AHF Try At a Shelden Poll

[AHF]

Since we have had a lot of different Shelden polls here is another just to make sure we grind it all out.

[gsuteke]

I'm done with it. you guys argue with him.

[DJlaysitup]

I think the Shelden pick will turn out fine. He will (barring injury), work his way up in the league to be a solid and well respected power forward and should have a long career. As far as the word getting out early - wasn't it Toronto that specifically hired a coach for Bargnani?

I guess the Hawks just worked their way into a spot where everybody and his brother knew that they had to go for a big, and had to go for the most ready to play big around due to the way the team had been set up. If there had been a 7' center that we could have gotten that would have been ready - sure - but that wasn't the case.

Of course that's just my opinion - we'll have to see what happens on the court.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Shelden will probably be a good role player and/or decent starter but wasn't worth passing up on guys like Roy or Foye.

---

[CBAreject]

I think this is a joke AHF is making

[bird_dirt]

i didn't care too much for the pick, but i'm not pissed at it either. honestly, i don't think this was that great of draft class, regardless of who we got where. i don't think roy or foye will be exceptional superstars for years to come, either. if there is some great superstar to come out of this draft, it will probably be someone that comes out of nowhere that wasn't a top five, or even ten, pick. your guess is as good as mine. this draft seemed pretty weak to me and the sheldon pick, along with everything else, was pretty anticlimactic to me. no use crying over missing out on hardly anyone in this past draft, imo.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

i didn't care too much for the pick, but i'm not pissed at it either. honestly, i don't think this was that great of draft class, regardless of who we got where. i don't think roy or foye will be exceptional superstars for years to come, either. if there is some great superstar to come out of this draft, it will probably be someone that comes out of nowhere that wasn't a top five, or even ten, pick.

---

Then why draft a Pf that is potentially benched or potentially benches MW or JS when the purpose of trading Al is to open up opportunities for these players?

Why not get a player that helps JS and MW succeed together rather than hinders them?

Why not get the BPA?

Why promise a pick to anybody a month before?

Just terrible GMing if you ask me because it's precisely when we don't see the diamond in the rough a GM should, much less shouldn't increase the bottleneck with a promise to lesser talent. Just inane.

W

[bird_dirt]

like i said, i didn't care for the pick. it isn't what i would've done. ideally, i would've liked to trade down and tried to somehow get rondo (someone who actually DID workout in atl before the draft) and sene. i have no idea how likely that could've been, but yeah, it would've been nice to get a pg and c instead of a pf. however, i haven't seen sheldon play nba yet, and he had a good college career. i will reserve complete judgement until after he has been around the way a while. he could be blocking the way for our other players (which is why i wouldn't have taken him), but he could turn out to be something nice for us (which is why i won't completely dog him -- yet).

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

like i said, i didn't care for the pick. it isn't what i would've done. ideally, i would've liked to trade down and tried to somehow get rondo (someone who actually DID workout in atl before the draft) and sene. i have no idea how likely that could've been, but yeah, it would've been nice to get a pg and c instead of a pf. however, i haven't seen sheldon play nba yet, and he had a good college career. i will reserve complete judgement until after he has been around the way a while. he could be blocking the way for our other players (which is why i wouldn't have taken him), but he could turn out to be something nice for us (which is why i won't completely dog him -- yet).

---

...to trade Sl Harrington for peanuts so that MW and JS can start and get the most opportunities to play together and then to draft with the 5th overall pick SW to either bench one of them or come off the bench.

I'll never understand it. If they try to play SW at C we'll get creamed. If he starts we bench one of two better prospects in JS and MW. If he is a BU we'll have wasted a 5th overall pick on not only a role player but a BU roleplayer. I just don't see how this pick can turn into "something nice for us" as a team. I hope I'm wrong but unlike with most other top pick options (save Gay) SW just makes utterly no sense. Interior defense at the Pf position isn't as valuable as at C and we could have gotten it for a ham sandwich and $3 mil per. When is the next time we'll have a top 5 pick? I'm going to sleep my frustration with our mindless, arrogant GM off.

W

[Diesel]

Who really knows...

