Wretch

So we don't really know what his on court or on camera presence is. We all know that he's a nice kid, but we don't know that he doesn't have any charisma. Duncan isn't without a personality, he just doesn't have a forceful personality. ...and you don't have to be tough or flashy to have a forceful personality. You just need charisma. If you can sell a smile, then you have marketability. Watching a Tim Duncan commercial (of the 3 or 4 that he's made) you get the feeling that someone is hovering over him pulling strings. It just doesn't look genuine. He plays with emotion on the court, but his personality just doesn't project itself. His persona is calm and FOCUSED on basketball. I've seen Howard talking and the kid's got charisma. He can sell himself and he can probably sell a product. It is faith that he'll have a hard time selling because people don't want to hear it. It will take a company that is willing (doubtful) to give their product some religious and representation some really creative and artistic vision to get it across.

I never even thought about it that way. Not only that, but perhaps Doc didn't want to coach the Hawks either...? I think it's safe to say that if the organization wanted Rivers here, Stotts would have been let go right at the end of the season. Perhaps even much sooner.

There are so many questions surrounding Dwight's value to the commercial market, but whether or not he has game will be one of the biggest determining factors in Dwight Howard's marketability. The other is whether or not he has a personality. If he's trying to market his faith, he will only succeed in other-worldly currency. Selling shoes, burgers, or gear won't be hard at all. Creative marketing can spin anything... If they can successfully market LeBron as a "basketball" savior, complete with hoops church, choir, and "good book", then they can work with Howard. No question. As a matter of fact, I could see a commercial...where he walks into a dark, abandoned, run-down gym with the windows boarded up...filled with hissing, unsightly, wicked creatures that tell him he doesn't belong there. ...and as he battles them on the court (ala Vince Carter vs. the "raptors"), he slams the basketball against the boards over the windows, breaking them out, bringing the light in...which causes the demons to scream and shrivel. Religious undetone, marketable concept, with the general public clueless that Howard's making a statement. That kind of thing works, but there are also standard athelete presentations where he doesn't have to do anything but look sweaty and demonstrate physical ability. In the end it will come down to two things...if he's got no game and/or personality, then he's got no commercial, no marketability, and no fans.

It's possible! This would be a situation that I'd trade up for. Use JT/17th/Boris/2nds/whatever without overdoing it, but if we could come away with both of these guys...? I'd go for it.

We are in a very flexible position right now. We don't know what kind of team we're going to be in 3 or 4 years...probably not even next year. We don't have to draft based on need. Besides, the Hawks need help everywhere and we've got nothing but open roster spots to fill it in. Why not just keep our picks...? No matter where they land? We definitely need a PF or a Center. We're looking at Kobe or TMac as FA's, so obviously we're in the market for a swingman or 2 guard - even if we retain Jackson, Sura, or both. And I don't think there are many of us who would argue about drafting a true point guard... ... I am inclined to believe that we'll be drafting in the top 3, but I'm not going to go into the whole "is it real/fake" debate again. Regardless, we've still got a pick in the better part of the draft. And with so many hssr's declaring, I have a feeling that there will be A LOT of "sleeper" talent that gets scooped up in the middle to late 1st round. IMO, this isn't the year to be trading up in the draft. This is the year to have multiple picks. I hope BK sees this and that our owners don't have ideas to do otherwise.

...and it was a 4 game sweep by Utah, followed by a rocky start the following season, before he was let go. They had every one of those players too, except for Ceballos - who I'm not sure about. Additionally, Kobe was not a rookie. He was in his second season just beginning to break out. They traded all of that talent away, brought in Glen Rice and Phil Jackson and suddenly, BOOM. Del's a good coach for a young team though. He'll teach and he'll let them get out there and make mistakes. I just don't know about his defensive intentions... I think Fratello is every bit the coach that Harris is, I know he can adapt to any situation, and I know he could teach team defense. I pray that they are not judging him on that bogged down team up in Cleveland. I wouldn't want him to come in and do that with our young guys; but I'm sure he would adapt to whatever the owners want. I'm happy with either situation though. Either is an upgrade from Stotts and I prefer them both to Byron Scott.

