chillzatl

we needed hitting and that's what we got. Sheffield will heat up, as he has been doing over the last few weeks. L.A. needed pitching and they got what they wanted. The braves have gone on record as saying they didn't want to trade perez but they had to. The guy never did anything for us so of all the young pitching prospects we had, he is the one I would have moved first. We didn't get screwed on anything. We'll be there at the end of the season, L.A isn't that good and will slip before it's all said and done.

that we might not keep him at all? That he could be packed with one of our more expensive, veteran players in a trade?

you look at it from the most simplistic perspective possible. Seattle got rid of Griffy and A-rod (along with Randy johnson I might add) and they suddenly became good. SO that must mean that those players suck, they are losers. WRONG. It means that seattle was paying those guys A LOT OF MONEY and were unable to bring in players for the other positions (especially pitching) that was anywhere close to the talent level of those players. What seattle did was trade those high priced players (or sign younger players with the extra money) for a collection of younger, less known players with very high potential and it has paid off for them. There are lots of other teams out there that do this. You get a good player who becomes a star, sometimes you get hamstrung financially and you have to move that star. Some teams make good decisions on what they get and some don't. Seattle made good decisions. It was not the fault of Griffy, A-rod or Johnson.

Baseball is not basketball. There is no stats padding (except maybe stolen bases in blowouts). Other than that the stats are legit. a homerun is a homerun. Pitchers don't give up homeruns just because they have 5 run leads and hitters don't decide "i'm going to get a triple this at bat since we are down by 10". It doesn't work that way. Pitchers do not want to be scored on, EVER. They aren't out there giving up freebies "just because". The same goes for hitters. They are out there trying to get a hit regardless of the situation.

In the NBA one star and a bunch of medicre talent can make you a playoff team, maybe not a champion, but a playoff team. In baseball you need solid players at every spot and a couple of stars, period.

Healthy Ratliff is best choice

By JEFFREY DENBERG

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

Without a pick in the first round of Wednesday's NBA Draft, the Hawks choose center Theo Ratliff to lead them out of the wilderness.

In the days leading up to draft, Ratliff pronounced himself ready to accept that assignment and return to his trade.

"Been too long, much too long," he said. "It's time for me to get back on the court and play some basketball."

It has been well-documented that Ratliff has appeared in only three games since being traded from the Philadelphia 76ers to the Hawks on Feb. 22, 2001, with Toni Kukoc and Nazr Mohammed.

A broken scaphoid bone in his right wrist sidelined Ratliff after 50 games that season, costing him a first appearance in the NBA All-Star game. He finished as the league leader in blocked shots but did not have a rejection as a Hawk because the fracture did not heal until summer.

Then near the eve of training camp last summer, Ratliff made an awkward move that led to surgery for torn hip cartilage, and when he came back from that, he was done in by a series of muscular and ligament injuries.

For the record, he played Oct. 30 against Houston, Nov. 1 against Washington and Jan. 11 against Toronto. Grand total: 82 minutes, 26 points, 16 rebounds, seven blocked shots. But the pain from a groin injury in that Canadian game was so severe, he could not attempt to play again. The Hawks blamed it on a bursa sac, the hip and the forward tilt of his pelvis, which invited injury. All were factors in Ratliff's absence.

The Hawks finally sent him to Vancouver to meet with therapist Alex McKechnie, who had remarkable success with the Hornets' Jamal Mashburn and others. Ratliff could well be his latest success story.

"I feel better than I've felt in a long, long time," Ratliff said before an arduous workout with strength coach Pete Radulovic, followed by a session on the Philips Arena practice court with teammates.

The single caveat is the right hip socket and its repaired cartilage. Ratliff's surgeon, Mark Phillipon, has performed similar procedures on NHL players. He told the Hawks that Ratliff will be fine. Ratliff believes that, but admits, "I've got pain there, and I expect I'll always have pain there. The thing is it's nothing I can't deal with."

