Reasons for Optimism

[sturt]

Quote:

---

That is common sense, unless you are a blind apologist of course.

---

*laughing*

Well... no one can argue that you ARE consistent.

And insatiable.

And still... well, what you've always been, and I think that's enough said.

EDIT: G'nite... I really do have to let it go at that now that its past 10... the last words are yours or W's or Atlas' or whoevers...

[atlien110]

entertaining read fellas....

my take on it is this. as much as i have defended bk's decision to take chills over deng and iggy in the past i just can't get myself to do it anymore. having just drafted a 6'8 pg (diaw) in the first round a year ago the hawks found themselves with a guy who could play multiple positions but wasn't adapting to the 1 spot at the nba level very well. however it seemed like he just might be able to be a decent swingman if used properly. yet diaw wasn't aggressive enough, passing up open shots and looking to pass first. here's my question, if you just drafted a multi talented swingman who could do a number of things fairly well but didn't look to shoot. why use a lottery pick on basically a very similar type of player with the same flaws? i would think if you went with a passive, passing swingman in the previous draft you might want a little variety and either get a athletic freak or a guy who is a solid defender with a great mid range shot.

those are only several reasons as to why i just can't seem to understand bk's mindset.

i never liked the marvin pick even though i am hoping he works out. we needed a pg and i thought the fastest one in the draft might do the hawks well (felton)... when's the last time bk ever tried to maximize his picks or swing a deal during the draft to pick players to fit positions of need rather than stockpile a squadron of 6'7-6'9 forwards..

like i have said in the past i've always defended the guy until his shelden pick at 5 a year ago..... bk just doesn't have enough creativity to build a functional roster. everyone and their mama knew that shelden would be around later in the first round. bk could have traded down and maybe only picked up a minor asset in the process but an asset nonetheless (a 2nd rounder this year?) and still gotten his man. i mean seriously what teams were drooling over the aspect of the hawks possibly passing over shelden?

but i must say it does look like their is cause for optimism for the upcoming season only however because the hawks LUCKED into getting the 3rd and 11th pick in this years draft. fellas without a lucky bounce in the hawks direction they easily might have only have had no picks or something like #11 or #12.

i always thought that bk was oblivious to his critics but last year after getting torched by nba pundits for passing up on paul when the hawks needed a pg. he goes out in the offseason and signs a career backup to a 25+ mil contract. then he addresses the hawks other need, a low post defensive presence by reaching for an over the hill hacker in lorenzen. bk did a nice job in drafting josh smith but other than that every single move he's made has been questionable at best.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

portrayed your opinions quite consistently and quite insistently and quite dogmatically that BK is incompetent or something very much in that arena

---

To summarize.

In addition to my opinions about BK's lottery picks.

I have critized his failure to trade Harrington before the deadline last season when Nene was on the table. And i have also criticized his failure to get a C who could play D (although some seem to feel Al can play that role).

I have criticized him for passing on pgs available through the draft and fa. It is a big relief that he finally drafted a pg.

I have criticized some of his second round picks although i realize it isn't that big a deal.

I have also given him a lot of credit for the JJ deal which looks better and better as time goes by. I also admitted that i didn't like it at the time because i thought they gave up too much to get JJ.

and my harping on Childress isn't just because i believe Deng is a much better player. I believe that if the Hawks had chosen Deng, who is a pure 3, they would have been less inclined to draft marvin and instead would have taken Deron. Word is they were very close to taking Deron anyway.

Deron and Deng both had huge seasons and were huge in the playoffs. Put them on this team and we would have been in the playoffs this year IMO. We would also be a force down the road assuming we could get a center who could play D.

When you scrap a team and decide to rebuild through the draft you'd better make sure to make the right picks. I totally agreed with BK's decision to blow up the team of Big Dog, SAR etc and rebuild. But he lost me with the Childress pick and hasn't done nearly enough to get me back in his corner.

So there you have it. Now hopefully you can stop making assumptions and start making sense.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

portrayed your opinions quite consistently and quite insistently and quite dogmatically that BK is incompetent or something very much in that arena

---

To summarize.

In addition to my opinions about BK's lottery picks.

I have critized his failure to trade Harrington before the deadline last season when Nene was on the table. And i have also criticized his failure to get a C who could play D (although some seem to feel Al can play that role).

I have criticized him for passing on pgs available through the draft and fa. It is a big relief that he finally drafted a pg.

