Too many whiners about what it takes to get a C

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Walter, I don't see a "dominate" big other than shaq to play in the system you proposed we should mimic. What I see is a lot of good players, mostly big guys who are a colossal waste of height. I see many pretenders, but not one of those guys have risen to the level and performance of bigs of old, like Kareem, the Dream, and Wilt. I do not agree that we should trade the farm on tweeners with height. You seem eager to forfeit numerous talent on mediocre bigs and I do not see the prudence of that.

---

...And the Al/Childress for Bynum trade could just as easily read 20th pick/Childress (a guy who will never in a million years get off our bench and who will leave at contract's end) for Bynum/others. 20th picks generally don't get you quality players despite the 4 yrs you pay them and we need a very good, BIG project at center far more than we need Childress.

I don't propose we mimic the 2-Sf system. I propose that if we should want to then we need a definate BIG, likely a 2-way dominant one but definately a defensive one.

W

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

For a guy who harped on the Kidd-factor so improving every player who played with him, I'm shocked that you don't see the equal if not greater Nash factor in Pheonix. We have nothing remotely close to Nash. Moreover, we have Woody, not D'Antoni. All that being said, Pheonix is a team who will soon be figured out and who didn't win anything of importance despite all the hoopla.

---

First of all, I'm not saying that we should model our team after Phoenix. I'm saying that Phoenix shows that you can still win without a "2 way dominant C"... Moreover, there are several other ways to get to winning IN TODAYS NBA that doesn't preclude that 2 way dominant C or Nash or Kidd. Finally, you can't really guage what we have until you've seen them play together.

Quote:

---

I think you failure to address all of this and not even consider the talent-good deal for LA in Childress/Al for Bynum shows you can't really argue against this deal.

---

I'm not sure that you get it. The Lakers Owners do not want to trade Bynum? Who is Phil Jackson? He has 1 more year left on his contract with the Lakers. Do you think that they are really considering his short term input over the long term?? Phil Jackson doesn't want Bynum because Jackson doesn't like projects Period. Like i said before... Bynum is a project... BUT the Lakers organization is not going to trade him because just like you, the guys who are making the decision for the future like him.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

First of all, I'm not saying that we should model our team after Phoenix. I'm saying that Phoenix shows that you can still win without a "2 way dominant C"

---

It's easier to get said center than a 2-time MVP at Pg, but yes, there is another, albeit more difficult, way.

Quote:

---

... Moreover, there are several other ways to get to winning IN TODAYS NBA that doesn't preclude that 2 way dominant C or Nash or Kidd. Finally, you can't really guage what we have until you've seen them play together.

---

I believe I can guage what we have simply because historically 2-Sfs lineups don't win anything of importance, especially with a hybrid center. I'm assuming that in all of the NBA there has been a 2-Sf lineup more special than MW/JS and they haven't won. We need a center no matter "what we have" anyhow.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure that you get it. The Lakers Owners do not want to trade Bynum? Who is Phil Jackson?

---

1st it was GM Kupcake, the owners reportedly went along also. Who is Phil Jackson? Are you high?

Quote:

---

Do you think that they are really considering his short term input over the long term??

---

I think Kobe and Phil are and they matter more than Kupcake.

In LA they can't afford to think about the long term and they don't have to. They have to win in LA (look at two years ago) thus they must think about the now and if by some chance they don't win they are the ONE market that historically has gotten its best player through FAcy. Without more help now they are not a win now team and Kobe isn't getting younger or Phil more patient. Players always want to play there for other financial gains and to be a part of the legacy. I mean when was the last time the Lakers built through the draft. Never? That's my recollection. Only franchise that can say that.

W

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I believe I can guage what we have simply because historically 2-Sfs lineups don't win anything of importance, especially with a hybrid center. I'm assuming that in all of the NBA there has been a 2-Sf lineup more special than MW/JS and they haven't won. We need a center no matter "what we have" anyhow.

---

What I'm saying is that you can't be sure that we will go with a 2 SF lineup? Sure, they will play some time together, but BK has said that the starting PF is Shelden's to lose. I know.. that sends a cringe up and down your spine. You hate Shelden because he is a PF. That's another point all together. Like I was saying... you can't guage what we have until we see them on the court. Assumptions won't get it.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

What I'm saying is that you can't be sure that we will go with a 2 SF lineup? Sure, they will play some time together, but BK has said that the starting PF is Shelden's to lose. I know.. that sends a cringe up and down your spine. You hate Shelden because he is a PF. That's another point all together. Like I was saying... you can't guage what we have until we see them on the court. Assumptions won't get it.

---

Either way we're benching 2 of BK's top 4 picks for the other 2 of his top 4 picks. And these are HIGH picks we're benching. I don't think another GM has ever managed to do this level of talent bottlenecking with these high picks. GS was clase with Dunleavy, Richardson, and Pietrus, but they didn't get a JJ to then bench them even further.