I hope the owners are taking a serious look at Fratello. I know they want a wide open, up and down the floor, style of basketball...but unless you put a team out there that can play serious defense, we're going nowhere. Just like the Mavs. I know the first thing Fratello would do coming into Atlanta - and that's teach these guys (or what's left of them) how to play defense. I don't want it to be our trademark, but I don't want to see us become the Mavs of the EC either.

It is WAY too early to call this one done, or even speculate about it. I think the only people who are worried are Malone and GP. *LOL* They'll be surprised, to see how well the team takes off right before their eyes. But until they lose game 3, it's still a series in my eyes. On the matter at hand... I don't think it really matters whether LA wins or loses this series. There is not enough room on that team for Kobe and Shaq (regardless of how many other stars they sign). I think one of those guys needs to go, and I believe Kobe knows it's him. Coming to Atlanta? Not to rebuild you can count on...and East or west probably makes no difference to him - dude just wants to win. It's the competition drives him. Put a team out there and hire the right coach, and maybe we've got a small chance. Otherwise...

Can't say that I blame them. I don't think he should be fired based on performance; but, then again, he never really impressed me. I'm sure he'll get another chance though. I think it comes down to Fratello or Scott as the popular choices amongst us; which means the Hawks will go with Collins, Carlisimo, or Karl. Seriously, I would like to see the Czar - an old school coach who knows the game. He's got personality and has proven that he can coach some damn basketball. I've heard too much about Byron Scott and his attitude/ego problems. The last thing I want to see is guys that are supposed to be our future riding pine for half a season. I'd take Muss over him too, but I think he'll be in Golden State for at least another year.

If you really want to enjoy the movie that is.

Quote: Also, you're really not adressing what I mentionned about a needed change of perception of the franchise. If we keep the same coach, re-sign a few players, get a few FA's, people will see us as the same old lowly hawks. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE AS BAD AS WE NEED ANY PLAYER OR COACH. That's what new management needs to adress by firing stotts. Don't feel bad, he'll get a job elsewhere like Kruger did. Well...because I agree with you here. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE. I think bringing in a new coach would do that; I've already said as much. I also believe that we've missed the boat on the guys who could really do that. I would like to see Fratello come back, but that may even be percieved as (like Jay Walker says) "been there done that." At the same time, people don't even know who Stotts is. Like much of anything that has to do with the Hawks, they don't care. So, if he really has something to bring to the table...then he could very well be a part of this new image makeover. ... Quote: To me those statements are contradictory. There are better coaches out there. Just about every one out there. If we didn't have a coach, I'd be looking exclusively at bringing in someone with instant credibility. We've got a guy, who's been here for a while...that has more experience than some of the guys looking for a chance. He's been through as rough a storm as it gets...he's still standing, but barely. That, to me, gives him a leg up on anyone other than someone with instant credibility. Quote: I'm saying bring a veteran coach who knows how to teach and motivate to help our young players gel and develop. Just about any of them will do (except Wilkens). I'm sure coaches will be getting fired too. Why is it that we have the coach with the longest tenure in the conference when it's stotts?? Agreed. At the same time though, keeping Stotts on for a little while longer gives the rest of the league a chance to hand us a better coach. Letting Rivers slip into Boston's back door has really prolonged the situation. Is there someone who could be brought in that would be better than Stotts? No doubt. Are they available now? That's questionable. I'm not interested in Byron Scott and his ego or stubborn substitution pattern. I don't think he'll mix well with the rebuilding effort. I think the Czar can and I think Rudy T could...if he were healthy and willing to coach. I don't feel sorry for Stotts. I liken him to an unproven draft pick. Maybe he'll turn out good, maybe he won't. My gut tells me when it comes down to it, that we'll end up replacing him anyway - so go forward with him, draft as we please, and if he doesn't show us anything...adios. I think we could commit to him as much as "hey, show us what you've got. Things have settled down, show us that you are a leader." I don't think we give him the same amount of leeway as we would a Larry Brown, Paul Silas, or Rivers. However, another mid season coaching change is not cool. If we go with Stotts, we take him through next season, with the same group of players whether he struggles or not. I don't believe that he DESERVES to be fired; but the organization deserves stability and a good coach. If it's Stotts, then so be it. If we bring in a veteran coach that can get it done...I've got no problem showing Stotts the door.

