Reasons for Optimism

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

The funny thing is, I've actually been a huge Hawks homer over the years. And nobody has preached patience more than me. In fact, I used to be a big BK apologist because I've talked with him a number of times and really like him,

---

And this is why the diagnosis of John Kerry disease was so apparent in your post! We still have the same players & GM that you supported before but lost faith in and now is optimistic about after one summer league game. Dude if you don't see yourself as wishy washy please re-read some of your post over the weekend and compare them to yesterday's post. Riding the fence is a defense mechanism many posters use to help them cope with their base line personalities of needing to be right all of the time. Its just frustrating to the rest us when trying to figure out whether you are a fan of the team or not! I think that I just described a fair weather fan!

[GoDawgs21]

I wouldn't call it luck.

Most of us reasonable fans knew this would take time. You can't tear a team down and basically make it an expansion team, and create a deep, young, talented roster over night.

BK asked for 5 years, same amount of time it took Chi, Det, and other recent rebuilding projects.

Most of us didn't take the sky is falling approach, you point to a deep team that is well rounded, a team that we didnt take on large contracts and kill cap space, a team that has a bright future. Ummmm, you think any of that has maybe a little to do with the guy that built it.

Everyone is quick to rip BK, but he took safe bets, and maybe didn't go out and risk getting ? players taking the sure bets in not drafting bust by going more conservative and taking Chill, Shelden, and Marvin ( at the time number 2 overall player as a posed to a small injury prone PG, someone still please tell me how many playoff games CP has won? anyone?)

If you are going to bash the architect while he is building a building can you not at least give him a hint of credit when the building is done and you say it might work and not "Aw its luck that thing is standing"

On a side note, I love everyone that hated Law on draft night was whining that he was a shot first PG and not a passer. Last game he had 5 of the 9 assist in the game. SO now everyone is worried and concerned he isn't shooting???? Can people just not be satisfied? So you wanted a passer and not a scorer, now he is that and people are worried about his scoring after 2 SL games

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I wouldn't call it luck.

Most of us reasonable fans knew this would take time. You can't tear a team down and basically make it an expansion team, and create a deep, young, talented roster over night.

BK asked for 5 years, same amount of time it took Chi, Det, and other recent rebuilding projects.

Most of us didn't take the sky is falling approach, you point to a deep team that is well rounded, a team that we didnt take on large contracts and kill cap space, a team that has a bright future. Ummmm, you think any of that has maybe a little to do with the guy that built it.

Everyone is quick to rip BK, but he took safe bets, and maybe didn't go out and risk getting ? players taking the sure bets in not drafting bust by going more conservative and taking Chill, Shelden, and Marvin ( at the time number 2 overall player as a posed to a small injury prone PG, someone still please tell me how many playoff games CP has won? anyone?)

If you are going to bash the architect while he is building a building can you not at least give him a hint of credit when the building is done and you say it might work and not "Aw its luck that thing is standing"

---

Except... I wouldn't say "everyone" is quick to rip BK, especially after the reasoned thread I saw yesterday in which many--except for a group I'll call "the predictables"--saw the whole picture much clearer for what it is, rather than an excuse to "vent" and slap around "the man."

And... except... returning to v's original premise... it WAS luck that dropped two picks in our lap... however, I think we also understand that we were long OVERDUE to roll snake eyes. Ever since the Lakers missed the playoffs to butcher the Antoine trade, the law of averages has had an IOU out to us, if not before.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

going more conservative and taking Chill, Shelden, and Marvin

---

If by conservative you mean taking a player that very few thought was worthy of the pick then you are certainly right in the cases of Chill and Shelden.

"Conservative" just looks like an excuse for passing on better players, which BK did with all three of these picks.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I wouldn't call it luck.

---

So what exactly do you call it when you trade for a top 10 protected pick and you wind up with the 11th pick? Is that luck or the result of BK's soothsaying ability?

[coachx]

I'm likin' your style.

There is no reason to be anything but optimistic about the up coming season. The draft played out in almost the best possible way (only could have done with Oden or Durant).

Why not be happy about our good luck ?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

going more conservative and taking Chill, Shelden, and Marvin

---

If by conservative you mean taking a player that very few thought was worthy of the pick then you are certainly right in the cases of Chill and Shelden.

"Conservative" just looks like an excuse for passing on better players, which BK did with all three of these picks.

---

How can you go on and on and on and on and on, and flat-out refuse to acknowledge the concept that there are some players in a given draft that have a higher upside than others but who pose a greater risk that they'll bomb, and some players with a lower ceiling, but who are fairly likely to be what you think they're going to be?

How can you be so intelligent yet so shallow to think that it's simply a matter of "picking the best players" period?

My theory: You know better. But you are in the class of "the predictables" who feel threatened that there's reason for optimism in the camp when you've been preaching and sermonizing and pontificating hell fire and damnation b/c of Billy Knight's incompetence.