I have criticized some of his second round picks although i realize it isn't that big a deal.

I have also given him a lot of credit for the JJ deal which looks better and better as time goes by. I also admitted that i didn't like it at the time because i thought they gave up too much to get JJ.

and my harping on Childress isn't just because i believe Deng is a much better player. I believe that if the Hawks had chosen Deng, who is a pure 3, they would have been less inclined to draft marvin and instead would have taken Deron. Word is they were very close to taking Deron anyway.

Deron and Deng both had huge seasons and were huge in the playoffs. Put them on this team and we would have been in the playoffs this year IMO. We would also be a force down the road assuming we could get a center who could play D.

When you scrap a team and decide to rebuild through the draft you'd better make sure to make the right picks. I totally agreed with BK's decision to blow up the team of Big Dog, SAR etc and rebuild. But he lost me with the Childress pick and hasn't done nearly enough to get me back in his corner.

So there you have it. Now hopefully you can stop making assumptions and start making sense.

---

I'm going to use a word I use judiciously.

DAMN.

Exactly what in that excellent summary (and I truly do appreciate your providing that condensed version) was supposed to make me think you aren't all over BK as a rule???

I thought you wanted to come off as this guy who is misunderstood...

What I got was, "BK is wrong about everything except... (a) He was right to blow-up the roster (as if *anyone* contests that), and (b) I hated the JJ move at the time, but I'm less critical of that now that he appears to be in the midst of being proven correct (though other moves made for the long-term continue to get judged in the short-term--to some degree, but not a large one, that's valid).

What part of "incompetence" doesn't fit with your summary?

Heck, you even admit, you think you're smarter than he is about his 2nd round picks... there's practically NO ONE standing with you in that room, ex.

You're so... damn.... full of yourself you can't even recognize it when you write it all out in a summary that's clear for ANYONE to see.

And **I'm** the one who's making assumptions... and **I'm** the one who might start making sense.... yeah... ok.

Countless adjectives for me to choose from to describe you here, but that's pointless... anyone with any intelligence whatsoever can see this for what it is.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

BK is wrong about everything except

---

Again you show blatant stupidity. I never said anything even remotely like that.

We are talking about several years of issues, the ones i had a problem with i put in one post. Many of them i just didn't have a strong opinion on one way or another, the Smith contract talks just one of the many.

Yet you read that to say that i am saying "BK is wrong about everything except" .... that is just plain dumb, but not unexpected.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

(I can be a terrible liar occcasionally... I only thought I was done for the night... sorry about that.)

Just so we're all on the same page, the quote you are referencing, W, is:

Quote:

---

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.

---

That they ARE better players is not the same thing as saying that, and I quote, "BK ***passed*** on better players."

It's... ahem... "reasonable"... to interpret that as if the poster was suggesting that when BK drafted them, it was not debatable that two of the three were better players than the one BK drafted.

---

It's also "reasonable" you are making a fool of yourself TRYING to win the battle while losing the war. Clinton "interpreted" the definition of "is" in much the same manner as you interpret the definition of "better player". I think we all should know that "better player" in the context of the NBA draft means "better NBA prospect". Frankly, you are just talking out of your ass. And I don't rightly know why. Maybe Steven Covey can explain it to us all. WTF? A Steven Covey reference?

Quote:

---

I think there's plenty of evidence that it is HYPERBOLE now to suggest that back then it was "not debatable" who was the better player.

---

"Back then" not a single respectable soul thought Childress a better pro prospect than Deng or Iggy even, nor SW a better pro prospect than Roy. This is NOT debatable! Deng averaged something like 2-3 draft slots higher than Childress in the mock drafts. Iggy also. SW was "promised" and everybody knew it but it was Roy that was hotly sought after and traded for. I mean come on. Quit being silly.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Is it not fair to say that the hyperbole I used was in order to attempt to creatively illustrate a point...???

---

Isn't that the point of all hyperbole or does your [censored] not stink too?

I'm glad to know that the "new KB"'s hyperbole is better than other hyperbole because the intentions behind it (defending BK from his mean, cruel detractors) are good and noble (however wrong).

Sturt, you are dangerously close to becoming the new KB. Watch your step.

W

[Guest Walter]

you don't like about BK. Most people commented in that thread of mine last year. Each person who liked or didn't like BK posted 10 things they didn't like or liked about BK respectively. It's been 2 offseasons since then, you should be able ot find 10, maybe 15 things BK has done that you do not agree with.