If we were coachless, he would not be on my short list. He might not even be on my list. I wouldn't even try going forward with a guy looking for a chance, because we need stability; but true to Hawks "ill-luck-bad-decision", form every big named coach has been snapped up. IMO, going with a guy like Stotts is no different than going with the next great coach in the waiting; so, firing him just to bring in someone else like him only perpetuates the instability. I don't think he's been given a chance; but that has more to do with so many changes within our organization and so many distractions. If he were a veteran head coach, I might be inclined to levy a bit more of the blame on him. Being a newbie at it, having come into this situation, I don't put it all on him. DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH I am not a Stotts fan. No sir. I think he deserves a shot to show what he can do given stability, just like anyone else itching for a chance, but I do not believe that he has "earned" an extended stay. I don't believe he should be fired based on the team's performance, but I don't believe that his performance has been amazing either. That's really what it comes down to for me. For a better head coach, I'd scoot him right on out the door - he hasn't impressed me. But is there anyone left? Fratello? Chuck Daly? Rudy T? I'd go with either of those guys over Stotts. But as far as potential goes, I think he has just as much as the next young gun; I see no need to fire him just to bring in another one...and fire him in 2 years too.

Yes, it is worth watching. I'll have to add it to my collecction now that I think of it.

Stotts doesn't deserve to get fired. Not by a long shot. The changes and organizational turmoil have NOTHING to do with him. At the same time, he hasn't been given the chance to show what he can do. He's basically coached 3 different teams and it's hard to establish any kind of identity or system with that; and not just for a new head coach either. We set ourselves up for rebuilding this past season; now we actually start doing it. Time to build the team and time to pick a coach. It comes down to Stotts vs. someone with instant credibility...and if this team had made the playoffs, or even come close, then I don't think we'd even have to make that choice. One of the things that I worry about is that Stotts takes this team into next season and doesn't find a way to win consistently against the bottom feeders. I want to see stability and I want to see defense. Scoring hasn't been an issue, we just haven't been able to slow down the opposition. Given a season without wholesale changes, players that compliment each other and follow directions, will Stotts get results? It doesn't matter right now, but it will in a few years when we are playing to win. I don't want to be in that situation saying, "well, if we can just get Stotts another star player..." Another mid-season coaching change is not cool either. For the sake of stability and the young talent that will be our future, whomever we select now needs to be IT - our coach for better or worse.

I agree that... Stotts was in a no win situation. Not because of the team that he inherited, but because of the organization that inherited him. We changed players, GMs, and owners while he has been bouncing around right in the middle of it. We don't know what our identity is going to be, we barely have an inkling of where we're going. By default, Stotts' job has a cloud of uncertainty over it. To stabilize the club, it is quite neccessary to have a system and a vision of where the organization wants to go. Nobody wants to come to a team in turmoil; especially not the difference makers that we want to sign as free agents. It really hurts the young guys who need solid tutilage and direction - JT would be the poster boy for this kind of misdirection. I believe that if Stotts is brought back, he should be given a new contract - mainly for stability. I do not believe... That Stotts has done an amazing coaching job. I think the guys who came in the 2nd half of the season simply played their game. We all knew JT could score. If anything, we can credit Lon Kruger for discovering this. For JT to continue to be an effective scorer, he needed a ball handling compliment. Sura is that. Sura's game is hustling, falling, scrapping, getting into the lane, and passing. This isn't something that Stotts discovered or asked of him. His game simply compliments JT...and Jackson for that matter. We knew what kind of player Jackson was coming in to the season. Stotts didn't bring out the toughness in him, and he certainly didn't find a way help him compliment the 1st half team better. With Sura and JT both being able to handle and distribute, Jackson simply did what he did best - with more opportunity to do it. And sure, the team cut down on the turnovers. However, would this be due to JT handling the ball less? Could it be due to Sura handling the ball more? If we already knew JT needed another ball handler, then what was there for Stotts to figure out? What's more, this isn't even the same group of players that cut down on it's turnovers. We're talking about TWO completely different sets of players who play TWO completely different styles of basketball. The only reason why this group was expected to fail, which, as our record indicates, they still did (and vs. bottom feeders), was because nobody knew that they could do anything. The guys were loose, played with nothing to lose and everything to gain (in the form of a new contract), and Stotts spread them out in a system that they could play in. That is most of what I give him credit for. Not for a stellar 2nd half record... Not for developing anyone into a better player... Not for stabilizing a club vs. different levels of competition... Not for getting this club to play better defensively... And not for doing any of this in 1 1/2 seasons. I'm not saying he's a bad coach, or that he is primarily responsible for our horrible record. But, people are giving Stotts too much credit for what happened after the Allstar break this year; and WAY too much respect if we're talking about building a team for him.