My guess: No converts, and in fact, like a Fred Phelps type, you're watching any congregation that you may have previously had, shrink, brother Ex.

My guess #2: There's no getting through to you... you enjoy too much wallowing in your negativity, and pot-shotting "the man," the guy in authority. Probably a similar personality in the rest of your life, but what do I know.

[GMyrberg]

This is what happens when you have a good draft. Imagine if we had had three or four striaght years of smart drafts!

[GoDawgs21]

Lets look at this as a probability equation.

There was clearly no way Indy would give up an unprotected pick. So that takes that out right away in negotiating.

At the time of the trade Indiana was a annual playoff team. So if your BK what are the odds that the Pacers even fall into the lottery. I would say at the time of the trade those odds had to be about 75% unlikely.

So it was "bad luck" that Indy had one tank year and slipped into the lottery. BK was taking luck out of the equation by saying top 10 protected, and not just lottery protected BK was hedging his bits. Thinking that there is only a small window that Indy would be in the lotto and even smaller that they would have great odds in being that high in the lotto.

You can call it luck, but 2 years ago I want you to be honest and think if Indy would be a non-playoff lottery team. That's not likely. So how is it luck that you banked on a team not being in the top ten and it happened????????/

So this year if we trade with the Mavericks for a top ten protected pick in 2 years, would you call it luck if in two years we actually received that pick?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Lets look at this as a probability equation.

There was clearly no way Indy would give up an unprotected pick. So that takes that out right away in negotiating.

At the time of the trade Indiana was a annual playoff team. So if your BK what are the odds that the Pacers even fall into the lottery. I would say at the time of the trade those odds had to be about 75% unlikely.

So it was "bad luck" that Indy had one tank year and slipped into the lottery. BK was taking luck out of the equation by saying top 10 protected, and not just lottery protected BK was hedging his bits. Thinking that there is only a small window that Indy would be in the lotto and even smaller that they would have great odds in being that high in the lotto.

You can call it luck, but 2 years ago I want you to be honest and think if Indy would be a non-playoff lottery team. That's not likely. So how is it luck that you banked on a team not being in the top ten and it happened????????/

---

Can't argue.

And, as I'd contended earlier, the Lady Luck pendulum was at the exact opposite end when the Lakers--a team that just as, if not more rarely than IND has ever missed the playoffs--barely fell out of the playoffs a couple of years ago, and tanked the Antoine pick.

It was lucky, but the law of averages said we were due some luck.

[Lacsho]

As I stated in a previous post, I'm a passionate fan riding with the home team. No matter what happens in the front office I'm still down for the team. I think most of us feel the same way. And to all the critics out there, it’s ok if one changes there mind, we're only human. In the past I have bashed BK like the rest, but I'm big enough to admit that maybe I could have been wrong, and perhaps that's why he's the Gm, and I'm the fan. During my vents about BK in the past I failed to see the whole picture, which includes our wannabe owners. However, I can see clearly now that the rain is gone, and our owners have always been the major obstacles in our way. Hopefully this season we'll see bright bright sunshiny days.

I know you guys like the way I incorporated that old school 70's song in there lol.

[DrReality]

The only luck part is related to inuries. What is more important is how Woody uses his talent and distributes minutes. Historically he has not done well with this. Now that we have the the depth he's got to use it. That means solid rotations that will allow young guys to mature and not over work starters.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

How can you go on and on and on and on and on, and flat-out refuse to acknowledge the concept that there are some players in a given draft that have a higher upside than others but who pose a greater risk that they'll bomb

---

A perimeter player who is slow and shoots shoots from his chin is more likely to fail (or have a limited upside or whatever) than someone who has the size/speed to play his position and has a conventional shot.

An inside player who has an extremely short reach is more likely to fail (or has less upside or whatever) than someone who has good size for his position.

You constantly try to make excuses while ignoring the basic fact that BK PASSED ON BETTER PLAYERS. That is a fact. It isn't even debatable.

You are basically a poser. You try to act reasoned but you are anything but. You dance around the subject while ignoring obvious facts.

You give BK credit for not drafting a bust but fail to mention that he has had higher picks than any GM in the league which shows an obvious bias.

You make excuses for the players BK picked, saying they were the more conservative picks or had higher upside or whatever, while refusing to admit that they simply aren't as good as the players BK passed on.

You try to paint yourself as unbiased when you are one of the most biased people here.

Quote:

---

But you are in the class of "the predictables" who feel threatened that there's reason for optimism in the camp when you've been preaching and sermonizing and pontificating hell fire and damnation b/c of Billy Knight's incompetence.

---

Another one of your dumb strawmen. Since you can't make a coherent argument you have to make stuff up.

While i was against the Shelden pick i was telling people last summer and before the season that the majority of people here were underrating him, that he would be better than most here though. Turns out i was wrong, at least for his rookie year.

