Some People Need To Be Called ON There $h!+!

[mrhonline]

The argument IS this: If we trade Big Dog for the right guy, we WILL be a better team over an 82 game schedule.

The argument IS NOT this: If we waive Big Dog, the current team will play better over an 82 game schedule.

Contrary to some of the sarcastic opinions of some of the Dog haters, the Hawks can get more than peanuts in return. The statement that the Hawks need another scorer in Big Dog's absence is irrelevant - they would obviously get a scorer in return...

Hopefully, the incoming player would only be a dropoff of 4-5 pts/game, but would offset this by being a better ballhandler, defender, team player, etc.

[Traceman]

You said: "Regardless of how you 'spin', the presence of a $14 million dollar player costs us >30% more games lost than his absence."

Dog didn't make ANYWHERE NEAR $14 million last year! In fact, he made less than $10 million last year. He will make less than $11 million next year and he will make $12 million the following year. He was 19th in scoring in the NBA despite playing with 2 other guys who finished in the top 40 (we were the only team with 3 guys in the top 40). Of the 18 guys ahead of him, only TWO made less money (Mash and Stack). The other 16 guys ahead of him made more money than he did and SEVERAL players behind him made more money than he did. Trying to exaggerate his salary by $4 million to prove your point is pathetic.

That being said, I NEVER said it was Theo's fault ALONE that the frontline was too small and I DEFINITELY NEVER blamed Theo for Dog's performance (or lack thereof). Again, I said that the frontline is too small. Reef is undersized at PF as well. You make a point of Dog weighing 20 more pounds than Ira but he is still only 6'7" just like Ira, Reef is 6'9" and Theo is 6'10". Height is just as big an issue when it comes to our lineup being undersized as weight. We have one of the shortest frontlines in the NBA. And even if Dog does weigh 240 lbs, that makes him our heaviest frontcourt player! If you saw how much trouble a limited but physical player in Tractor Traylor caused us in our last game, it should be obvious that we struggle with physical, aggressive frontcourt guys.

It's easy and convenient to blame Big Dog because the team DID have some measure of success without him, no matter what the circumstances might have been. I understand that. That being said, I think that we would have had a measure of success with Nazr at Center, Theo at PF and Dog at SF too. Dog was MUCH more effective when Reef was either out or played limited minutes early in the season. He earned EC Player of the Week honors when Reef was out and/or playing limited minutes. Does that mean that Reef is the reason Dog struggled much of the season? Of course not. What it means to me though is that they don't compliment each other very well.

Hopefully, the right coach will come in and get the most out of Reef and Dog. That won't be an easy task but I think it CAN be done. I think its crazy to think getting rid of Dog will be addition by subtraction because unless we get a player for Dog who can contribute SIGNIFICANTLY, this group is going nowhere. If we trade Dog, we had better be getting a quality player in return. I STILL think our best course of action is to look at waiting at least one more season to trade Dog, Theo or Reef when they will all have more trade value rather than try to do it this offseason. I could even wait for TWO more years if necessary.

My basic premise is that the TEAM is flawed and that Dog is but one part of the problem. The pieces as presently constructed just do not fit. I don't blame Theo, Reef, Dog or JT individually. I think they all have flaws and unfortunatley, their skills don't compliment each other as a good team's skills should. I think our biggest needs are a physical PF/C with size who can defend and a SG who can help JT handle the ball. If we get those two things and minimize the amount of time that Dog and Reef spend on the floor together, I think we can win. I think we can have success with Dog on the roster because we need his scoring ability BUT he needs to do a MUCH better job of sharing the ball and he needs to stop trying to handle the ball so much in the open court.

And I'm done too!

[Guest Walter]

I love how you highlight the 4 "substantial" wins WITH Big Hog despite 68 games to get them in and then highlight 3 of the 5 loses (IN BUT 14 GAMES NO LESS) WITHOUT him as bad and significant, considering all were away games, all were playoff teams, one was a loss in OT, one was a loss on the last game of the season against a team with home court to play for, and the other was "LIKE" a guess at the score.

You might as well go root for Big Hog wherever he is traded to because you don't give a d@mn about the Hawks if you are willing to make up this [censored] to save him and [censored] them. That or visit your shrine to yourself more often because your self-love has you blind to the truth.

Again, worst of all you blame Jason Terry for our loses with Big Hog. Shame on you!

W

[Guest Walter]

Man, get real! I don't care if Big Hog makes $2 million per. He makes the team worse! Moreover Big Hog's absence and a player making $1 million per makes them better. How GD difficult is this for you to grasp?!? In no way, shape, or form does his salary being $9-$12 million vs $14 million excuse a player making his team worse!