The tilt in his pelvis has been corrected by a regimen of workouts. He believes his troublesome midsection will now remain injury-free.

But can he work a full season as he did his first four years in the league?

"We'll find out," he said. "But I believe I can. That's what I'm working toward -- to play every game at a high level and take this team back to the playoffs."

At age 29, Ratliff might have some selfish interests as well. Next summer, he can opt out of the remaining two years of his contract ($10.1 million in 2003-04, $10.9 million in 2004-05) and join the rich lode of free agents who enter the market. He doesn't say he will, but if he does, the market for Ratliff will be negligible if he isn't productive.

"The thing is I want to have a good year for the good of my team and for the enjoyment of the game," he said. "When you are away from basketball as long as I've been away, you have a chance to realize how much you love it, and how much you miss it."

Including 25 games lost to ankle miseries in 1999-2000, the native of Demopolis, Ala., has sat out 136 of 242 games the past three years.

But he also showed what a fine teacher like Herb Brown (Larry Brown's brother) can do for a good player's game. After averaging 4.5 and 5.8 points per game, respectively, in his first two years with Detroit, Ratliff was traded to Philadelphia in December, 1997, and became a solid 12-points-a-game scorer with the 76ers. Also, with his quickness, court sense and long reach, he gained a reputation as one of the league's foremost defensive centers.

The Hawks got a taste of that last October in an exhibition game against Charlotte when Ratliff initiated defensive rotations that utterly foiled the Hornets.

"Theo makes you a better defensive player when he walks on the court," Jason Terry said. "He's a coach on the floor, directing traffic. You don't have to worry about gambling a little because you know he's going to cover your man. There's no question we're one of the best teams in the East when he plays."

All front court with no backcourt. Not saying that JV and DJ are scrubs, but they aren't stars yet and aren't going to give you the firepower you need back there to take the pressure off the frontcourt players. Bad trade.

If you want a player who can come in and contribute immediately and might be a star someday, either pick a college senior or a euro player. If you don't mind getting someone who will take a few years to develop but COULD (key word, COULD) end up being a superstar a few years down the road, you pick Homegrown US talent.

You fail to mention how this is changing though. Today more and more Euro players are coming into the league with better basketball skills and just as much upside and potential.

You can wave your flag all you want and hype the unproven even more. But the truth is, the Euro players are far more hungry for what the NBA offers than U.S kids. Kids here are still focusing on being able to jump and having a quick first step. But other than that they can't do anything. The euro players are coming in with the ability to shoot and rebound right off the bat. The Euro players have just as big a chance of being a superstar as any of the american kids do, including Amare Stoudamire.

And as far as Stoudamire is concerned. Most young kids have the same "desire in print" when they are on the brink of joining this league. They quickly find out that playing 82 games against pro level talent is a lot different than playing 10-20 against highschool/college level talent. And really being a star means sacrificing a lot of the luxury free time they expected to have once they became "nba stars". So don't fall prey to the same blind hype that you criticize others for.

do that. They are basically saying if we don't start winning this year, we aren't going to make the tickeholders suffer. Good job Hawks!

THis guy has done nothing in his career other than play "good" for a 16 game stretch. When he shows he can be more than a disappointment for an entire season, then give him some credit. Until then he is just a lazy big guy who has a lot of potential and very little desire to put it to use.

Toronto wouldn't do the deal, no way in hell. But saying that Clark is this ultra talented player who brings it every night is absurd. There are teams that could easily be suckered into giving up a lot for this guy in the hopes that he might decide to start playing with some passion. While Toni and 1st aren't "a lot" to us, we all know they wouldn't do that deal. And I wouldn't give up what it would take to get him here.