I hate SW because he isn't as good as Roy or Foye, his 1-dimensional skills at his height are easily had in FAcy, and JS (and MW), from whom he will take minutes and roles as the starter, is a better player with greater potential than he.

I'm assuming that if we want to USE our talent best and be able to resign our young talent we will have to start MW and JS with JS out of position. This will only work (meaning title contention) if we have the center I describe. We will lack the necessary talent on the court and will lose our prefered young talent if we start SW and we will be beaten in the post with MW and JS without the center I described. I of course have another option, trade the lesser of MW and JS for a similar talent at a position of need, preferably center or Pg. So, I'm not dead set on the center I describe, but I am if MW and JS are to start and both scenarios are prefered over the talent depleting decision of SW benching JS or MW.

W

[DrReality]

I was thinking of taking a page out of the Jerry Seinfeld show to start a post that has no subject. They did a show that had no topic as a satire. Given that every post starts out on one topic and then wonders on onto another topic, maybe a "no subject" post could be timely.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Either way we're benching 2 of BK's top 4 picks for the other 2 of his top 4 picks. And these are HIGH picks we're benching. I don't think another GM has ever managed to do this level of talent bottlenecking with these high picks. GS was clase with Dunleavy, Richardson, and Pietrus, but they didn't get a JJ to then bench them even further.

---

This point is not even a point.

I mean, let's consider the Lakers which had Shaq, Kobe, Van Exel, Jones, Cambell, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, And Derrick Fisher..

Did anybody cry because Kobe, Fisher, and Cambell came off the bench??

When they put 4 players into the allstar game, was there anybody standing saying...

Well, 2 of them have to come off the bench? It's not right.

Quote:

---

I hate SW because he isn't as good as Roy or Foye,

---

Maybe you should hate Roy and Foye because they are not as good as JJ. Roy and Foye are not PGs so the best that they could do is either come off the bench behind JJ or force JJ to play PG. Let me let you in on this secret, JJ doesn't want to play PG. It's funny that you don't like the one player in the draft that addresses our need the most without being redundant.

Quote:

---

'm assuming that if we want to USE our talent best and be able to resign our young talent we will have to start MW and JS with JS out of position.

---

This is a horrible assumption. What if Neither Marvin or Smoove can play PF as good as Shelden... DO we still play them for the sake of playing them? My contention is this. We got Shelden to play PF. Yes, we have redundancy at the Sf position.. however, if they are alright with it, no need in anybody complaining. You're basically trying to build a mountain with a few rocks. Especially considering you don't know how big the rocks are.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

This point is not even a point.

I mean, let's consider the Lakers which had Shaq, Kobe, Van Exel, Jones, Cambell, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, And Derrick Fisher..

Did anybody cry because Kobe, Fisher, and Cambell came off the bench??

---

Kobe wasn't benched by Shellhead. Could you imagine that outrage? Despite Eddie Jones being an All-star people were upset Kobe wasn't starting. I shouldn't have to address who was starting ahead of Cambell and even Fisher.

Quote:

---

When they put 4 players into the allstar game, was there anybody standing saying...

Well, 2 of them have to come off the bench? It's not right.

---

Your condition for not expecting young talent to start is that a team must have 4 All-stars ahead of them at each position????????????????????????????? How is this a condition, much less one that applies to us?!?

Quote:

---

Maybe you should hate Roy and Foye because they are not as good as JJ. Roy and Foye are not PGs so the best that they could do is either come off the bench behind JJ or force JJ to play PG. Let me let you in on this secret, JJ doesn't want to play PG. It's funny that you don't like the one player in the draft that addresses our need the most without being redundant.

---

How can I respond briewfly to such nønsense. I can't but I'll try...

I believe neither one extreme or the other. I don't believe you draft BPA or for need. I believe with each draft you weigh both. If there is a player who fills a need then you weigh the talent difference between that player and others available. Small talent differences and large needs may suggest selecting a player who isn't BPA and vice versa.

That being said there is not a GM in the league but BK that believes there isn't a large talent difference in favor or Roy or Foye over Shellhead. We telegraphed what it would take to get SW and nobody bit while trading like crazy for everybody around him.

Moreover, SW does not address our need for interior defense at a position of need and he might only do so at the exceedingly high cost of a 5th pick and benching MW or JS.

In short, SW addresses our need for interior defense but that need

1) could have been addressed much more cheaply in FAcy, trade, or with a lesser pick,

2) costs us a much greater talent that everybody (including KB) but you (now) see as a very good to ideal compliment to JJ

3) creates more problems than he could potentially solve by forcing JS or MW to the bench,

...and...

4) as a short, short reach Pf does not pose a threat to clean up our perimeter team defense shortcomings or mistakes.