Post them all.

Then, when you are done we can all make the ASSUMPTION based upon that lengthy, but incomplete list of BK decisions that you "are all over BK as a rule" and you think "(BK) was wrong about everything".

Please, read more carefully or post more responsibly. Ex, highlighted the reasons why he did not approve of BK. Not 1/3rd of BK's moves were represented but you went "good and noble hyperbole" on Ex and stated what you "got was...BK was wrong about everything". I know you believe your [censored] don't stink as much as (only) YOUR use of hyperbole is an honest mistake intended for the greater forum good (gag), but you've gone "new KB" on us and it's time to reel in that ego and those oh so noble intentions.

W

[sturt]

*steps up on soap box*

....W, I've always liked you, bro...

Now, make no mistake, that's in spite of your temperance. I guess I've always sensed that your heart in all of this is mostly the same as mine.

But you seem to be really on the attack now, which I take to mean, you must feel your own arguments about BK in particular to be threatened, or you wouldn't be spending so much time in the last 24 hours trying to snip at me.

Forgive the seeming pretense, but I don't have to defend who I am or what I think or how I present myself to you... nor do you for me, but the difference is, that IS what you're asking of me, not me of you... that's not something I even care to ask of you... to the contrary, you have your opinions, I have mine, we put them on public display, and may the better/higher/stronger arguments (notice, I didn't say "person") win.

(Needless to say, I typically like my chances.)

What you're doing is taking a much more personal approach, not unlike Ex... and that's gotten both of you a little unnerved, or so it seems, that someone would dare expose that strategy for what it is--subjective meaninglessness.

To wit, why should I care that ex doesn't think I belong in the same thread with his genius? He's free to think what he wants to think about himself in comparison to me. But as long as he's massaging his own ego, who's in a position to judge me for enjoying a little fun illuminating his folly? You? *chuckle*

Insults? Insult the argument all you want. Insult the person, and yes, it's just adults playing juvenile word games.

Hyperbole? Hyperbole for the sake of illustration isn't an attack on a person... hyperbole for the sake of an attempt to truncate any debate is... well... this strange combination of Dan Quayle-like and Archie-Bunker-like. It's simple. It's being so frustrated that you can't lay out the facts effectively enough to frame your argument that you just forego the effort, and ask the reader of your argument to accept your conclusion on the basis of your own testimony that there is no other conclusion than your own, except stupid conclusions.

And the spit that don't stink thing? Your way of attempting to fight against my attempt to raise the level of conversation... that's as opposed to your seeming desire to give license to the ranting and biting and macho-ing act that is so nonchalauntly employed on this and other boards... it's what you appear to be comfortable with, so my suggestion that it doesn't have to be that way, I suppose, gives you cause to lash out and try to paint me as some kind of nose-in-the-air boy scout.

It's one method of rhetorical strategy... guess we'll just have to see if it works.

"Still waters run deep?" Hmmm... well, not always, but yeah... ordinarily, the person who comes to a problem with some kind of balanced perspective and thoughtful communication is generally the kind of person I think is going to come up with a decent strategy... people who give the appearance that they are easily aggitated, prone to worry, inclined to laughing at anything, regularly whining, routinely taking pot-shots at people who disagree with them... those aren't the people whose opinions I tend to embrace immediately and respect... and yes, in fact, I kind of like exposing those people's line of thinking for how shallow it so often is.

Sue me.

Okay... so, I think I've said my peace with all that.

So, I take it that you want me to do a little dance and the dog and pony show thing about how well I can evaluate BK's other side of the ledger...

It's your lucky night... yes, you asked, and I'm going to do that.

But for the sheer fun of it, and be clear, it's not as if I have to see if W approves of my judgment of things... I'm naive about some things, but this set-up question isn't one of them... so just don't expect me to think it's that important to respond to you as you follow-up with your own evaluation of my own evaluation... it's just not.

1 and 2. BK got ahead of himself with the Kenyon Martin thing; even had Martin continued to keep the reputation he'd begun to build as a potential franchise kind of player, the timing was wrong; that kind of pursuit for a focal player needed to wait for the off-season when JJ became available, which almost by accident, that's what happened... so the timing is "1," and then, that Martin's career ended up going downhill fast, the choice of player is "2."