None of these guys have played 1 minute of NBA Basketball.

But let's talk about what we do know.

1. At the time we drafted, Shelden was definitely the Best Power Forward available.

2. The big to do about being benched or benching somebody... Here's my response...

The same would have happened regaurdless of who we picked.

Being that neither Roy or Foye are PGs, they would have rode the bench.. .and if we picked up Speedy, they probably would not have played any. If they did, it would have been at Chillz and Salim's expense.

If we picked Sene.. We would have again had to bring him off the bench. Zaza is not a Pf.

3. Had we picked another position, we still would have had to find a PF somewhere.

THESE are THINGS we know.

4. When did Shelden become a Bad player??

Finalist for the Wooden Award.

2 time defensive player of the year.

MVP of the World University Games.

2005 Team USA Male Basketball Player of the year.

Do we want More exciting player or do we want a player who can get the job done?

[AHF]

As I suspected the poll option that has been missing from virtually every poll is the one that is the most popular choice:

Quote:

---

How the [bleep] should I know? The guy hasn't even played a game in the NBA!!!

---

[Admin]

It's possible that there were other reasons why Al was traded, such as he is a black hole on offense, plays no defense, didnt REALLY want to come back here again, etc, etc. We can speculate all day long that its to get the kids more playing time but who really knows.

Also, I would suggest that you go and do some research on depth and how it helps teams win. Especially quality depth. Oh and also look into versatility and how having players that can swing between multiple positions is a good thing.

[Diesel]

Money...

Why pay Al ten Million per when we have other options.

BK made it known that he wanted Al back (at the right price).

AL made it known that he wanted to comeback (at the right price).

Point is there's too many other options that are equally or even more relevant to speculate on.

The source of your anger over the whole Hawks predicament should be Picking Marvin over Paul. Either way you look at that move, it hamstrung us for years.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

It's possible that there were other reasons why Al was traded, such as he is a black hole on offense, plays no defense, didnt REALLY want to come back here again, etc, etc. We can speculate all day long that its to get the kids more playing time but who really knows.

Also, I would suggest that you go and do some research on depth and how it helps teams win. Especially quality depth. Oh and also look into versatility and how having players that can swing between multiple positions is a good thing.

---

How do you know the earth is round? Have you walked all the way around it? maybe you should joint the flat-earth society with all your selective skepticism.

It's not speculation to say Al Harrington was traded to increase opportunities and make room for MW and JS to start. You'd have to be 2 feet up BK's ass to consider other reasons more important. And as far as depth. You don't spend a GD 5th overall pick and the highest pick you should have in the next 10 years on a BU, especially when you either pass on significantly more talent at a position of need or a much better prospect at an ideal position of need doing so.

Quit being a BK apologist. Anyone can practice Descarte's universal skepticism. In this case you only sound foolish.

W

[frosgrim]

Walt you can in no way reject the notion that ownership problems created part of the reason we go so little for Harrington. It looks to me Harrington was acquired to 1) fill a hole while draft picks matured, and 2) to be a significant trading piece. The second part was derailed by the ownership mess.

The reasons Shellhead was the draft choice are no one diminsional as you like to portray. He was picked to 1) fill a void in rebounding and interior defense, 2) be a close to finished product as a draft choice can be due to the youth of Smoove and Marvin, and 3) the plan was to bring in a vet point. Woody didn't want a rookie point gaurd and really wanted interior defense, hence Sheldon.

I actually liked Roy as the pick. I thought a JJ/Roy backcourt would have been spectacular, but I can understand the logic of taking Shellhead. I am not appologizing for BK or the coaching staff, but I am spelling out the apparent logic in the choice and in many ways its hard to argue with that logic.

The other thing that seems to be out of everyone's collective minds on this topic is that we have a ton of pieces now. Chicago collected several "redundant" pieces on this rebuilding run they are on. Those pieces have brought them a ton of talent where its needed, AND it may bring them the overall number1 pick in 2007! I see the Hawks moving in that direction. One or more of this year's roster will probably not be with the team in the next two years. They will get traded for something of need.