SW's a lesser talent than Roy, who creates as much of a positional problem within our roster as he does a talent loss on the floor by benching a more talented, better prospect, his skills would be much prefered in a center, and much more cheaply had in FAcy, through trades, or with a lesser pick.

Now onto Roy and Foye. Roy is more a Pg than Foye but both can play the position alongside a SG like JJ. Roy's own college coach, during the season, stated he saw Roy as an NBA Pg. He wasn't saying so next to JJ, just flat out he saw Roy as an NBA Pg. Portland considers him so also. That doesn't mean he has to play there but he certainly could, especially alongside JJ. Even KB would acknowledge he saw Roy as the perfect backcourt mate to JJ because along with his adequate ballhandling, ideal court vision and superb passing, he could be very effective without also hogging the ball from JJ. So, I should believe you, Diesel, the biggest Shellhead nutcracker over Roy's coach, Portland's organization, and BK's biggest apologist? Notta chance.

Quote:

---

This is a horrible assumption. What if Neither Marvin or Smoove can play PF as good as Shelden... DO we still play them for the sake of playing them? My contention is this. We got Shelden to play PF. Yes, we have redundancy at the Sf position.. however, if they are alright with it, no need in anybody complaining. You're basically trying to build a mountain with a few rocks. Especially considering you don't know how big the rocks are.

---

Whatever SW is he is not a better player or prospect than JS or even MW. While I don't like the ideal of a 2-Sf lineup without a true, potentially dominant 2-way center, I damn sure don't like SW in the starting lineup under most any circumstance.

My preferences were/are in order:

1a) Trade the lesser of JS or MW for a superstar or potential one in a similarly talented player who plays a position of need. My preference is Livingston or Packaging Al with one of them to get a legit superstar. Too late for the later.

1b) Acquiring a potentially 2-way dominant BIG center to allow JS and MW to remain true to themselves as perimeter players without conceeding the paint.

2)...(create space between these two options and the others)

3) Chucking the whole BK mad scientist experiment and starting over. Varying degrees of changes made.

4) Building around a front court of SW and ZaZa as starters.

5) Keeping Al.

6) Signing Big Balla.

In short, Diesel, a 4 All-star team should welcome benching prospects so a no all-star team should choose to do so behind other even lesser prospects, SW who causes more problems than he solves may make for a better Pf under strict definitions but is a lesser player, prospect, and would result in a lesser team than Roy and/or MW/JS starting.

W

[DrReality]

Then there are whiners about the whiners.

[Diesel]

You haven't seen Shelden play one minute of NBA basketball...

This is where I find fault in your statements... You don't know what he can do. You're just guessing.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You haven't seen Shelden play one minute of NBA basketball...

This is where I find fault in your statements... You don't know what he can do. You're just guessing.

---

...and I believe he has considerable more potential in the 2 years I've seen him than SW based upon 4 years of watching him in college.

There are few prospects I know more about than SW being that he's a 4 year college layer, I live in NC, and you can't not watch the Blue Devils or UNC in this state.

W

[Sage11]

Quote:

---

...And the Al/Childress for Bynum trade could just as easily read 20th pick/Childress (a guy who will never in a million years get off our bench and who will leave at contract's end) for Bynum/others. 20th picks generally don't get you quality players despite the 4 yrs you pay them and we need a very good, BIG project at center far more than we need Childress.

---

I recall my reaction to that trade proposal was that Al and Chill for an "unproven" prospect was simply too much. Bynum may turn out to be something, and because of that possiblity the Lakers will not deal him(smart btw). The facts are good bigs are rare and when you have a big (Prz) you need to hold on to them. That is what every other franchise is doing.

I agree that we need a big, I would like to see one in a Hawks uni but I am not holding my breath because there is simply not many available.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I recall my reaction to that trade proposal was that Al and Chill for an "unproven" prospect was simply too much...The facts are good bigs are rare and when you have a big you need to hold on to them.

---

How can one argue both sides here. We no longer have Al and we no longer use Chill, yet they are too much for such a valuable (especially to us) and "rare" commodity as you describe? There is no way we are getting a proven commodity at center without losing one of our core in JS, MW, and JJ, so better to lose a player we were gonna lose and a player we don't use and will lose in 2 years for a great prospect at the center position.

W

[Sage11]

Quote:

---

How can one argue both sides here. We no longer have Al and we no longer use Chill, yet they are too much for such a valuable (especially to us) and "rare" commodity as you describe? There is no way we are getting a proven commodity at center without losing one of our core in JS, MW, and JJ, so better to lose a player we were gonna lose and a player we don't use and will lose in 2 years for a great prospect at the center position.

---

The key words in my post are "at that time."