3. I have no clue what he was offered for Antoine. He may have taken the best deal he could get. This is where evaluating a GM is *always* more tricky than what any of us outsider fans ordinarily or freely admit... but for "3," I'll leave it that there's disappointment that there wasn't something better.

4. While I've found that I actually like his style--I don't need a GM who is warm and fuzzy with the media or the fans, and in fact, have a lot of respect for a guy who is secure enough with himself to not worry about it--I wasn't in awe of BK's pedigree coming in, and really, was somewhat suspicious. That was a moment in time when I still wasn't convinced that he'd gotten the best end of the Gasol/SAR deal, so it actually worried me that he was being brought on... surely, I thought, we could attract a better Asst GM than this ex-player whose highest job yet was with an expansion team.

5. He's not a sharp dresser.

6. In spite of Larry Brown's success through the course of his career, I've just never been a big fan of how he runs a team, though I've had to respect how he runs a game. So, no, I wasn't all that enthusiastic about the Brown disciple (Woody) hire, though I was also not that enthusiastic about the other candidates at the time. If I was on any bandwagon, I guess I was on Del Harris'. What you won't get me to say is that I'm right and BK was wrong--it's just not know-able. And I never despised Woody, and still don't, but also thought that it didn't matter so much right then while the roster was being re-built... Now that it seems like there is reason for more optimism, I've re-visited my feeling about Woody, and I just think it's going to take a different kind of coaching philosophy ultimately to bring it all home... someone whose resume shows an ability to manage games with a deeper rotation than the traditional NBA 7 or 8 man rotation, cause our team is young and deep, and is going to continue to be young and deep in comparison to others' for another 3-4 years.

7. He wouldn't shake Belkin's hand.

8. Disturbs me some that the two assistant coaches didn't come out with quotes that they hadn't been surprised by the turn of events... which tells me that they were, which disappoints me that it wasn't commiunicated to them how the game was going to be played; even if that one goes back to an ownership problem, BK had a responsibility to have made them acutely aware before the interview process began that there could be some problems if they were to ask out of their contracts. (Kidding on number seven, so I'll make up for it with an eleven.)

9. Like many, I didn't like the Shelden pick at #5 last year. Can't say there was any other player I liked that much at that slot. So... I dunno... again, I don't know what the options were to trade up or trade down or to trade out. But it wouldn't have taken much for me to have done *something* different.

10. Biggest, by far, mistake was whatever he did that allowed the whole Shelden leak to surface... and I think there was a whole combination of things that went on, not just one thing. Don't know--once again--that he would have had any good offers to move down, thought that's the easy supposition people make. But I do know that it's not likely, b/c he had to be concerned that, with his decision so publicly established, BK was in about as vulnerable a position on draft day as a GM can be.

11. He might be racist... this team has seldom had any good white players on the roster during his tenure.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(I just kill me... I'm such a kidder.)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

It's being so frustrated that you can't lay out the facts effectively enough to frame your argument that you just forego the effort,

---

That was a perfect explanation of exactly what you did when responding to my post about what i didn't like about BK.

Instead of trying to debate any of the points i made you decide to make a blanket statement that has no basis in reality.

Lets look at some issues that have come up just recently.

The Smith contract talks. Where has my condemnation of BK been with this issue?

Darko. Many here were looking to trade one of our core pieces for him. When Orlando let him go and Memphis signed him cheap many here were complaining about it. My response was that Darko was a headcase and it wasn't a big deal.

Many here want Woody fired and think the only reason BK hasn't fired him is because they are friends. Even if that is true, and even though i don't care much for Woody, i pretty much stay out of it because i am not convinced we can find someone better.

Amare. After the draft the rumor came out that BK pulled out of the Amare deal because we would have had to give up Marvin and many here were pissed. i didn't buy it. I think it is much more likely that Amare was never on the table or that ownership wasn't willing to take on Amare's contract with Smiths extension looming. i don't like BK and would have fired him long ago but i think he would bend over backwards to get Amare in here if it was up to him.

I gave BK a B grade on the draft even though he didn't do what i wanted. I didn't like the Horford pick but understood the logic behind it. I think Law was the right pick.

Going back to our most recent trade, a 2nd rounder for AJ, many here were up in arms about it for different reasons. My response was indifference. I really didn't care one way or the other.

Where has my sermonizing against BK been on the above issues? if i was really so hellbent on criticizing BK surely i would have taken advantage of the above opportunities.

