowakandi and in every draft that I can think of, they have drafted forwards. Guys that play the same (post players/wing players/shooters) might have problems sharing the same shots. But that's true regardless of whether they are drafted in the same draft or a couple years apart. Quote: If top 10 picks are supposed to be stars. Why would you dream of putting two young guys in a position where one of them, by way of natural selection, is going to take a back seat to the other? This is just silly! How in the world does being selected in the same draft, perhaps a few spots apart, have ANY kind of bearing on who's team it's supposed to be? You mean if Chicago drafted Sam Bowie and Michael Jordan, that somehow the team belongs to Bowie and 3 or 4 years later, Michael's game doesn't develop because he's deferring to "the man." ??? You're gonna have to explain this one to me... Because first of all, you RARELY know who the stars of ANY draft are going to be. You simply draft on potential. Unlike any other sport, there is a DISTINCT shift in talent between the upper and lower part of the NBA's draft. You can even narrow it down specifically to the top 13 picks - the future of the NBA is right there. That is a very small window and if you can reach into there twice, you have the potential to nab two future cornerstones. It is really that simple. Secondly, in the past, there was a problem with the way rookies signed contracts. There was no rookie scale and after 3 years, there was no way to stop a guy from leaving and joining any team he wanted. This was fixed only 5 years ago. In today's draft, the franchise has much more control over the investments made in the draft - and that will make a world of difference.

Quote: All you are getting is two players with STAR POTENTIAL. Yes. You are getting Webber, Magic, Nowitski, Zeke, Jordan, Bird, Barkley, Robinson, Duncan, Bibby, Iverson, Kobe, McGrady, LBJ, Melo, Wade, Vince Carter, Nique, type POTENTIAL. I take that kind of potential over dime-a-dozen journeyman talent any day of the week. Quote: It is a pipe dream to think that both of those players, while still on the same roster, will mature and reach their full potential. It most certainly is not. Perhaps if you were drafting a lottery pick and a late lottery pick you might be fighting the odds. But given two lottery picks in a decent draft crop...it is hardly a dream to envision developing two prospects like Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, LBJ, Melo, or Hinrich. It'd be More like a dream come true for any GM in this league. Quote: Teams have tried and failed for far too many years now. What you are referring to is teams relying COMPLETELY on the draft. There are only two teams that I can think of that took that route: the Bulls and the Clippers. I would love to be in the Bulls position right now with the potential that they have. It is still WAY too early to say that they've failed. The Clippers have simply failed to make wise decisions. Instead of duplicating front court talent, and allowing talent to walk away, they should have been making deals. The Clippers need a better GM. Everyone else uses a combination of trades, FA's, and the draft. We have nothing left to trade. We will be hard pressed to simply attract talent to our franchise without overpaying for it; and as far as marquee talent goes, it'll take a VERY shrewd plan and a distinct twist of fate to land it. Especially this year. Quote: Why turn a blind eye to what the NBA has been for more than 15 years now? Why throw away the pick when it has been proven time and again that it won't work. Huh? I'm not really understanding this here... But what has worked for the NBA is a combination of DRAFTING WELL, lucking up on FA's, and making shrewd trades. We've got very little room to manuever anywhere but in the draft. Quote: Do you have so little faith in Knights ability to make a good pick? Just the opposite. If there is anything that I have full confidence in BK, it is the draft. I can only IMAGINE what he could do given two lottery picks. Imagine if he had the #1 and the #5 or #6 last year... Quote: If so... why would you have any more faith that this team could do everything that those two young egos need to develop to their full potential? This team is headed in a new direction under new management. Most importantly, we will make our 1st lottery (and only our 2nd 1st round) selection in over 13 years WITHOUT PETE BABCOCK IN CHARGE.

...and the the popular knock on his defense. I know that pairing him against taller gaurds is the main problem, but I'm not so sure that he can't be a good or at least decent defender of guys his size. As for his offense...man, that is a guy you put next to a McGrady or Duncan and he nails the open shots. If there is anything about JT that is underrated it is his shot. My belief is that one day, he'll be put into a situation where people can really see it. Then he'll be a significant ingredient to somebody's winning formula. For us... I just don't know. I am SOOOO sick of trying to compensate for his size. If he were 5 inches taller, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But the fact that we are continually addressing his needs to be productive, as well as team needs, may put us in a bind in the future. So...if we can use him to gain an additional lottery pick, then I'd go for it. If not, I say just hang on to him.

