Let me play GM for a minute

[BillShanks]

Okay, the season’s over. We’re only going to have a million threads on this board speculating as to what you would do if you were the Hawks’ GM. So here’s mine.

First, I would acquire Jermaine O’Neal from the Pacers. My offer to Indiana would be Al Harrington (sign and trade), Josh Childress, and Tyronn Lue. The Pacers have been rumored to want Harrington back, and he’d probably enjoy going back there.

Childress is a fine player, a complimentary player. But we’ve got to give up one of our young players to get this trade done, and he’s my choice. They’re going to want Josh Smith or Marvin Williams, but Childress is the one we must push on them. It’s not that I want to trade Childress, but of the three young guns, the other two are the ones we’ve got to keep.

O’Neal is 28 years old. He supposedly lives in Atlanta part of the offseason. And he’s just damn good. He’s a athletic presence in the middle that would fit perfectly with Smith, Williams, and Zaza Pachulia. O’Neal has enough muscle to be a presence in the soon-to-be former Shaq-daddy era of the NBA. Plus, I think O’Neal can still be an effective and productive player for the next four or five years, giving the Hawks a solid player in the middle.

Then I would sign Mike James, a free agent point guard from Toronto. He’s not the perfect point guard, but I think he could help this club. He’s tall and athletic, and he can distribute the ball. I’m just not sure the Hawks are going to find a point guard in a deal or in the draft that can make as much of an impact as James can the next few years.

In the draft, I would draft, of course, a big man. Who cares who it is - just take the best one on the board at that time. Hopefully we’ll at least be fourth, so perhaps LaMarcus Aldridge or Andrea Bargnani will be available. For the heck of it, I’m going to hope we move up to second in the lottery and take Aldridge, who seems to be the powerful power forward that could fit this team.

I would keep Marvin Williams. I know the Chris Paul talk, but we’ve got to remember this kid is 19 years old. For him to average 8.5 points and just under 5 rebounds a game is pretty good for someone who should be a sophomore. And that’s just it. Both Williams and Smith should have been sophomores this season.

You guys know I use a lot of Braves’ analogies from time to time, so here’s another one. Roy Clark, the Braves’ Scouting Director, often talks about how high his high school draft picks would be in the draft if they had stayed in college. For example, how high would Jeff Francoeur had been in the baseball draft last year if he had gone to Clemson and left after his junior season?

So with that in mind, tell me how high Josh Smith and Marvin Williams would be in the 2008 draft if they had played four full years of college? That’s right, they probably would be the top two picks. Yes, Williams was already a top two pick, but that still shows his tremendous potential.

One question I like to ask a lot when covering the Braves’ minor league system is, “How good is this guy going to be in three or four years?” Well, how good do you think Smith and Williams will be in three or four years? I think Smith is going to be an All-Star. He really showed us glimpses of his and our future in the second half of the season. He’s not perfect and he’s not refined, but if he continues making positive strides like he did this year, Josh Smith is going to be one heck of a player for us.

And Williams is pretty much in the same boat. Let’s say for a minute that Williams’ minutes per game increase to what Smith played at in his second season. Just by using multiplication, cause you know I’m not going to get into those heavy-duty statistics, Marvin’s scoring average could go up to 11.05 and his rebounds to 6.2 per game - which believe it or not is in the neighborhood of what Smith put up this season.

How good can Williams be? Can he be a 20-point per game scorer? Maybe. I’m not completely sure yet, but the talent is there where we have to see. We have to find out.

Therefore, with the additions of Jermaine O’Neal and Mike James and a young power forward from the draft, we could allow the duo of Smith and Williams to continue their development. A young power forward like Aldridge could combine with Pachulia to give the Hawks a couple of solid big men, and Smith and Williams can the play the three and rotate between the four and even the two when needed.

We’ve invested a lot of time and two big picks in Smith and Williams, and in a way, we’ve got to build around these two players. Yes, Joe Johnson is our star, and don’t think I’m forgetting him at all. But we know Joe’s going to be there. He’s going to be one of the five that will play forty minutes a game. There’s still a lot for this team to discover about Smith and Williams, and it’s really only just begun.

A starting five of James, Johnson, O’Neal, Smith, and Pachulia would be formidable. And then we’d have Ivey, Stoudamire, Williams, and perhaps Aldridge on the bench. That could be a pretty good nucleus of talent.

This club is primed for a big offseason. We’ve got a huge trading piece in Al Harrington, a potential top four pick, and cap room to boot. I don’t think an offseason like the one I’ve projected is out of the question. It’s very clear that GM Billy Knight is facing his most crucial offseason. He’s built a nice foundation, but this is the summer we’ve all been waiting for. This is the summer that puzzle could possibly be completed to where this franchise has a playoff-caliber team once again.