At this point, Leon Smith has just as much potential to deliver as Clark does and he seems willing to actually work for it.

not long before he hurt his wrist he was hitting those shots though. I was as hard on him as anyone (I gave him the name E-dump). But truth be told he did pick it up about the same time JV started picking it up. He is a good backup, but only a backup. He's not a starter. We tried to use him as a starter adn it just didn't work. As a backup I think he could be a very key part of this team. He plays good man to man D and good team D and we wouldn't be completely punished if we had him and JT in the game together for short periods. If he continues to improve his shot selection as he did before he hurt himself he'll be a fine backup. He's not going anywhere anyway so fughetaboutit.

A star to die hard hawks fans, sure. But beyond that I don't see it. I'm not concerend about how his jumper looks. I'm concerned with his production. As it was last year he gave us a consistant 9ppg on near 50% shooting. That's very good production for a guy who doesn't see the ball very often. If he's working on his jumper like the reports have said, I see no reason why he can't up that average to 12-13ppg without lowering his fg% much at all, if any. He very well could have given us that last year if he had gotten 1-2 more shots per game. Considering that he's a defensive minded role player, I don't see him "getting shots". He'll just take more of them that come his way. He passed on a LOT of open shots last year becuase I don't feel he felt comfortable enough in taking them. If he's working on his shot a lot then his confidence to take more of those will be up as will his production.

If the rumors hold true that he's working on his jumpshot all summer, I think he can be a better version of Bowen. One who can do more than stand there and shoot the occasional 3. we've seen that Ira can and will drive the lane when it opens up for him. Not to mention hitting the mid-range shot. PLus he knows the team and would be cheaper than even bowen.

though I might have misworded that first line so it could have thrown you off. Shaq played against "upper echelon" big men early in his career and more than held his own. Ewing, Mourning, robinson, etc. He played against Drob, Ewing and Hakeem when they were in their primes and he was not yet in his and he was still able to do all that his stats implied and more, many times dominating those players. He has since improved quite a bit in my opinion. Early in his career I personally felt all he had was a dunker with little basketball skill and I really hated the guy. He has developed an arsenal of moves in the paint from his drop step to his turn around off the glass. Those are moves that he certainly lacked in his first few years. Just like Hakeem in his prime, he has about 6-7 different moves he can put on someone, He can pass, he can run the floor and he's a HUGE presence on D.

I have no clue how you could ever feel that Alonzo was better than Shaq. Alonzo held his own against him because he was a great player. You can't take anything away from mourning. But to say he was better at any point is crazy. It wasn't evident in the stats or in the win-loss column. I don't think you could find any team that would take mourning over Shaq at any point in their careers. But I digress.

All i'm saying is that to try and take something away from Shaq because the league is not CURRENTLY full of other comparable big men is ridiculous. He played against great big men early in his career and more than held his own. His talent and skill are as evident as his size and they would have transitioned into any era just as dominant, if not moreso, as they are today.

Shaq DID NOT get abused by any of the centers he played against early in his career. For his career he has done better against Hakeem that Hakeem did against him. Hakeem was just playing from another plane of existance in the finals that year. He destroyed the MVP and then continued on to shaq. Do not confuse the owning he put on Drob with what happened vs. shaq though. He did not destroy shaq like he did Robinson. Robinson got embarassed in every facet of the game. Shaq ran up against an equal player who had the better team.

they didn't say that he league has never been stocked iwth good centers, it has. But not a lot at one time. In the 80's you had malone and Kareem. In the 90's you had Hakeem and Ewing and Robinson, that's it. Apart from Hakeem, shaq dominated every one of those guys too. That's not stocked by any means. That's 1-3 really quality centers every decade. Shaq just doesn't have a counterpart right now. It's just him, by himself.

Shaq would have held his own and then some against the best the game has ever seen. They might have scored on him, sure I do not dispute that. But they would not have stopped him. Not one of them. I would say that shaq would have done better back in the old days because:

1. Shaq is a HUGE athlete, he's not just a big lumbering oaf. Wilt dominated the game because he too was a HUGE athlete. Shaq is bigger and dare I say it, a better ball player.