But according to you i am totally against every decision BK has made. You paint this picture because you are unable to defend his lottery picks with any kind of coherent argument.

You say it is better to take the (allegedly) safer pick in year 1 of rebuilding even though the team has needs at every position and isn't going to be competitive any time soon. Then you advocate taking the riskier pick the following year even though BK drafted 3 forwards the previous year and had more seasoned players available he would have filled the pg position, the second hardest position to fill.

That all makes about as much sense as a square bowling ball. My guess is that you know this but don't want to admit it so you try to dance around the issue by making blanket assumptions about my "problem with authority". Or your homer goggles are so thick that you can't see what is right in front of you.

And in your next post you wont even address any of the points i made here or any facts in general. You will continue your charade pretending to be logical and unbiased when in truth you are one of the most biased people here and your posts are a logic vacuum.

And i disagree with #3 point about Walker. I liked that deal so now you have something else that i have agreed with BK about.

[exodus]

As to another point which i didn't address yet...

Quote:

---

Heck, you even admit, you think you're smarter than he is about his 2nd round picks... there's practically NO ONE standing with you in that room, ex.

---

First of all i said i disagreed with some of his second round picks. You take that to mean i am "smarter than he is" about them. Again taking liberties with the language. I wont even bother trying to explain the difference to you.

Secondly there are plenty of people here who couldn't believe that he passed on Duhon, the senior starting pg at Duke, not once but TWICE in the second round to pick Ivey and Donta Smith, both of whom are now on milk cartons.

That is my biggest gripe with the second rounders since he had two chances to get it right. Duhon is a valuable contributor to a playoff team.

My other gripe is Salim over Monta, who was seen as a lottery type talent. I knew that BK liked Monta and apparently he was actually trying to trade for another second rounder to get him.

I didn't like the Jones pick at first but have since come around on him, even though i am not sure he will ever become a real contributor.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

But you seem to be really on the attack now, which I take to mean, you must feel your own arguments about BK in particular to be threatened, or you wouldn't be spending so much time in the last 24 hours trying to snip at me.

---

I feel it's being "attacked" but not threatened. Actually, I am certain that my and other's arguments against BK aren't being attacked but rather we, those who have made them, are.

Really, you haven't made a single "reasoned" defense of BK. You insist that the players he drafted were somehow "better" at the time but everyone knows that "better" in the context of the NBA draft means A BETTER PRO PROSPECT. What other kind of "better" is there in the context of the NBA draft?!? At the mention of this you fall silent. It's a big loud "GULP" on your part. Did BK pick the best professional prospect when he picked Childress, MW, and SW? I think the answer is a resounding "NO", "at the time" is only better with regards to MW (which I rightly saw as a crock "at the time"), and neither assertion is "reasonably debatable". Childress and SW were NOT "better" prospects at the time according to ANYONE. You do not seem to be willing to face this, only to argue they were "better" then, AT WHAT, I don't know. Maybe they were better hair dressers (Chill's fro) or lady's men (SW's wife) because they DAMN sure weren't better pro prospects than Deng (or Iggy) or Roy respectively.

Quote:

---

Forgive the seeming pretense

---

There seems an awful lot to forgive you of lately. First your hyperbole that for you and you alone is "intended" and therefore justified. We are to forgive you for that. Now your "pretense". Oh, and your poor argument. I forgive you for that as well. Yep. Too much like KB to let go by. Exageration, assuming the moral high ground as blanket justification for your and your actions alone, snide, and wrong.

Quote:

---

but I don't have to defend who I am or what I think or how I present myself to you... nor do you for me, but the difference is, that IS what you're asking of me, not me of you... that's not something I even care to ask of you... to the contrary, you have your opinions, I have mine, we put them on public display, and may the better/higher/stronger arguments (notice, I didn't say "person") win.

---

But you do "defend" constantly so whether or not you feel you have to, you do. Doing so, you appeal to the higher moral ground of YOUR "hyperbole", dissengenuous readings of Ex (and myself), and all-around lazy argumentation.

Quote:

---

What you're doing is taking a much more personal approach, not unlike Ex... and that's gotten both of you a little unnerved, or so it seems, that someone would dare expose that strategy for what it is--subjective meaninglessness.