***

BILL SHANKS covered the Hawks from 2001-2003 with "The Hawks Show." He is now the publisher of thebravesshow.com and can be heard on the Braves' Radio Network. He's also the author of Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team. You can email Bill at thebravesshow@email.com.

[thescout5]

Hey Bill, how is going this is Uncle Jed from the Braves board. I am a big hawks fan also so good to see you post. A few comments from what you said. I live in Indianapolis and obviously O'Neal is there starp player so it would take a huge package to get him.Childress,Al and Lue I don't think the pacers have a need for Lue. I wonder how the rest of the teams view Childress. I don't think he may have as high a trade value as we would hope. O Neal gets rebounds,scores and blocks shots so if they trade hime they are going to need someone to replace him.It may take our no1 pick and Al to get O Neal.Neither Al or Childress could replace O Neal's boards and shot blocking. Here's my question if we had to give up our no1 pick and Al would yo udo it. Let me also add how about this:

Pacers get : Al + Childress + no1

Hawks get : O Neal and pacers no 1( draft 17th)

I would try to lock in on Marcus Williams but he will go top 10-12 in draft.Not sure how to get him but could you imagine this lineup:

ONeal center

Williams forward

Smith forward

Johnson Guard

Williams Guard

I would pit that team up against most any teram in the nba. Getting back to your trade would Indy do it for Childress ,Lue and Al? In my opinion no and without giving up marvin or Josh we may have to part with the no1 pick.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

ONeal center

Williams forward

Smith forward

Johnson Guard

Williams Guard

---

That's a nice team but due to Al's expiring contract, I don't think anyone will take him in a trade until after the draft...when we can re-sign him and then move him....

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

ONeal center

Williams forward

Smith forward

Johnson Guard

Williams Guard

---

That's a nice team but due to Al's expiring contract, I don't think anyone will take him in a trade until after the draft...when we can re-sign him and then move him....

---

You can still draft a player for the purpose of completing the trade, though, and then trade the rights to the draft pick along with Al, etc.

The problem I see with this team is that JO has not interest in playing center and resisted that in Indiana. I think you should expect most of his minutes to come at PF with limited time at center.

[Vol4ever]

Bill maybe you have some inside information but I would really be surprised if the Pacers would move O'Neal and if they did I think it would at least take Josh Smith to even start a conversation. I really would like for your offseason moves to come true but I really don't think it will happen.

This team has to acquire a veteran or two in the offseason and I'm not sure our GM has a clue about what to do. His arrogance has ticked more than a few off in Atlanta and around the league.

I would like to take that #1 pick and possibly acquire a veteran big man, I think we have enough young players. It is time to put a decent product on the floor for the fans.

[Watchman]

Bill, you got rid of the wrong Josh. I can't really see why everyone thinks Smith is better than Childress. Childress seems to be the one always scoring a clutch basket at the end of games. Maybe Childress will never be more than a complimentary player, but I doubt that Smith will ever be more than that either. Childress shoots a much higher percentage, thus he wastes fewer shot attempts. Smith plays mediocre man to man defense at best.

[Final_quest]

It's hard to imagine Indy accepting Al and Marvin or Al and Smoove. Doesn't that put them in the same position we are in now? Starting two tweeners at the forward spots.

No one has brought up the possibility of trading JJ. Is JJ that untouchable that we wouldn't trade him for someone like JO?

[capstone21]

I think that would be a major setback if we traded JJ for JO. Why would we do that?

[DJlaysitup]

I think JJ's too untouchable right now to trade him for JO. BK had to go through so much to get him and has taken so much heat on the deal that he was to prove he was right.

Of course if Belkin wins the lawsuit - we could trade anybody

[capstone21]

I like the JO trade. However, I am not convinced about Mike James. I know he can score but I am not really that big a fan of his. He is more about himself. He thinks he is a star and I don't think he wants to play a role but instead wants to be the center of the offence. That became apparent at the end of the season. If we acquire JO maybe JT can be enticed to come back. Dallas is probably looking to give Harris a more prominent role and that will mean JT will have to move on. He would be a great fit in the backcourt with JJ.

[Diesel]

You make a great point.

If we were to consider moving JJ. Say JJ for JO straight up, then we could easily pick up one of these talented OG like ROY in the draft.

However, I don't see us moving JJ for the simple fact that he's been too good. He's actually creating an identity here. Plus, it would be us saying... Belk was right. (in a way).

But imagine if we got a new GM before the draft and he decided:

Draft Roy.

Move Marvin for Livingston.

Trade JJ for JO...

Resign Al.

We would have:

Livingston, ROY, Al, JO, Zaza... as the starters.

with the Joshes off the bench.