I've had my fill of dealing away lottery picks...and the potential of a #6 and a #1 are often almost the same. What we would be doing is moving up to select a player that we think is a better fit, but not neccessarily more talented. I'd package JT/17th/Boris/2nd Rounders/future protected 1sts to move up...but not a early to mid lottery pick.

Is the foundation for success in the NBA. It isn't neccessarily the draft - therefor, throwing all your eggs in that basket is a mistake; however, it is the stars that carry the league. Wins, marketing, ticket sales, endorsements, merchandise, ratings...it all revolves around the Duncan's, Shaq's, Iverson's, Kobe's, and McGrady's of the league. We don't have a star, or anything close to it. Obtaining a star is priority #1 for us and there is absolutely no way around it. It's a very basic and simplistic way to look at things, but it is the truth. You get these cornerstones, and then you build around them. The big question is, how do you get them? Trades, free agency, and in the top of the draft - specifically the lottery. There is no way we are going to be able to reel in star with the gutted team that we have left. Trades are out of the question. Free agency may be a legitimate route to take, but I am not holding my breath for Kenyon Martin or Kobe Bryant. How else are we going to find that star or stars that will give this team personality? If you have the chance to take more than one top prospect in the NBA lottery, then you have to take it. It's not really fair to look Chi and GS as examples, if you are referring to 2001, because they each took 2 picks in the same weak draft. The Clippers are another bad example because...well, they're the Clippers ; all they know how to do is screw up drafts and rid themselves of talent. Cleveland drafted Boozer and James in two separate drafts, and Booz was a 2nd rounder. I'm not familiar with Washington's situation when they selected two top picks in the same year... Still, I don't care how many times it has failed, the stars in this league are there for the taking in the lottery. If you have the chance to take a TJ ford and a Dwayne Wade...or Jason Richardson and Pau Gasol...or Ray Allen and Kobe Bryant You've got to go for it. Quality Vets and mid-level FA's are a dime-a-dozen and available EVERY year. There are only a handful of stars available...if you have a good chance at picking up 2 in the draft lottery...then again, you go for it. I'd love to come away from this draft with two top prospects.

I agree with most of what you're saying... Except about the Clippers' cash situation. Matt Barnes ........... 1/18/04 1 minimum '04 Keyon Dooling ......... 8/8/00 4 $7,219,404 rc '04 Josh Moore ............ 9/27/03 1 minimum '04 Doug Overton .......... 11/21/03 1 minimum '04 Quentin Richardson .... 8/8/00 4 $5,098,295 rc '04 Bobby Simmons ......... 9/27/03 1 minimum '04 Eddie House ........... 8/11/03 2 $1.6 million '05 Marko Jaric ........... 7/18/02 3 $6 million t-opt '05 Melvin Ely ............ 8/4/02 4 $7,287,307 rc t-opt '06 Chris Wilcox .......... 8/1/02 4 $9,012,399 rc t-opt '06 Predrag Drobnjak ...... 9/28/03 4 $12 million '07 Chris Kaman ........... 7/12/03 4 $11,214,368 rc t-opt '07 Elton Brand ........... 7/16/03 6 $82,173,000 p-opt '08 Corey Maggette ........ 7/16/03 6 $45 million p-opt '08 The only guys they're really paying are Elton Brand and Maggette. I suspect that with their surplus of frontcourt players that they can afford to deal or let some of these guys go; and if they're serious about Kobe, then they can afford to do something with QRich too. After a couple of manuevers, LA could have the cash. I don't think anyone has a shot at Kobe besides maybe the Clippers or the Lakers. If Kobe is serious about leaving, then my bet is to the Clippers or perhaps he'll force a SNT to a team that he can win on. If Billy Knight has cleared all this cap room just to be able to TALK to Kobe...then he has lost his mind. ... As for the draft... We both agree on what we *ahem* believe will happen , but I also believe that we have enough left to deal and snag another lottery pick. I will shoot Billy Knight if that rumored Dallas/Orlando deal goes down. We had enough pieces to deal ourselves into the lottery BEFORE the All-Star break. But that is another story. I think JT/17th is a very attractive package that a couple of teams may take a look at. I love Terry, but I think I've run my course with him. We need a true PG...

Adieu.