At that time Al was still a hawk, and Bynum was still a question (still is a question). Since then we know that the Lakers are high on bynum and are not going to let there project center go. Besides that they really do not have a use for harrington/chill with Kobe there. Just seem like a bad deal to me on a specluative player. I do not mind trading for proven commodities. Bynum is not proven... he is still a work in progress.

[Guest Walter]

Whom do we get at center who isn't a prospect without trading one of JJ, JS, or MW? Name one.

Quote:

---

The key words in my post are "at that time." At that time Al was still a hawk,...

---

That's a weak response. Al was being shopped for pocket lint. Al wasn't still a Hawk and you GD well know it. Please.

Quote:

---

and Bynum was still a question (still is a question).

---

JS and MW are still questions. Two things that aren't questionable:

1) behind Speedy, JJ, JS, and MW Childress will hardly get off the bench and will leave when his two years of bench duty are up.

2) MW and JS, if they are ever to be a formidable forward tandem, NEED a true, potentially dominate center.

Quote:

---

Since then we know that the Lakers are high on bynum and are not going to let there project center go.

---

"the Lakers won't let a project center go" sounds like a positive value judgement, yet you argue that "he's still a work in progress" and give him a negative value judgement for us. How does this flip/flop make sense to you?

MOST IMPORTANTLY you argue "the Lakers" as if Phil Jackson and Kobe aren't. Both of them want immediate help because they want to win now. Kupcake is NOT the Lakers! They are a rare franchise that has never had to build through the draft because all FAs want to go there. A deal that nets them Al and Childress Bynum/filler would most definately recharge the debate within the organization and believe me after a playoff trip last year Phil and Kobe have more say than they already did.

Quote:

---

Besides that they really do not have a use for harrington/chill with Kobe there.

---

Huh? They most definately do have a need for them both. Much more of a need for them than Bynum (with Brown and Mihm).

Quote:

---

I do not mind trading for proven commodities. Bynum is not proven... he is still a work in progress.

---

Your level of caution will DOOM us to mediocrity. Fact is we are back where we started. You cannot name a single "proven commodity" at center that we can get without trading JS, MW, JJ, or MORE. Do you not realize that we are in a mess here and without a bold, inspired move we = mediocrity? There we no two less use players than Al/Childress. No better time to trade for what we can actually get at center without selling the farm, and you call for more caution? This is precisely what will make this team fail.

W

[Johnnybravo4]

Dominate centers don't grow on trees thus the term dominate. We haven't really had one in our entire franchise history. You can say the same for PG. In fact there are only a couple of franchises in the NBA that have had more than one...Mainly L.A. They seem to get them all.

[KB21]

I'm trying to figure out why a certain someone continues to think that Bynum was actually offered in a deal.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

Dominate centers don't grow on trees thus the term dominate. We haven't really had one in our entire franchise history. You can say the same for PG. In fact there are only a couple of franchises in the NBA that have had more than one...Mainly L.A. They seem to get them all.

---

I took me twenty minutes to read thru this post; when your response was really all that was needed...

In closing I will end my two cents with this: (could not resist)

Walter's fantasy world consist of Bynum who is AKA Kareem and if that fails, Wilt or Shaq version two is hiding out there somewere. Worst case: Walter is positive that Big Ben or Bill Russell can be had any day of the week and twice on Sunday for any one or two players on our roster...

I think we did ok this offseason. Nothing spectacular; but we shoud be improved at the point and down low as well. As far as our long term goes, this will all depend on how Speedy, ZaZa, and SW develope. You never know till they get some real playing time; but maybe with any luck at all there is a really, really good player or two just waiting to breakout in the next year or two...

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I'm trying to figure out why a certain someone continues to think that Bynum was actually offered in a deal.

---

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN KB?!? WHOM DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE HAWKS GO AFTER? WHOM DO THEY TRADE? WHEN? WHERE? WHY?

I'm also trying to figure out why you hated Shelden and loved Roy, then loved Shelden and hated Roy after it was obvious BK didn't agree with you, insisted BK's never made a mistake, then never include SW as part of your "hawk's future"?

I also wonder why you lied about going to a game to pitch a prospect BK reportedly liked?

And why all you have are strawman arguments.

...

I know we made an offer for Bynum according to all reports it just wasn't a good enough offer. We offered Al and wanted Bynum and a 1st. Please.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Worst case: Walter is positive that Big Ben or Bill Russell can be had any day of the week and twice on Sunday for any one or two players on our roster...I think we did ok this offseason. Nothing spectacular

---

I've consistently said that it is very difficult to find the type center we need to pair with JS and MW at the starting forward spots, to get that player you must pay substantially which is why I believe getting a prospect of said player is the only way we can (afford to) do it, and you must strike while the iron is hot in these matters.

BTW, "nothing spectacular" is another word for mediocrity. Given there wasn't a team with more flexibility or capitol this level of offseason performance will kill our title contention chances.

W