[Guest Walter]

in 36.5 MPG or 27.66 PPG per 48 MPG as opposed to 8.5 in 24.7 MPG or 16.5 PPG per 48 for MW. Overall TENDEX ratings per 48 have Carmelo at 22.1 and MW at 16.66. Lastly, Carmelo single-handedly took a previous year 17 win team to the 8th seed in the WC playoffs the following year. In short, despite rules changes favoring perimeter players in terms of scoring somewhat, MW is only 60% the scorer Carmelo is, significantly less the overall basketball player, and in no way shape or form an impact player like Carmelo.

I know they are somewhat dissimilar players given Carmelo is a pure Sf and MW is not, but being a 'tweener is not a case for MW!

My point? MW is NOT an impact player and he will not become one. He was the 5th to 6th best HSer in his original draft class, he did not make a significant immediate impact in college, he has not made an immediate impact in the pros, the level of his current impact as a total player and expecially as a scorer does not suggest he will make a significant impact, much less be a 20 PPG scorer.

My point again?

He is not a player to build around.

Given our positional and skill redundancy at the Sf position, our lack of other (traded picks) capitol in which to 1) diversify our team skill sets, 2) acquire a superstar or player with superstar potential, and 3) meet positional needs, all presumably prior to our resigning our existing young talent, and MW's presumed and currently retained value as a "project", he is the player we should trade.

I don't believe Josh Childress and Al Harrington will not acquire us JO. MW and Al might. I like the idea of JO and would enjoy developing a team in that route, especially with another high draft pick big, and think MW and Al is worth the trade from our stand point. We would actually have 3 starting positions filled rather than 2 even though we traded 2 for 1.

Lastly, we have NOT invested alot of time in MW as you suggest. We've invested ONE YEAR. Half as much as Smith or Childress. That is in NO WAY an argument to keep MW.

BTW, I agree 100% that this is the most important offseason for BK. He HAS to get it right now as we have very little capitol to work with next year. I even agree that I would rather keep MW over Childress if they had the same trade value and we could get the same in return for either player. They don't and we can't. Thus, TRADE MW! MW is our most perfect combination of a valuable and redundant asset! Nobody can claim differently. He's likely more valuable to us traded than on the team because he can actually help command a player like JO in return and if off the team he sends a clear message to JS that he is our Sf of the future. A win for us on both counts.

I like your plan, just question any plan where the execution involves Childress and Al for JO. It will take more. We have it without creating a hole for ourselves. Make the deal.

W

[Johnnybravo4]

I love the way you can mysteriously predict the future. And who cares if he wasn't the #1 player in his HS class according to whom, Scout? Was Kobe the #1 player in his high school class? Hell there are people who thought that Randolph Morris was a better player than Dwight Howard. Hell we can extend it to football, nobody ever heard of Michael Vick in H.S. because in Newport News Ronald Curry was the man. Vick never even made all-district.

[Wretch]

Not because he is so good, but because he is special. He is the kind of player that GMs spend many draft picks and much money to find them. He's the kind of player you can safely build around.

...and while JO is that special too, the idea is to move forward. If we trade JJ, then we are simply trading one damn good piece for another.

[Diesel]

I look at JJ and I see a guy who may have the impact of a Steve Smith.

That's not to say that he will be sorry because I think Smith was a good player. I just don't see JJ being Superstar unless he changes his game.

[Lascar78]

I agree, GM's kill to get young stars right as they're about to shine. Why should we trade that for one who's been shining, and may or may not start declining in a couple of years?

Teams don't trade stars on the upswing often at all, and we got lucky enough to get one. Keep him.

[chillzatl]

You won't find a bigger fan of Smitty than I am. But to say that JJ "might" be as good as smitty is retarded. I would say that, apart from his overall knowledge and experience in the game, he is already as good as smitty, if not better. He's a far better athlete, passer and rebounder than Smitty ever was and his shooting ability is on par. On a stat for stat basis, JJ matched smitty's best this season, while being a much better passer on a far worse team.

JJ's ceiling is far beyond anything Smitty had as a pro. Over the last two months of the season he was clocking somewhere around 24/7/6. Sorry, but that's legit star numbers right there.

[Diesel]

In his best years,

Smitty put up about 20, 4, 4 shooting about 44 percent while playing against much fiercer competition than we have today.

JJ might be there, but where JJ is lacking is the leadership. Leadership makes up the player just as much as stats do. I just haven't seen that yet out of JJ, but I hope to see it.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I love the way you can mysteriously predict the future.

---

Inane comment. I've never claimed anything but a willingness to try and our team's need to predict the future. Indeed, that is what any coach, scout or even fan at this board attempts. Moreover, it is what is demanded of our franchise personel this offseason. We better accurately predict the future of our players or else we go into next offseason without the right personel and little ability (no top draft pick) to make significant changes before the time to resign our young talent arrives.