For a world where your mind controls the boundaries and the sky is literally the limit, I thought there was way too much simple gunplay in the original. However, the story and the concept of the Matrix floored me and carried my interest through the trilogy. I thought the second movie did a better than decent job of exploiting the freedom of the Matrix and the characters' control of mind over matter. Why do you need a gun when you can hurl a street bike from a 10 story building...or slice through the side of an SUV with a Katana? The second movie also brought a new dimension to the fight against the the machines. In the original, Cypher was basically the antagonist and the only real extent of villany. The Agents were less like villans and more like basic, disinterested, extensions of one big, emotionless computer system - until the end when Smith showed signs of self awareness. In Reloaded, not only was the machine menace given a face in form of The Architect, but also with the charismatic frenchman and his "rogue" programs. Also, multiple agendas and interests were effectively established: the Humans (divided into believers and non-believers), the Machines, and Programs (benevolent, independent, and malevolent). I enjoyed the Reloaded, as I went in NOT expecting the mind-f!ck that was the Matrix. How can you replicate that kind of twist? By comparison, I believe Reloaded is a decent movie in it's own right. Standing alone, it's just a great action movie that delivers. Revolutions was a bit of a disappointment. My biggest problem was how the trilogy didn't end with a resounding thud of a door closing. Where did Neo go? What is the significance of this little girl? How do the machines plan to survive without human power? How do the two sides plan not only to maintain the peace, but establish a way to live together PERIOD? There were also too many cliche's as you said AHF, with the unavoidable American movie corn-age to boot: "Neo, I believe in you with all my heart!" It seemed as though The W brothers had completely worked out the Matrix and it's plot, conceived or possibly even completely worked out the details of Reloaded, but were unprepared to end the series - as if they had waited all their lives just to do the Matrix and when it was finally done, and successful, they were like..."what now?" After futher review (having purchased the final movie) watching Reloaded, then going straight into the finale, Revolutions doesn't seem so bad. Compared to the 1st two, it's definitely average at best...but it does effectively carry the human's struggle. The siege of Zion was stirring and the religeous undertones were interesting. The core of the story however, the Matrix (and our imprisonment within it), seemed to get lost within the physical struggle and I think that really took something away from the series. Overall, I believe Reloaded was worth waiting for and Revolutions could have been 100% better. Neither compares to the impact of the 1st, which I fully expected, and only Reloaded manages to shine on it's own.

I'm just not ready to give him the keys to the city. He hasn't earned a long term deal. He hasn't proven anything; and I certainly wouldn't build a team around him. There are only a handful of coaches that I would build a team for - and Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan constitute half of that handful. Doc Rivers is not among those coaches. I like Doc though. He's a good coach, but what I really like about him is his personality. That's one of the Hawks' biggest needs right now. We haven't had a decent identity since Dominique left. Mookie, Smitty, and Mutombo came in with Lenny Wilkens and we became a solid team capable of winning in the regular season...occasionally sqeaking out of the 1st round of the playoffs. However, the team still didn't have a real identity. Does anyone talk about those days? Does anyone even remember? They won, but they couldn't win the big games. They played VERY well, but they were boring. Bringing in Doc would have jump started the process of rebuilding not only our team, but our identity as well. I think there are better coaches though. Mike Fratello is one. The Czar has always been one of my closet favorites. He can just flat out coach. I'm all for an old-school coach and I know Mike would come in and get results. If you give him the right team, he'll get results...but Mike is a guy who'll find out the best way to play what he's got and get every ounce out of that squad. The only thing is, I'd rather not have him slow our young guys down to a plodding, barely watchable, style of basketball just to eeek out a winning season. I also like EMuss's hard nose, no wimps allowed, style of coaching...but that's better suited to a veteran squad. Plus, his lack of attention to the young guys is apparently what's got people talking about him right now. He's a guy you bring in like Chicago did with Skiles. I think the Bulls' days of underachievement and slow-development are coming to a close. In the end, that's we need to be looking at - a guy that can come in and develop the players we're drafting. If Fratello can accept the rebuilding process and do that, then I think he's a good candidate. Oh, and he's got ties to the organization too... There's a bunch of guys out there that will probably make good coaches one day. Guys that are itching for a start somewhere. Maybe our search for a recognizeable commodity would unfairly alienate those eagar young coaches; but honestly, if we're seriously looking at hiring a young gun just itchin' to run the show then we should just stick with Stotts. That's what it comes down to. If we're not going after a big name that can develop our guys (uh, when we get 'em), then we just keep Stotts.