2. They played the game rougher so shaq would have been able to be even more physical in the post.

I actually read an article on the basketballnews page today that seconded my thoughts exactly. I would put him clearly in the top 5 of all time right now and before his career is done he will be 1 or 2 without question. Size is size and talent is talent and shaq is as talented as any center to play the game and also just happens to be the biggest to play the game.

while it was effective, they lacked someone who can just take the ball and score with it. Kidd can do a lot, but a scorer he is not. If he had but one guy on that team that he could count on for a consistant 22+ per game it might have been a series worth watching. The outcome would have still been the same, but it would have been worth watching.

BUt back to shaq. Sabonis is the only center I think has come close to matching up with Shaq since he has developed into the player he is today (last 4-5 years). True, if you have a center who can hit a mid-range shot, you will do well against the lakers. Vlade is a cheapshot artist and nothing more. He stepped up for some big games early in the series. But once the refs stopped giving him the cheap stuff (last few games) he disappeared.

Again I agree that you need a competant center. But you don't need another shaq. Mainly because we aren't going to find one. If Theo proves to be durable enough after his new rehab program, I think he will be a good enough for this team when they get to a contender level. Shaq is going to start to deteriorate and things will even out before long.

Shaq is a freak of nature. Just like Wilt, Russel, Hakeem and kareem, Shaq is one of a kind. Thinking that the only way we will have success is by "finding the next Shaq" is doing nothing but setting yourself up for a eternity of disappointments as a Hawks fan or a fan of any other NBA team. If there is ever another Shaq, you will see him coming before he ever hits the NBA and right now there just isn't one around. He is the most dominant big man to play the game since Wilt (IMO better) and when his career is done people will be looking for "the next Shaq" in the exact same way they are still looking for the next MJ.

That said, we do not need another Shaq to be a winner or to compete with the Lakers. A good, well rounded team will do the job. The Nets don't even have a Center of the quality of Theo. If they had a healthy Theo in his all-star year form, it would have been a different series. You aren't going to stop Shaq, period. But a healthy Theo is several classes above anything NJ had to throw out there.

If we can build a good all-around team we will be able to compete with anyone. Sacramento had the better team this year. But experience and championship poise tipped the scale in the Lakers favor.

he's really getting it done this year. This could be a career, MVP candidate season for him.

But really the entire team is picking it up hitting wise. Chipper is still hitting great, just not hitting for power. Sheff is coming on and Furcal is back to his old self. PLus the pitching staff is the best in the majors, IMO. I expect good things

We've got a young PG who is getting better every day. We have a young SG who plays D and is getting better every day. We have a gritty SF who can chip in points and play D against the best in the league. We have an All-star PF who should get better as his team improves. And we have a young, excellent defensive center who, if his training pays off, should give us something few teams in this league have. I'm content to give these guys some time to improve and see how far they can grow. It has worked for other teams that are currently at the top and it could work for us.

The real question marks for us are in bench depth. Everyone liked to talk how we had this talented bench last season but the truth is it was only deep and talented on paper. Every one of those guys, except JV, was wildly inconsistant and would have had a hard time earning minutes off the bench for a better team.

I think we have an excellent backup C in Nazr and a solid backup PG in E.Davis. APart from that we are nothing but questin marks. Hanno, Bowdler, glover and CC are quesion marks and have yet to prove they can come in off the bench and provide anything consistant. If we give our young stars the time to grow and improve (which showed results last season) and improve our bench I like our chances.

Now this doesn't mean we stand pat and don't improve in spots that could use it (SF). But I don't see any need to do anythign rash at this moment. Newble can still improve and give us everything we need to match the growth of this team for another year or two. After that it's wait and see. But if he can improve to the point of giving us a consistant 12-13ppg up from his 8-9ppg of last year, then we'll be fine.