Quote:

---

And who cares if he wasn't the #1 player in his HS class according to whom, Scout?

---

That's "wasn't the 4th or 5th best player in in HS class" and everybody agreed+ he wasn't even that. That's why he pulled out of the draft only to enter the draft the next year. Your HS career (indeed his whole career to this point) DOES matter if you are projecting his likely ceiling and future, neither of which resemble a true impact player IMO.

Quote:

---

Was Kobe the #1 player in his high school class?

---

Actually, yes. Just so happened Kobe was the #1 HS player in his draft. Just at that time HSers weren't usually selected high much less at all.

Quote:

---

Hell there are people who thought that Randolph Morris was a better player than Dwight Howard.

---

Who? Name one. Silly. Morris was a DISTANT second or third highest ranked center prospect not the highest rated prospect regardless of position or class. Regardless, I didn't suggest that out of HS pro prospect ranking predicted pro outcome 100%. Just that it suggested relative probability. The probability is simple for example, that the #1 draft pick will be better than the #5 or #6 draft pick in any one draft and overall. Anomolies happen. You just don't rely on them happening for you.

Quote:

---

Hell we can extend it to football, nobody ever heard of Michael Vick in H.S. because in Newport News Ronald Curry was the man.

---

The problem with extending it to football is less often do HS prospects translate to great pro players. It's just that much harder to predict. I might say the only possible comparison is between football players and basketball centers. Like football players, interior basketball players take longer to develop, requiring time to physically develop and learn the more difficult interior skills. Whatever the reason this is a lousy comparison. Otherwise, you'd see a greater push for NFL drafting of HS players. Again, you don't rely on anomolies happening for you. Lastly, are you suggesting that MW had a "Ronald Curry" in front of him in HS? I didn't think so.

...

I'm not predicting the future, I'm discussing the future likelihood. I'm using historical evidence and sharing my concerns. For example, nobody can show examples where a 2, Sf lineup without a dominate center is a good, desirable thing. That's where we are headed, chasing after the mysterious 2-way dominate center to compliment our 2, Sfs, like we chased after the mysterious big Pg to compliment JT. Honestly, that was an easier endeavor than finding said center and you see how well that turned out. Similarly, I believe we are dangerously on the road to a skill vacuum in favor of versatility. We have so much skill redundancy and we lack so much skill versatility. I simply don't see the extent of our seeking positional versatility.

You disagree and that's fine, but you can only argue against me with ad hominem attacks and not FOR the prospect of a 2, Sf lineup, especially without a true "C" prospect in this draft or a worthy enough one in FAcy (and the likelihood that we could sign one regardless). Your argument FOR MW is not that he has proven just how good he can be, but that he might either somehow turn into another, far greater player than he is, one not reflected in his performance up to this date when compared to other, similar 1 year college players (for example). That is similar to the argument made by those suggesting we should wait and hope MW or JS not only grow 2" and 30 lbs, but develop a (desire for developing a) post game in a matter of months. Again, not to say both contingent anomolies won't happen, but it's a series of remarkably slim possibilities a reasonable person shouldn't count on AT ALL.

Honestly, I'm not against trading JS if someone can prove to me that MW will be a better player. JS has similarly, high value and is positionally redundant. However, nobody is truly willing to suggest MW has a higher ceiling or will be better than JS.

So in short, for those who disagree with trading MW, tell me one at least of the following:

1) Why you think MW will be better or has a higher ceiling than JS? Let me be clear here. Don't tell me whether MW C-A-N be better than JS. Who cares about possibilities, I want probabilities! Tell me why you think he WILL be better and/or has a higher ceiling.

2) Why you think a 2, Sf lineup will work without a dominant 2-way center? Please include actual historical evidence supporting your claim.

3) Where we will acquire a well-sized, offensively and defensively dominant enough center to accomodate our lack of height, size, and interior skill at the Pf position and whether that likelihood is greater than the likelihood of getting our value out of MW and avoiding the need to accomodate the 2, Sf lineup in the 1st place?

Any response short of answering one if not several or all of these questions intelligably is just useless to the discussion.

W

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...Leadership makes up the player just as much as stats do. I just haven't seen that yet out of JJ, but I hope to see it.

---

I think leadership is tough on a team that just doesn't have the horses to compete night-in-night-out. JJ may take more of a leadership role once we get some more competitive bigs. But really, I mostly admire his durability this last year. Nobody would have really blamed him if he took a couple nights off late in the season once we were well out of the playoff picture. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a bargain at the price we've paid for him - but it's a safe bet he's not going to turn into a bust.