Not Frank Williams...sh#t just rolls out sometimes when I'm typing!

Quote: From the point that we traded away Shareef, Nazr and released Dion, we only got blown out in 4 games. From the point that Sura, Collins, Crawford and Co started receiving bulk minutes, we were only blown out in two games. Every other game we either won or competed hard to make it a very close game. The point is, when Stotts was given a team of players that actually played hard, we competed against every team we played. Beating many playoff teams along the way. But we still LOST, consistently, and to fellow bottom feeders like Orlando, Philly (without Iverson), New York (without Houston), Washington, a 101 – 84 Thrashing at the hands of Toronto, and the last game of the season against Boston without Pierce. We almost lost one of our precious late season “gems” against Dallas. Quote: Another key difference that refutes your comments and points directly at Stotts ability as a coach are time out situations. I didn’t say that the man can’t coach. I’m saying he has done nothing to earn him a long stay in Atlanta nor has he distinguished himself as one of the better coaches in the leage – and that is what we need when our games start having meaning. Quote: who ever we sign this year, we need to sign them to stay. No more of this "he's expendable" bs. If we sign STotts, we need to commit to him. If not, let him go and bring in someone else to sign long term. I wouldn’t build my team around a coach. I’d see what my coach can bring out of my players and go from there. I certainly wouldn’t promise a new head coach ANYTHING based on a coaching basically 3 different teams with inconsistent results. And the bottom line is that everyone is expendable in this league. There’s no such thing as a permanent head-coaching job; and we’re rebuilding. There’s no telling what this team will look like in 2 or 3 years. If and when we put a winning team on the floor, we don’t even know if Stotts can handle it. To have this discussion, you have to define standards. What are the standards to which Stotts is being held? Are we judging him on 1-½ years of tenure? Are we judging him on half a season with Dog, half a season with Theo and SAR, and half a season with the free agents? Looking at all three, I don’t see anything spectacular that merits a long extension for Stotts. A good coach comes in when players have given up on his successor, they get results, and they take good teams and make them better. Most importantly, they get consistency. Even if it was just a routine beating of lottery teams, it’s still consistent – but no matter whom the personnel were, our team could not do that. …and so is every player that plays on a team with bad chemistry considered a cancer? Is that what we’re saying here, Stotts had two very cancerous players that refused to do what he wanted them to do? The things that would help this team beat even the bottom feeders on a regular basis…? Theo and SAR were not those types of players. I think given the same amount of talent, there are coaches who could have at least gotten consistent results – Rivers, Carlisle, Karl, Silas, Van Gundy, Fratello, O’Brien. Even new head coaches like Frank Williams or Musselman could handle that. I think these kind of guys have distinguished themselves as “good” coaches. I think generally speaking, you could call him a good coach; however, I don’t think Stotts has accomplished anything that could put him in the category with guys who get results; nor do I believe that he is a BAD coach. Either way, he is by no means my hands-down favorite to coach this team going forward. While we flounder away trying to find our identity, I think it would be wise to see what he’s got. Extending him for a couple of seasons isn’t a bad idea either. But committing to his vision and his coaching ability right now is premature to say the least.