I say we should give BK another year after this one to round out the roster. Woody has THIS current season to show something.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...It looks to me Harrington was acquired to 1) fill a hole while draft picks matured, and 2) to be a significant trading piece. The second part was derailed by the ownership mess...

---

It's certainly hard to tell what the plan is or has been with this management bunch though. The day the AL snt was finalized I heard a replay on the radio of the quotes back from when they originally signed AL from Indy. They were saying how AL is a young up-and-comer who the Hawks could build around on their way towards becoming a consistent winner. I wonder if they were just BS-ing the fans back then or if management really believed it at the time? Sure didn't work out that way.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

It's certainly hard to tell what the plan is or has been with this management bunch though. The day the AL snt was finalized I heard a replay on the radio of the quotes back from when they originally signed AL from Indy. They were saying how AL is a young up-and-comer who the Hawks could build around on their way towards becoming a consistent winner. I wonder if they were just BS-ing the fans back then or if management really believed it at the time? Sure didn't work out that way.

---

I think they really believed it. It didn't happen, but I think they really believed it.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

It looks to me Harrington was acquired to 1) fill a hole while draft picks matured...

---

Harrington filled that role (if that was his role before MW's drafting). Why does that role need to be filled again, much less with a 5th pick role player prospect?

Quote:

---

1) fill a void in rebounding and interior defense, 2) be a close to finished product as a draft choice can be due to the youth of Smoove and Marvin, and 3) the plan was to bring in a vet point. Woody didn't want a rookie point gaurd and really wanted interior defense, hence Sheldon.

---

1) I can get interior defense and rebounding AT THE Pf POSITION (where neither are as dominant or costly) in FAcy for little cost.

2a) Roy and Foye are equally finished products and better pro prospects than SW.

2b) The idea we drafted based upon readiness might make sense if the player didn't potentially bench one of the players whose readiness we are drafting for.

3a) I don't give a d@mn what Woody wanted. He hasn't proven enough as a coach to let him pick a 5th draft pick for his purposes. Even you state that Woody has this year to prove himself. Do YOU think it good GMing to let such a coach use your 5th pick?

3b) I do not see BK as the type of person to let anyone else make his personel decisions for him.

3c) Why not get a BU vet point also?

Quote:

---

The other thing that seems to be out of everyone's collective minds on this topic is that we have a ton of pieces now.

---

First, BK had a 21st, 17th, 6th, 5th, 2nd, and 2 other 1st rd picks, Rasheed, JT, SAR, Theo, Al, Walker to trade, and vast cap space. We should have more than a "ton of pieces" with that collection of capitol

Unfortunately, our "pieces" do not remotely construct a potential contending team and we have less pieces and less quality pieces than we should. Example: Compared to Roy or Foye does SW have ANY trade value? NO.

...

I'm just trying to stop BK from utterly ruining the positive we do have. It may or may not be too late to restart this rebuilding process but with BK continuing at the helm it will be.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

First, BK had a 21st, 17th, 6th, 5th, 2nd, and 2 other 1st rd picks, Rasheed, JT, SAR, Theo, Al, Walker to trade, and vast cap space. We should have more than a "ton of pieces" with that collection of capitol

---

If I start with Shaq, Miami's 2007 #1 pick and 2009 #1 pick and trade:

Shaq for Paul Pierce and cap space; Paul Pierce for Vince Carter; Vince Carter for Jason Richardson and Chris Taft; Jason Richardson, Chris Taft and two #1s for Lebron James and Varajoa; and Varajoa for Dalembert

Does that mean my trade capital was:

Shaq, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Jason Richardson, Chris Taft, Lebron James, Varajoa, Dalembert, two #1s and cap space?

By lumping all the transitional pieces together it tends to give a misleading picture, in my estimation. You either ask whether BK got enough for the 17th pick in the draft or whether BK got enough for Shareef and Ratliff or whether BK got enough for Rasheed. Lumping it all together (especially players and cap space) seems misleading.

[Duff_Man]

Quote:

---

I'm just trying to stop BK from utterly ruining the positive we do have.

---

By harnessing all of the power of an internet message board...aces, my friend...aces.