I understand your mentality and your lack of respect for all but about 5 players in the NBA. So debating the issue with you is as absurd as the shallow opinions you post. I do want to say this: I have never said that Kobe Bryant was coming to Atl. Not once. Not here, not on the Real GM board, not anywhere. In fact, I am a firm believer that we have very little chance at signing him and have never changed my stance on that. So exactly what kind of fantasy am I living in? The point that I was making, was a hypothetical situation - where you could say that someone loses out by playing for a bad franchise. Kobe would have no room to laugh if he left the Lakers to join us...and both teams continued to struggle and missed the playoffs. Stephen Jackson is not in the same boat. The only other thing that I can say is that it takes a team to win basketball games. Stars are the most important. But without a Stever Kerr, John Paxon, Derek Fisher, Dan Majerle or other significant role players on your team...then you will not win. Do you not understand that? Jackson only flourishes in YMCA style basketball...? First of all, what will happen if Jackson continues to be productive and makes the bigs shots for a playoff team next year. Will you still have room to say the same thing? That's a pretty short-sighted and ill informed opinion. The fact that he played well for the Spurs last year is enough to deflate your hot-air baloon. Even if you were right, it wouldn't really doesn't matter at all. All he'd have to do is stand out at the 3 point line and nail the shots that San Antonio was missing - which if you watched the series with any kind of basketball IQ you would have noticed Turk and Horry missing over and over again. Jackson takes that ball and either hits the open 3 or he takes it into the lane. Of course the series isn't won by Stephen Jackson, it wasn't his team...no more than the Bulls were Paxon's team, or the Celtics were DJ's team, or the Lakers were Cooper's team. But he is that player that takes the shot when the Stars are smothered - and makes it. He did it for them last year, he did it for us this year, and if he were playing for the Spurs he'd be doing it now. He'll probably be doing it next year making twice as much money as San Antonio was willing to pay him... And that gives him the last laugh. Say what you want Maniac, but it just don't amount to much. Oh and BTW - check this out (here). That's a list of guys who shoot the best 3 point percentage in the league...sorted by those who with the most shot attempts. Quote: Jackson looked good in the Hawks YMCA offense....But in a structed system he only shoots 40% and 33% in three's. You are clueless.

True enough, the Lakers changed the gameplan out of desperation to win the series. But they were still down 2-0. Kobe and Shaq have been running under, and winning with, the triangle...so It's not like scrapping it would really have that much of an effect on them. The game rides on the back of superstars; but if that is all that it took, then LA would have swept the Spurs. Let alone scrap out a 6 game series that could have went either way (considering last second heroics). I don't care if Jackson was an 80 year old woman. If he knocks down those open three's that Horry, Turk, and Brown were getting (which he would) that is an entirely different series. The Spurs missed Jackson's outside shooting. You may not agree with it, but that is the general consensus. They missed Robinson, but with a guy out there who consistently knocks down the open look...they would have won game 5, maybe game 4, and the series would look very different right now. ...and it doesn't matter where Jack spent the last season; he's getting paid next year. Either the Spurs are going to bring him back at HIS price or Atl will. If wins were all that mattered, then Jackson would have taken the deal San Antonio laid on the table for him. He stands to make, perhaps, twice as much money - and could actually end up back with the Spurs. You could say a guy like Kobe Bryant loses out if he takes the same amount of money to come to Atl - and ends up losing. But for someone who comes from nothing like Jack to come out like he probably will this summer, after everyone ridiculed him... He's lost nothing and has gained a good paycheck.

Could you increase the time available to modify a post? Or give topic originators the ability to delete their own posts? That'd be swell...!

Who's left? That's probably the biggest problem. If there were someone out there instantly recognizeable, with drawing power, I'd say go for it. Though, I think we missed the boat on that last summer when SO many guys were available - and a few weeks ago when the Celtics picked up Doc. I'm not thrilled about the choices either - except the Czar. I wouldn't say he's in a discount bin with many other coaches like him, and I certainly wouldn't say there are guys like him available right now. I like Fratello because he's not a coach that is limited to one style of basketball. His stint with the Hawks had success with different types of Hawks teams; he went to Cleveland and coached those guys to a respectable record - while eliminating their weakness and playing them to their strengths. To top it all off, he's not a machine; nor does he have an inflated ego. He's not going to let anyone walk over him, and at the same time he's not overbearing. His knowledge of the game is respectable and he doesn't over-analyze it (ala Doug Collins). I think he's the man for the job. I enjoyed his Hawks teams from the 80's and I believe he could come in and get results. Personally, I don't know how important a name is to our franchise. We're going to be very young in the next few years. I believe more important to having a recognizeable face on the sideline is actual coaching ability. Teaching our young guys to play the NBA game from the ground up and, most importantly, getting our club to play solid defense. For knowledge of the game, personality, and even noteriety - I think Fratello best satisfies the criteria. Next, closely, would be Del Harris or maybe Daly...and if management doesn't have designs on either of these guys, then Musselman is my man. I wouldn't be upset if he was tops on our priority list.

