Sekou is even-handed yet again.

[mrhonline]

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-bl...ng_somethi.html

Quote:

---

Getting something in return

By Sekou Smith | Monday, August 14, 2006, 03:55 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Everyone from Martha Stewart to the Easter Bunny has had their say about the Hawks’ sign-and-trade deal for Al Harrington, how lopsided it is (not in the Hawks’ favor) and how they could have done this, that or the other to maximize their return.

But unless I missed something about how sign-and-trades work for unrestricted free agents, the Hawks are doing something that the Detroit Pistons did not when they lost Ben Wallace to Chicago last month; they’re actually getting SOMETHING instead of nothing.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather get something in exchange for losing one of my best players as opposed to getting absolutely nothing. If we want to play

the what-they-should-have-done game

(one that’s a staple on this blog) we could do that forever, and some would argue that we have.

But if the deal finally goes through (Pacers officials are scheduled to sit down and make a decision this afternoon), why would anyone be upset that the Hawks are actually getting something? If they had let Harrington walk away without any compensation I could understand the collective outrage. I’d be right there with you. I think a trade deadline package for say a point guard and young center makes better sense than going through the remainder of this past season with Harrington knowing you weren’t going to bring him back.

But that’s not the song I was singing in February, before it became obvious that the Hawks’ ownership issues (and I’m done letting anyone tell me they have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations) would dictate every move, big and small, the team makes.

---

Before we crucify Knight, we need to understand a little more about what he was actually allowed to do.

[lifelong]

Sekou needs to relax and quit acting like he's a prophet. Trading Al Harrington is hardly a day-to-day operational issue that ownership shouldn't be involved in. It's a major decision regarding one of the franchise's biggest assets. Of course ownership will be involved in some way.

[Diesel]

Not all of it..

But the part where he compares our situation with Detroit's.

Detroit was a team who just won a championship less than 3 years ago. The Atlanta Franchise have never gotten past the 2nd round of the playoffs. You can't compare the 2 situations. Ben Wallace is old. Al is 26. Ben Wallace had options to get more money elsewhere. Al doesn't.

Now, fr the part I agree with.

Our ownership has indeed tied our hands in this fight. I'm sure that there were other possible deals that we had to turn down that would have been beneficial for us.

[mrhonline]

You could just as easily argue that Ben Wallace is more essential to Detroit's success that Atlanta's (lack thereof). So, getting something in return for Wallace was HUGE for Detroit, who are now much less likely to win the NBA championship with Nazr at center.

[mountain_jim]

That's why on several of Sekou's blogs I have asked him (or some other AJC columnist) to try and interview BK and ownership and find out what BK was allowed/not allowed to consider based on ownership dollar issues and financial exposure for a deal and team they may lose.

I know the ownership and BK won't want to say, and that kind of insider reportage is something the ajc is not known for, but it would be nice to know what's really been going on inside this franchise.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

That's why on several of Sekou's blogs I have asked him (or some other AJC columnist) to try and interview BK and ownership and find out what BK was allowed/not allowed to consider based on ownership dollar issues and financial exposure for a deal and team they may lose.

---

If Knight is fired in the near future, I wonder if he'll give a "tell-all" interview. I'd love to hear the owners' issues as well.

I've been willing to give him a reprieve lately because I've suspected his hands are tied. How else do you explain the Hawks making NO major moves during last season when they had a huge hole in the paint...

[Diesel]

I don't think Wallace was that essential. I think I trust Dumars to make those crucial decisions on who to pay. When you consider that Wallace was 32, undersized, with his game relying on his athletic ability, I don't think he's as essential as say Billups or RWallace. Dumars definitely wasn't going to pay him.

[mrhonline]

Time will tell on Wallace.

I personnally do not see the Pistons as good enough to beat a healthy Heat team anymore.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...If Knight is fired in the near future, I wonder if he'll give a "tell-all" interview. I'd love to hear the owners' issues as well....

---

That's probably about the only way the information would leak out. Of course BK would be looking for another job then so he probably wouldn't want to come across as vindictive.

[DrReality]

But there is an inequity here becasue Indy was given their TE after the fact. They lost or were about to lose what they had gotten in the trade with Sacrimento. But lo and behold . . . . after the fact, they were given this TE. So they get a break on the one hand from the Hornets and now a second one from us in the Al deal.

I am grateful we got something, but somehow that just doesn't square up.

[BornandDieHawks]

Quote:

---

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-bl...ng_somethi.html

Quote:

---

Getting something in return

By Sekou Smith | Monday, August 14, 2006, 03:55 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Everyone from Martha Stewart to the Easter Bunny has had their say about the Hawks’ sign-and-trade deal for Al Harrington, how lopsided it is (not in the Hawks’ favor) and how they could have done this, that or the other to maximize their return.

But unless I missed something about how sign-and-trades work for unrestricted free agents, the Hawks are doing something that the Detroit Pistons did not when they lost Ben Wallace to Chicago last month; they’re actually getting SOMETHING instead of nothing.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather get something in exchange for losing one of my best players as opposed to getting absolutely nothing. If we want to play

the what-they-should-have-done game

(one that’s a staple on this blog) we could do that forever, and some would argue that we have.

But if the deal finally goes through (Pacers officials are scheduled to sit down and make a decision this afternoon), why would anyone be upset that the Hawks are actually getting something? If they had let Harrington walk away without any compensation I could understand the collective outrage. I’d be right there with you. I think a trade deadline package for say a point guard and young center makes better sense than going through the remainder of this past season with Harrington knowing you weren’t going to bring him back.

But that’s not the song I was singing in February, before it became obvious that the Hawks’ ownership issues (and I’m done letting anyone tell me they have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations) would dictate every move, big and small, the team makes.

---

Before we crucify Knight, we need to understand a little more about what he was actually allowed to do.

---

I understand his hands may have been tied, but if this trade goes down the way it's been reported then someone in the Hawks organization got their ass spanked. I mean this is the same deal that was in place two weeks ago with less money. At that time, Ind was supposed to agree on giving 2.5 million but wouldn't go the whole 3 mil. Now I don't care about the 3 mil or if one red cent was to change hands, but this shows that either the change in agents scared the hell out of the Hawks and we went back and dropped our asking price or someone needs to go back to negotiation 101 to see once you have someone agreeing on a deal do not go back and drop those demands.

I for one is happy we got something out of trading AL, but I feel we could have done better. Either way, I am glad this deal will be over and we can get back to getting ready to make a run for the playoffs this year.

[Final_quest]

It could have been that we gave up getting money in favor of getting less pick protection. Point is a lot of details need to come out b4 specific judgements are made.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

But if the deal finally goes through (Pacers officials are scheduled to sit down and make a decision this afternoon), why would anyone be upset that the Hawks are actually getting something?

---

It is because we can obviously get more than a draft pick. Al wants money, only way he can get the money is by a S&T unless he wants to take a chance on a 3 year deal at the MLE for someone else. I doubt he would take that chance seeing as he has some bad knees already.

I am not mad at getting something, I am mad at not getting more.

[BornandDieHawks]

Quote:

---

It could have been that we gave up getting money in favor of getting less pick protection. Point is a lot of details need to come out b4 specific judgements are made.

---

agreed...that's why I stated if the deal was going down as reported. No one knows what went on behind close doors but we can only go off of what the media is telling us because we won't get any information from our organization.