He just hasn't impressed me much in his time here. He couldn't get anything consistent out of the team that we traded away - even though Jack was supposed to come in and somehow be the player that Dog wasn't. And I think it would be a mistake to give Stotts too much credit for what these guys did late in the year. They were contract players, with nothing but playing time to work in and shots to take. Stotts spread the floor out and created a system to cater to their style of play; however, it was the loose "YMCA" style basketball that caught the league off guard - and even that didn't work consistently. This team continually played up to the better teams and down to the bad ones. This is a trend that did not change during Stott's run. I think Stotts should stay on, but not because he's so great. He should stay on because he knows our players and because he's expendible. If he proves that he can coach this team to a winning record, then we've got our coach. If not, then just keep him on until we get ready to get serious. It think that's an approach that's workable for both sides. Stotts gets to show the league what he can do, the team keeps the flexibility to keep him if they want.

With the exception being, I'm looking for faults these days...something to validate my suspicion. I don't think the NBA lottery being rigged could be compared to the state lotteries or actual games. There are too many factors and too many people invovled - you'd have to control entire teams - coaches, owners, players, EVERYBODY on TWO teams; that's just not something that I believe is very possible. With the state lotteries, you have the government involved and public money. You're not talking lawsuits, you're talking about jail - and likely fed time. This process is also out in the open. Stern's lottery is conducted, controlled, and probably audited in house. Despite it all, the one thing I know for sure is that Stern has enough reasons to control this thing. I know he has the resources to do it. If that is the case, then I do not believe that the majority of teams that have a shot at the top 3 spots will get it. I think that if a team from the WC makes the top 3, then it will be a team with little chance of doing so - just to make things look random. I am almost positive that Atlanta will be drafting Dwight Howard in this scenario and that Philly will be given a chance to improve as well. I don't think Chicago will be selecting either of those PFs. I think that Atlanta and Orlando or Philly will sit 1 and 2; I have a strong feeling that Philly will be given a boost just like Detroit was last year. Iverson is one of the leagues most marketable players. Bringing him back to prime time with a high quality PF is just the kind of shot in the arm that the NBA needs. I don't think the NBA needs the Clippers to draft yet another strong forward. I don't think the NBA needs Phoenix to babysit another hssr, and they've already got their future at the 4. Same for Washington, who just nabbed a top PF prospect. Chicago is babysitting two F/C former HS prospects, and have been fishing in the draft seemingly forever. Cleveland just won the lottery, and if they win it this year the conspiracy chatter will not stop. I know I'll throw my hands up. Portland needs something to rouse their weary fans, and they do have fans, but they have fans and all they need to do is start winning. Utah is a darkhorse candidate here. They've got a pretty good PF in AK, but wouldn't it just seem appropriate to put Dwight Howard out there in Utah; if he's good, then he's the perfect replacement for Karl Malone - nice guy with wholesome religious values? Oh man, it's too good! Seattle? They could use a PF presence. Nobody's saying anything about them, and if they win it, everything looks legit. Toronto? Already got a decent front court - but they do have a VERY marketable star in VC. But I'm just guessing at what *somebody* could be looking at. Atlanta Orlando Philly Utah Seattle I was certain Bron would be coming east along with the 2nd overall pick. I don't really have that kind of certainty this year; but the closest thing to it would be Howard landing in Atlanta or Utah and Okafur landing in Philly or Orlando. We'll see.