And i have supported the Law pick completely. I have no doubts at all about him being successful and have never bought into the (combo guard) critique.

However in typical sturt fashion you ignore obvious facts whenever they contradict your nonsensical arguments.

[Lacsho]

Quote:

---

The only luck part is related to inuries. What is more important is how Woody uses his talent and distributes minutes. Historically he has not done well with this. Now that we have the the depth he's got to use it. That means solid rotations that will allow young guys to mature and not over work starters.

---

You are right about the rotations, but as you stated previously the injuries prevented Woodson from making the proper rotations. I think this is the year that we fairly evaluate Woodson and BK. Finally, we get to see BK's vision. I just hope the Hawks play more of an up-tempo pace. With Speedy healthy (keeping my fingers crossed) and Law helping him man the point. There's no excuse for us not to release the hounds. Our team is too athletic not to run. We also have the type of team that can play half-court, but I perfer the up-tempo pace.

[sturt]

Ex, if you want a real debate, slow down and stop jumping ahead. If you don't, continue to do what you do, making broad assumptions that make it sound as if it's a miracle that Chil was even drafted at all.

So, you DO you or DON'T you acknowledge that there are players who have a greater ceiling but also a greater basement than others?

DO you or DON'T you acknowledge that every player in the draft represents some combination of skills and for every skill, some degree of proficiency?

If you can't affirm those two statements, we have nothing to talk about, and we can just move on and ignore each other's post in the future.

[thesheedera]

Riding the fence on specific players does not equate with being a fair weatehred fan or needed to be right all the time. In fact often it can be just the opposite. Sometimes it's just being honest enough to admit that you don't have a strong opinion about that player because you don't know enough about them, and you aren't an expert talent scout.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

So, you DO you or DON'T you acknowledge that there are players who have a greater ceiling but also a greater basement than others?

DO you or DON'T you acknowledge that every player in the draft represents some combination of skills and for every skill, some degree of proficiency?

---

Yes to both, although i know both questions are just more of your attempts at misdirection since you continually want to ignore the elephant in the room.

Explain to me how Childress has a (higher ceiling, lower basement or whatever) than Deng, who is bigger, faster and has a conventional shot.

Deng also has the highest Roland Rating on a playoff team, averages 5 ppg more than Chill and was huge in the playoffs.

[exodus]

I am going to ask you a simple yes/no question. The correct answer is either yes or no. It isnt multiple choice.

Is Deng better than Childress right now?

I am betting that you can't even answer this question.

[GoDawgs21]

So let me ask you this being the conservative pick doesn't mean going for a higher ceiling.

What I am saying is Childress a seasoned college player that was all-pac ten team award winner, is compared to freshman that was not as big of a factor at Duke. While Deng ceiling is higher you know what your getting in Chill. Thats minimizing risk. There was less of chance of Chill being a bust then Deng. Say what you want but thats the case.

It is the same argument many made against MW and CP, however at the time that draft was as 1/2 as this years with Oden and Durant. Also why did Utah pass on Paul, thats a debate for another time. But to say Childress was not a more conservative pick which was my assertion is absurd.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I am going to ask you a simple yes/no question. The correct answer is either yes or no. It isnt multiple choice.

Is Deng better than Childress right now?

I am betting that you can't even answer this question.

---

Busy afternoon, so I might not get back on this, but let me squeeze in what I can...

Yes, Deng is better than Childress.

(If you thought I couldn't admit that, you really don't have a clue about my mindset.)

The direction, or to you "misdirection," I guess you don't want me to take is that, given the conventional wisdom (as would be supported by the news stories and such) of the time and not using your 20-20 hindsight as you're so good at doing, who was thought to be a riskier selection: the undergrad SF from Duke who had the high dribble and funky way of moving or the graduating SF from Stanford who had the shot from his chin?

Go do your research, then come back and acknowledge to the rest of us that Deng was the riskier pick... though, he's proven to make good on his promise, as if you or anyone else could have guaranteed he would actually do that.

You'll also come back to us able to report that Chil was the most conservative pick--you knew what you were getting, and while he wasn't likely to be a bust, he also wasn't likely to set the NBA world on fire... and that's pretty much held out to be the case, of course.

At that juncture, would it have been more wise for BK to have taken Deng or Chil?

Given what we know today, he would have been better off to take Deng.

Given what might have happened, vis-a-vis worst-case scenario, between those two, I think it's enough to say, "everyone can be their own judge."

My position: Busts DO happen, even in the lottery. They are much less likely to happen as you go farther up the totem pole. In that general area, ATL had recently busted with their selection of DerMarr... and being at a stage where we really needed to begin piling up some assets period, the tendency would naturally have been to vote for the more conservative, lower ceiling/higher basement player.

You can talk bias all day... I don't enter the conversation with a problem with people in authority as you evidently do... so that doesn't cloud my judgment as it does for you or others.