I'll take "struggling" against the almost non-existently few Tractor Trailors of the league (in games that matter for the opposition and not us, on the opposition's home court) everytime if it means we are 9-5. We "struggle" against them and everybody else in the league with Big Hog. Same front court bat-size only we hit doubles and triples with Ira at the plate and strike out looking bad with Big Hog.

Traceman, what do you want here? You will effectively doom the team to failure next year with Big Hog and god knows you know it. You insist a team CAN win with Big Hog but how much harder must it be for a team to win with a then $10 million dollar player than without him to convince you to bag him? The mere possibility of winning with him means nothing. We KNOW we did the second half of last year and this year without him. Take ANY $9-$12 million dollar player/starter from the team and does that team win 30% to 35% more games without him?!? If so who? Not even Mighty Mouse for the stocked with talent Trailblazers screws up their chemistry and he's all of 5'9"...talk about height really being a factor.

Whatever "flaws" the team has individually and as a whole for the most part dissappear or are visably compensated for without Big Hog. Moreover, at least one of those "flaws", all but absent without Hog, should be further covered up by whatever could be had in return. We add by addition and by subtraction in trading Big Hog. Any notion of keeping Big Hog is a sad attempt from one of his apologists and detremental one to the team.

As far as your specifically citing Theo and SAR as causes for why the team does not woek with Big Hog. SHAME ON YOU! They win games for us, not cost us games without Hog and a smaller lineup. There is no excuse and minimizing Ira's 20 lesser Lbs does not deflect from your accusation against Theo and SAR being found to be baseless when inserting a smaller, lesser, vastly cheaper player. You have all the help in this argument to prove your point. Ira is not only as small as Big Hog but smaller, he is lesser, he is cheaper further suggesting lesser, HOWEVER the team wins at an almost twice as good winning percentage without Big Hog. The frontline is too short! Not that we can't use a banger but the fact is Ira proved your point to be (pun intended) HOG-wash.

W

[Diesel]

You Know Walter, What I highlited was the quality of teams we have beaten with Big Dog vs. those without him. We have beaten Philly, Orlando, New Orleans, San Antonio, Sacramento with Big Dog. Unfortunately Walter, we only see those good Western teams 2 times a year. Even more... On a more individual basis, how can you diss a man that puts up 21 ppg, 7 rebs a game and leads your team in scoring?

To say that we are better off with him shoes that you learned absolutely nothing from last season. Even with a more complimentary player (Toni Kukoc) playing we did no better than with Big Dog.

Lastly, there are those people who say... Trade Big Dog for ANYTHING. that's Stupidity. Yes, all of you who stand behind that thought are stupid. What must be done by the coaching staff and the GM is first figure out why 20/6 doesn't help us. Then figure out what we need.

I stand by my statement. Moving Big Dog is not the solution. We have far more problems than Big Dog. It's starts with your floor leader and it goes all the way to your C position.

Saying that Moving Big Dog would solve our problems is just as shallow as saying moving SAR would solve all our problems. Look it over, when SAR didn't play, we performed better too.

Before you suggest tossing the baby out with the bathwater, it's best to figure out what the real problems are.

[Guest]

Diesel - part of what is at stake in this discussion is what you want the team to become, what style of play you want. If you want a more half court set with lower scoring and much fewer fast breaks, then keeping Robinson and getting rid of JT (SNT or just flat out) is the path you want to go.

If one wants more uptempo, running the floor, then GRob must go and JT is more than welcome to stay with the addition of another backcourt running mate who can handle the ball.

Eitehr way, a current player must go and a player must be found (like Miller) to fill the hole left. However, with GRob, we can't run the floor - he's not fast enough or athletic enough. SAR can really go either way...playing in the half court set playing on the fly. Theo can as well to a large degree. Both have the athleticism to run, but can slow it down some as well.

If you replace Marion with GRob, we'd be a run and gun team without losing the 3pt abilities that GRob has (Marion's just as good...and I'm not going into boards). Now Marion's aren't just falling off trees, but hopefully you get my point.

Which type of team do you want?

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

part of what is at stake in this discussion is what you want the team to become, what style of play you want. If you want a more half court set with lower scoring and much fewer fast breaks, then keeping Robinson and getting rid of JT (SNT or just flat out) is the path you want to go.

If one wants more uptempo, running the floor, then GRob must go and JT is more than welcome to stay with the addition of another backcourt running mate who can handle the ball.

---

Going uptempo means more than just GRob going. It means SAR going too. SAR plays a halfcourt like game. If you want to make everything fit and be "Uptempo", the trades that needs to be made or somehow Grob for Maggette, Jefferson, Spreewell, Matrix, Mashburn, or Miles.. And SAR for Tim Thomas, Jamison, or Griff.... then finding a SG that can compliment JT as a ballhandler on the break (Like Cutino Mobley, Wesley, Anfrenee Hardaway, Stackhouse or hughes.).