Well again, it could have been that NY had already been handed a prime time center. It could also be that NY plays in the EC. While that may be going against "balancing" it doesn't go against the opportunity to put Shaq and Yao head to head. California would have been a good choice for Yao, but he couldn't give Yao to the Clippers - but quite obvious at the same time. Plus, there is the chance, good chance, that the Clippers would have taken JWill. They screwed up taking a bigman prospect over a very good PG prospect. They wouldn't likely do it again. And it may have very well come down to a simple tossup between GS and Houston. Perhaps they were both evaluated on talent? Marketability? Who knows. But, where in here do I say "Houston was the best choice for Stern to put Yao Ming"... Quote: I think Houston landing Yao seems pretty straight up. Then again, someone was making a point in here... Why didn't Stern put Melo and Bron in the same conference so they could go head to head? So Yao goes west for several prime time matchups with Shaq. It's made for TV and that is a HUGE part of the NBA's financial well being. There are also only certain markets that the Chinese were willing to let Yao play in. One of the factors was the percentage of Asian Americans in that market. I've read that Houston has a fairly decent Asian population. But, which one of these teams would have made a better selection? New York landing the top pick would have been TOO obvious. Couldn't send him to LA, because then Atlanta gets to keep that pick. I wonder how Houston's population demographics compares to every other lottery team that year. If I get time, I'm gonna look it up. The first sentence there says it all. The challenge was laid out by Catapult: name a team that landed the #1 pick where the results DON'T seem convenient. That's what I did. My answer was Houston landing Yao, but you could still find a method to madness. That's the point too. Sorting through the list of lottery teams in 2002, the best fit comes down to Houston and GS. The Clippers would have been TOO obvious: they play right next to the Lakers and they probably have the largest Asian population. That's TOO perfect. But the point here 1st of all was not to prove that Houston was a perfect or convenient choice. It was to answer the exact opposite question. But in the same way that Houston would have selected Yao over JWill, the other top prospect in the draft was perfect for Chicago - who would have taken him with the 1st pick and not Yao. My reasons for being doubtful does not come down to the sheer number of possibilities. That's just stupid and a narrow-minded retort to boot. I love the NBA and I love the intrigue surrounding the draft lottery. For the majority of the past 2 decades that I've followed the NBA, I haven't even given much thought to the whole thing. Again, it wasn't until San Antonio fell out of the playoffs due to an injury to Robinson and were subsequently handed a superstar player that I raised an eyebrow. And it wasn't until recently that I actually thought something was amiss. I knew that Chicago would be selecting JayWill, not GS. I knew that LeBron was going to be playing in the East and I knew that there would be a 2nd EC team to nab the 2nd overall pick that should have put Bron and Melo head to head. I'm simply giving the draft this same kind of evaluation this year.

Well first, I don't know if the lottery is staged; I don't fully trust Sterns claims and I'm not sure he could resist, but most of this is just speculation based on convenient results. The point that I've been trying to make here for a couple of days is that not only is a lottery machine riggable, but there is very little independent control over it's proceedings. Regardless, if Stern is rigging the draft, then I do have the utmost confidence in the man. Through the outstanding job he's done with the NBA since he stepped in, he has proven that he knows what to do. But to answer your question... You know, I've watched the draft for YEARS. But only recently have I begun to seriously question it. When Orlando was given back to back top selections, I thought it was kinda strange...but I was too excited that they might pair Shaq and Webber to really analyze anything. I think the '97 draft is about where I really started taking a good look. And all I see is convenience. I think Houston landing Yao seems pretty straight up. Then again, someone was making a point in here... Why didn't Stern put Melo and Bron in the same conference so they could go head to head? So Yao goes west for several prime time matchups with Shaq. It's made for TV and that is a HUGE part of the NBA's financial well being. There are also only certain markets that the Chinese were willing to let Yao play in. One of the factors was the percentage of Asian Americans in that market. I've read that Houston has a fairly decent Asian population. But, which one of these teams would have made a better selection? New York landing the top pick would have been TOO obvious. Couldn't send him to LA, because then Atlanta gets to keep that pick. I wonder how Houston's population demographics compares to every other lottery team that year. If I get time, I'm gonna look it up. Either way, I think this will be a good year to REALLY take a look at teams that really don't need a top selection: Chicago, the Clippers, Phoenix. And teams that really do: Orlando, Atlanta, Philly. And teams that if they get a top selection are likely playoff bound next season: Cleveland, Utah. The thing is, this year the teams with the worst records really don't need a PF. So it won't make sense to give that team the 1 or 2 pick ('cept Orlando, who I believe will get a top 2 selection). Either way, we are the team drawing the most attention in this draft. New owners, new management, sucky attendance, a fresh team to market, and a homegrown top prospect - not to mention being screwed by previous draft decisions. Topping it off, we've also landed one of the NBA's league executives as our CEO. If we don't get a top selection, I will be VERY surprised and will have MUCH more confidence in the legitimacy of the lottery.