Thx!

Pretty simple huh? Personally, I've been less than thrilled about some of the names that are being thrown out. I'm sure these guys can coach, but IMO our new group needs to make a statement. Pick a guy with credentials, talk to him, hire him. But it seems to me that BK can't do anything without taking 6 months to think about it... We'll probably get a technical foul during the draft because our selection time will run out...and we'll have selected no one. Anyway... My vote is for the Czar. Old school, knowledgeable, quite capable, and charismatic.

Dang...Dang...Dang... I'll see if I can modify the poll...

Pretty simple huh? Personally, I've been less than thrilled about some of the names that are being thrown out. I'm sure these guys can coach, but IMO our new group needs to make a statement. Pick a guy with credentials, talk to him, hire him. But it seems to me that BK can't do anything without taking 6 months to think about it... We'll probably get a technical foul during the draft because our selection time will run out...and we'll have selected no one. Anyway... My vote is for the Czar. Old school, knowledgeable, quite capable, and charismatic.

I think he would have been the difference. They played up to LA's level, and better to take a 2-0 series lead; so, it's obvious that they've got what it takes. Though, you have to think that with Jackson in the lineup, those games that LA eeked out or closed out late would have been much closer or even won. Think about all those open looks that Horry, Devin Brown, and Turkoglu were getting...and missing. There were critical possisions throughout the series (and not just late in the games) where a 3 pointer would have changed the momentum and the course of the game. Were it Jackson taking those 3's...or even just handling the ball...I think those shots get made. San Antonio should have paid that man; or at least compromised to see if he could sustain it for another year or so. The joke was on him last summer, but Jack got the last laugh.

But both of Duncan's shots were complete BS! I give him more credit for his last shot than the one he banked of the glass from the top of the key...

This seems like a one shot deal to me. If the Wolves are going to get passed anyone to get to the championship game, they'll need Spree. I don't think Cassell and KG will be enough. Yet, I don't think Spree is going to continue to be as fast or effective in the next 2 or 3 years. This is their chance and I think if they blow it, that's it. About the Spurs... I just don't enjoy watching them play EC teams. A) They are going to stomp them and B) if the EC team doesn't have a lot of guns, then it's going to be a crawling, defensive, blogfest. Also, lots of good players never get that elusive ring...Duncan's got two, so I don't feel sorry for him. Not only that, but I'm sure that he'll add another one before it's all over. I'd like to see the Kings win it all, but I have a feeling they'll go down like the mid-90's Suns. Them and the Mavs are pretty much in the same boat. Until they can figure out how to stop people, then they'll continually be blasted out of the playoffs. I don't think either team beats these Lakers or the Spurs in a 7 game series and it'll pretty much stay that way. I don't feel sorry for Malone or GP. In fact, I think it's kinda cheesy that they're riding on what Kobe, Shaq, and Phil built. Maybe not GP, so much as Malone - but I don't think a championship ring adds anything to their resumes.

That's what they were talking about on the Spurs board. They didn't have that picture, but someone must have noticed. On a side note, I think it's kinda stupid that the NBA uses instant replay to review the last shot of a game - and yet, they rely on a human's judgment to sort out tenths of seconds on the shot clock.

Although it could be possible, I read over on a Spurs messageboard that Duncan's shot actually went through the net with .7 seconds left in the game; and regardless, it looked like the clock started moving as soon as Fish got the ball. If anything, the Spurs should be concerned about the 1st 3 quarters of their play - and all those wide open looks they were blowing that let the game come down to 1 possession.

But I REALLY don't want to see anymore Spurs basketball passed this point. It's great to watch them do battle with other WC teams, like a contrast of styles. But I don't want to see them playing in the final series of the season - against Detroit, NJ, or Indiana I like the Lakers, but it wouldn't matter who the Spurs played from this point forward. I'd be rooting against them. Personally, I'm pulling for the TWolves to win it all. I'd like to see them and Indiana in the championship series. That would be a refreshing change. I like what I'm seeing from Miami too. I love seeing turnaround stories in the NBA and it looks like Wade and Odom are the real deal. If Caron completely comes to form, then these guys will be a threat to do something. They're too inexperienced to handle anything beyond the conference semi's, so I wouldn't want to see them surprise Indiana...but next year, I'll be in their corner... If they're not playing us that is...!

Now... Just one more win and NO MORE THREAT OF SEEING THE DAMN SPURS IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!!!! !!!!*whew*!!! Does ANYBODY feel me on that!