I'm not saying it's impossible, but those are the things that need to be done to make Atlanta UP tempo.

a great team would be JT/Mobley/DJ/Jamison/ and Theo. That would be uptempo.

However, we are really built for the halfcourt game. You can almost invision SAR's game more like Duncan's than KG's. That would mean that with Grob, if we were to switch a few things like Miller for JT... and somehow get a shooter like Persons or Eddie Jones. A good team would be:

Miller/Jones/Grob/SAR/ Theo.

Really we would need a bigger C than Theo, plus Theo might be the one that can get us Jones.

[Guest]

That would be a good team (the half court set). While not terribly exciting, they'd win games and possibly contend. They'd be built for the regular season's length and have all the tools one wants in a well-rounded set.

I still believe that SAR could play in a more uptempo offense. Not as the focal point, but as someone who could occasionally help finish the break but more importantly someone who could be the focal point when the team slows things down and does play half court sets. That's what the Nets are missing right now - in a half court set, their guys simply lack the moves and patience to consistently score (outside of jumpers).

Like I said, we could go either way right now. It all depends on this summer - trading GRob or retaining JT. Neither option solidifies the team - we'd still need a piece or two (getting Miller) and both options require our finding a consistent shooting guard who can a) finish on the break (for the uptempo option) or someone like Barry (for the GRob half court sets) who can pass and hit 3's.

Either way, mgt. has to pick a direction and go with it.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

That would be a good team (the half court set). While not terribly exciting, they'd win games and possibly contend. They'd be built for the regular season's length and have all the tools one wants in a well-rounded set.

---

I don't think any team in the east could challenge them. Mainly because the chemistry would be there. Chemistry can take you a long ways... Look at Detroit. Detroit is exactly what you described.. A team that is built for the regular season. In a 7 game set, teams figure out how to score against them. I wouldn't be surprised if Tmac and Orlando Swept them.

In reply to:

---

I still believe that SAR could play in a more uptempo offense. Not as the focal point, but as someone who could occasionally help finish the break but more importantly someone who could be the focal point when the team slows things down and does play half court sets.

---

You don't pay a player 12+ million dollars a year to finish an occassional break and to be a 3rd option scorer. Reef has the offensive game that we can build on. The mistakes of the past have been trying to build on JT or Grob. It only works well when SAR is the focus. He has to be coached on how to run the offense from the post. Watch Duncan is my advice to Reef. Learn how to pass out of a double... But first the coaches have to build an offense with movement.

As much as you might disagree, the Hawks is better suited to be a team that plays a motion offense and a Zone defense. That's with who we have right now... Plus maybe one good ball handler. JT is really a spot up shooter who can slash if necessary. He has to learn how to pass on the drive. Everybody talks about him driving and dishing because he's fast... But he rarely does it. SAR should be the focal point of the motion offense. We need a shooter. I would look into a trade of Nazr for Daniels/Filler or Nazr for Dooling/Filler or Nazr for Persons or even Nazr/CC for Dickerson and run a 2 gaurd set. The point is that we need someone who can handle the ball but most importantly shoot.

[Traceman]

you know less about basketball than I thought. We have a PG who turns the ball over WAY too much, who makes too many mental errors and who won't or can't defend consistently. We have a SG who can't shoot all that great and who is not the best ballhandler or defender in the world. We have a SF (Dog) who shoots too much, turns it over too much and who is a below average defender at best. We have a PF who is too small to defend the bigger PFs, who rarely if ever rotates on time on D and who argues with the refs too much. We have a Center who weighs about 230 lbs who gets overpowered at times. And lets not even go there with the bench.

The thing is that its NOT about our players individual flaws (as you suggest with Dog) for as many flaws as they have, they all have more strengths than flaws. The problem is that as a group, they don't compliment each others' weaknesses very well. Dog is but one piece of the puzzle and he is only one part of the problem.

I don't think that Bog Dog makes the team worse. I think that playing Reef/Dog together for long stretches, at least so far, has made this team worse.

If you think that Tractor Traylor is one of the "few" physical players who has given us trouble, you obviously haven't watched a lot of games. I watched Clarence Weatherspoon and Kurt Thomas wear Reef and Theo out down low. I watched Gary Trent do the same for Minnesota. I watched lowly Miami do the same thing. Teams like Indy and Detroit really gave us trouble when they got physical. Boston REALLY had our number because they kept attacking the basket and we couldn't deal with the physical play of Walker, Rogers and Pierce.