---

I have provided mnay objective pieces of evidence that support the argument that BK has been a poor GM (twice consecutively directly passing on NBA R.O.Y., getting the 3rd worst of the only three considered NBA prospects 3 consecutive years in a row, Speedy/Lo signings, his career record as NBA GM, His coach's - Lowe and Woody - career coaching record). Now since you want to call this an argument and you insist that you are the keeper of the objective information Name ONE piece of objective evidence that suggests BK is a good GM!

You can't. So quit your preaching. If you can't produce objective evidence, more objective evidence than that available to demonstrate BK's incompetence, then don't insist that objective evidence is your domain. Where is the BK win total or draft pick productivity chart relative to the position that player was drafted that supports not only your claim but BEGINS to suggest that Sturt, KB-like boaster, sole wielder of objectivity, and great ruler of good intention hyperbole, isn't a calming presence windbag? WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS OH YE (SELF-RUMORED) CHAMPION OF THE OBJECTIVE?!?

Tick

Tock

Tick

Tock...

You're on the clock. Bring the factual, objective, evidenced based reasons why BK is a good GM or else conceed the argument. No more ad hominem. attack the messenger, or appeals to your KB-like great wisdom, goodly intended hyperbole, or singular claim of objectivity.

Where's the objective beef oh great BK defender and self proclaimed champion of objectivity?

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You insist that the players he drafted were somehow "better" at the time but everyone knows that "better" in the context of the NBA draft means A BETTER PRO PROSPECT. What other kind of "better" is there in the context of the NBA draft?!? At the mention of this you fall silent.

---

And that won't change.

Quote:

---

Where is the BK win total or draft pick productivity chart relative to the position that player was drafted that supports not only your claim but BEGINS to suggest that Sturt, KB-like boaster, sole wielder of objectivity, and great ruler of good intention hyperbole, isn't a calming presence windbag?

---

LOL

[AHF]

Without getting immersed in the details of this argument, I will say that Childress was rated much closer to Deng and (especially) Iggy than Shelden was to Roy. Childess was in the same ballpark as those guys and if your GM prefers one over the other you go with your guy. I don't think many draft commentators criticized the Childress pick as a reach after the draft, unlike the Shelden pick.

On top of that, I don't mind a GM bucking the consensus and taking his guy. If someone had done that with Gilbert Arenas or Carlos Boozer their teams would be a lot better off today even taking them 20 draft slots "too high." Of course, the bottomline is that you still need to get your picks right.

I am just saying that I don't lump the Shelden promise in with the Childress draft pick in terms of problematic drafts.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Without getting immersed in the details of this argument, I will say that Childress was rated much closer to Deng and (especially) Iggy than Shelden was to Roy. Childess was in the same ballpark as those guys and if your GM prefers one over the other you go with your guy. I don't think many draft commentators criticized the Childress pick as a reach after the draft, unlike the Shelden pick.

On top of that, I don't mind a GM bucking the consensus and taking his guy. If someone had done that with Gilbert Arenas or Carlos Boozer their teams would be a lot better off today even taking them 20 draft slots "too high." Of course, the bottomline is that you still need to get your picks right.

I am just saying that I don't lump the Shelden promise in with the Childress draft pick in terms of problematic drafts.

---

First of all i want to point out the difference between the way you post and the way sturt posts. You invariably go straight to the point backing up your argument in logical fashion. I have yet to see any sturt post that even remotely resembles your post above.

Now as to your point about Chill being less of a reach than Shelden i would concede that. However that isn't what sturt has been arguing.

First of all he says that somehow Chill was the "safer" pick which i don't get. Since you have a better memory for these things than i do maybe you could point out some successful wing players who have a release on their jumpers as low as Chill. Other than Marion none really leaps to mind. I guess i would add Mason (man his shot is horrible). Considering the scarcity of players who shoot that way i would think that makes Chill more of a risk, as do his foot problems in college.

And secondly sturt argues that picking the safe pick was the right play in 2004 as opposed to picking the player with the highest ceiling. Again i don't get this reasoning considering that BK had just dumped almost his entire roster and was just starting to rebuild.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Without getting immersed in the details of this argument, I will say that Childress was rated much closer to Deng and (especially) Iggy than Shelden was to Roy. Childess was in the same ballpark as those guys and if your GM prefers one over the other you go with your guy. I don't think many draft commentators criticized the Childress pick as a reach after the draft, unlike the Shelden pick.