I am rooting for the lakers to 4peat and even 5peat. I don't really like them and I'm certainly not a fan. But they could make history and I'm all for them to do it. They have to best front court player in the game and the best backcourt player in the game. Two dominant players that together simply can't be stopped. It's interesting watching other teams try and Sacramento really should have done it this year. But experience and attitude prevail and that's what the lakers won on this year.

Send me an email at the address you've used before and we'll talk.

While Theo might be more talented and a better overall player. If we can make a trade that gets us someone comparable that doesn't have the injury baggage that Theo has, we should do it, period. I have faith that he will come back this season and be productive for us. But it's stupid to ignore the high probability that he will not or the possibility that he will go down again in the future. It's not just apples and oranges here. Nobody has been afraid of Theo for 2 years now either.

We lose no real core players and swap theo for a younger, more athletic guy who can still block shots. Though not at the level theo could. I like it.

Well, You've proven that you don't watch enough baseball (with the exception, MAYBE, of the braves). I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't know enough about the game to state facts.

Saying that Johnson and Schilling "get it done when it counts" is laughable. It proves my above statement. Johnson was one of the losingest post season pitchers, for a pitcher of his stature, ever. He had never done anything in the post season before last year. There is no arguement. Before last season he has been a post season flop and a liability in the "big games". I could be mistaken on the exact numbers but I think he was something like 2-8 in the post season before last year. cough*choke*cough.

Schilling is a dominant pitcher now. But previously he had a whopping 1-1 record in the post season. yeah that's getting it done when it counts.

If you've bothered to watch any of the games the braves are hitting now. Every one of those guys you listed has raised his average over the last 3 weeks and it looks like they will end up doing exactly what many expected them to do. The team batting average jumped 5 spots in two weeks. They are getting it done.

You still dodged the fact that while you think "this is the weakest division", we still had to battle the eventual wild card winner 4 of the last 5 seasons. So while the division might be weak this year, it hasn't always been this weak and it certainly hasn't been the weakest division over the last 5 years. Your fanboy "everyone knows the mets won't do anything" is crap. It's a braves fans perspective and nothing more. The braves division race has been considered one of the tightest races over the last 4-5 years of any division out there.

So if you are going to make statements, at least have the facts to back them up instead of making "it's what I think" statements that aren't the least bit true.

last year, without a doubt they were the best. This year, no they aren't. Glavine is better the Schilling this year. 1 fewer wins and an ERA more than a run lower. That's just plain better. Especially considering that Glavine got the majority of his wins before this team was playing worth a crap. He was getting those wins despite only getting 1-2 runs per game and having several errors commited behind him. Schilling and Johnson have the leagues best hitting and highest producing lineup behind them. I'm not saying they are slouches, far from it. But apart from their strikeout total, they aren't the most dominating pitchers in the league right now.

That is what seperates us from them right now, their offense, not their pitching. But right now I wouldn't consider their offense to be much better than ours. We are playing like we were supposed to play and scoring runs like we were expected to. Our bullpen is considerably better than theirs as well.

As for your theory that we are in the weakest division, that's hogwash. This division has produced the wildcard 4 out of the last 5 seasons. That means the 2nd best team in our division had a better record than the 2nd best team in any other division. So this division is no weaker than any other. The last few years, none of the other divisions have had any tighter races coming down the stretch either. All the divisions have one or two good teams and a bunch of chumps, no different than our own.

that might mean something if a good chunk of their recent wins weren't against the top teams in the other divisions. Beat down on the Reds, tied series with Giants, etc etc. Doesn't mean much in our division as I expect them to win regardless of how well or poorly the other teams in it play. It's against the other divisions that I like to see how we measure up and so far we've measured up pretty well. If we can put 3-5 runs on the board per game, I like our chances against anyone.

Pitching, both staters and bullpen are the best in either league and our hitting is finally picking up to expectations. barring a major injury I feel they have one of their best chances in 5 years to win a title.