On top of that, I don't mind a GM bucking the consensus and taking his guy. If someone had done that with Gilbert Arenas or Carlos Boozer their teams would be a lot better off today even taking them 20 draft slots "too high." Of course, the bottomline is that you still need to get your picks right.

I am just saying that I don't lump the Shelden promise in with the Childress draft pick in terms of problematic drafts.

---

First of all i want to point out the difference between the way you post and the way sturt posts. You invariably go straight to the point backing up your argument in logical fashion. I have yet to see any sturt post that even remotely resembles your post above.

Now as to your point about Chill being less of a reach than Shelden i would concede that. However that isn't what sturt has been arguing.

First of all he says that somehow Chill was the "safer" pick which i don't get. Since you have a better memory for these things than i do maybe you could point out some successful wing players who have a release on their jumpers as low as Chill. Other than Marion none really leaps to mind. I guess i would add Mason (man his shot is horrible). Considering the scarcity of players who shoot that way i would think that makes Chill more of a risk, as do his foot problems in college.

And secondly sturt argues that picking the safe pick was the right play in 2004 as opposed to picking the player with the highest ceiling. Again i don't get this reasoning considering that BK had just dumped almost his entire roster and was just starting to rebuild.

---

I wasn't really excited about Childress, but in sturt's defense, when draft pundits talk about a pick being 'safer,' it's virtually synonymous with 'older.'

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I wasn't really excited about Childress, but in sturt's defense, when draft pundits talk about a pick being 'safer,' it's virtually synonymous with 'older.'

---

That isn't what sturt is really talking about but even if it was then that would beg the question .... why go with the older player with a lower ceiling when you are basically starting over from scratch like an expansion team?

[Diesel]

I don't neccessarily agree with Sturt...

BUT I think Chillz and Shelden were the right picks.

People who argue this should not even mention Iggy. Taking Iggy would have been a reach compared to Chillz. Chillz was more accomplished. Deng didn't translate to an uptempo player. One problem that I have is with BK's failure to address coaching. He has gotten these uptempo guys and put them with a halfcourt coach. It's a disservice.

I think Shelden was the right picks simply because of the politics of our team at the time. Let's not ignore that. We had JJ who Roy is the carbon copy of. We had Al (Our PF) about to be a FA. We had Josh Smith with no real plans for him being Pf. It would have been the wrong thing to do to duplicate JJ and not have a PF. It would have given Al too much power in negotiations.

Plus both Chillz and Shelden were good college players.

[Traceman]

considered by many (if not most) to be a better prospect than Chillz. Chillz was an older, more mature and more accomplished player but he was NOT considered by most to be a better prospect than Iggy. Taking Iggy at #6 would not have been a reach and in fact, it would have raised FAR fewer eyebrows than taking Chillz at #6 did.

As for Deng, he was the guy I thought we should have taken at the time. I thought he was more athletic and skilled than he was given credit for being.

All of the above said, I think Chillz is a good, well-rounded player. I think BK would have hit a home run with Iggy or Deng but he got a solid double out Chillz.

I see Shelden as a different story. I understand that we needed a dominant inside presence on both ends of the floor but wishing that Shelden was capable of being dominant is different than him actually being able to accomplish that. Best case, I think Shelden can be a solid double-double guy and a solid starter but he will NEVER have Roy's ability. As for duplication, I would LOVE to have two JJ's in our backcourt. JJ may not be a PG but if he had a SG as good as he is playing in the backcourt with him, his weaknesses at the PG position would be minimized. JJ can also play SF so if Roy proved to be better than Marvin and Chillz, he and JJ could have played together with Roy at SG and JJ at SF.

[Diesel]

Yeah, we disagree.

I don't think at the time, there was a whole lot of belief that Iguodala's shot would come around OR that Deng would translate. Chillz offer everything but size.

About Shelden and more specifically:

Quote:

---

I understand that we needed a dominant inside presence on both ends of the floor but wishing that Shelden was capable of being dominant is different than him actually being able to accomplish that.

---

You talk about Shelden as if he was dogsnot in college. Aside from Alonzo Mourning, Shelden was probably the most decorated defensive player to come out of college in the last 25 years. I mean, he was 3rd in player of the year voting. He was defensive player of the year two times in a row. Now after the fact, you want to change the history of the matter?

It's not hard to see a double double out of Shelden with consistent play. It's also not hard to see better play with better coaching.