I DON'T think that Big Dog dooms the team to failure next year. I DO think that trading Big Dog for a lesser player(s), particularly a player(s) with more than 2 years on his contract will doom this team's future. We wonb't have significant caproom for 2 more years regardless of whether Big Dog stays are goes. Ruining that caproom thinking that getting rid of Dog is enough to make this team competitive is dumb. If we can get equal value for Dog next year, I'm all for seeing him go. If not, I say they keep him for another year when he is more tradeable or for 2 more years when his contract runs out.

Saying we KNOW we won without Big Dog this year means very little to me. For the most part, we won games that we should have won AT HOME with or without Big Dog. If we had gone on our Western road swing and had success without Dog, it would be a totally different story. We had success at the end of the season last year with JT, DJ, Ira, Reef & Nazr playing the bulk of the minutes. Based on that, it appears on the surface that we can win without Theo as well. But the reality is that like last year (and virtually every year because we always have the circus in town when we go on the Western road trip early in the season), the team had a more favorable schedule down the stretch and that was a contributing factor in our record.

And what a stupid statement this is:

"Take ANY $9-$12 million dollar player/starter from the team and does that team win 30% to 35% more games without him?!? If so who? Not even Mighty Mouse for the stocked with talent Trailblazers screws up their chemistry and he's all of 5'9"...talk about height really being a factor."

Just last year, Toronto did that without Vince in the lineup. Just this year, NJ did that without Mutombo in the lineup. And Stoudemire rarely played early in the season and comes off the bench now. He is in no way comparable to Dog. He is comparable to Vin Baker.

One of the teams flaws, poor D, is significantly improved with Ira in and Dog out. In addition, ball movement was better consistently with Dog out even though we scored fewer points. Still, the team has a lot of flaws that remain. We still need more interior size, we still need to take better care of the ball and we still need another ballhandler on the floor.

You must have scored HORRIBLY on the reading comprehension portion of ANY standardized tests that you have ever taken! How many different TIMES and WAYS can I say that I DO NOT BLAME THEO AND/OR REEF FOR DOG'S SHORTCOMINGS! D@MN! Again, I just don't think the trio fits together well.

You say that Theo and Reef win games for us. I say that Dog won games for us too. It's not like Reef carried us on his back in Dog's absence. In fact, JT was the one who stepped up his game in those wins more than Reef did. JT led us in scoring in 5 of the 9 wins we had in Dog's absence. Reef led us 3 times and Dion led us once. Reef is a good player but he has yet to prove he can be an important part of a winning team. Dog has proven that he can do that on more than one occasion. And don't say that I'm blaming Reef AGAIN! I'M NOT! He is but one piece of the puzzle. Criticizing him and highlighting his faults don't make him any more or less responsible for the team's struggles than Dog or any other single player.

And yes, even with Ira, the frontcourt is too small and not physical enough against a lot of teams. There is no way a team like Miami should beat us 3 out of 4 but they did because they were too physical for us. We MUST get a more physical inside presence - someone who can come in and be physical when other teams try to bully us. Babcock recognized our need in that area on several occasions. If he had signed Willis in the offseason as he should have, we wouldn't have that problem.

[Guest Walter]

Name another player whose absence makes us 8 PPG better.

Anyone. I'd imagine with all our other "REAL" flaws that wouldn't be so hard. [censored], I'd be impressed if you found a player who merely made us 1 point better in his absence.

Dog IS a puzzle and not the piece to any.

Who cares whether you "THINK" Big Dog makes the team worse. He does and everyone else but Diesel (strange, unflattering company don't you think) KNOWS it.

If all these teams "wore us out" then why did we win without Big Hog? I'll take being worn out and winning. It's not like Big Hog won't get somebody in return, perhaps even someone of size to combat these behemoths in the EC that we still beat at a 67% clip despite their scary (boo) size.

Again, your the only one but Diesel that "thinks" Big Dog doesn't doom this team to failure next year. This team cannot stand pat with an obviously team d@mning player. Not as it is now and certainly not with new ownership coming in. They can get something reasonable for Big Dog and more than they would later after another year of him [censored] up a team that wins at an almost remarkable and certainly not entirely sustainable clip without him. Can you picture Big Hog's value after another year of making a team 8 PPG better IN HIS ABSENCE?

As far as Vince, look closer now. As far as Mutombo, I already expressed my feelings in depth about Mutombo. Interestingly, BD is the same thing only inverse and WORSE!

I don't have anymore time for this. I hope my sarcasm shows just how much your sorry argument for d@mning the team means to me.

W

[Traceman]

I could give a d@mn less what you or anyone else thinks about Dog and you don't "KNOW" jack! I formed MY opinion based on what I have seen this season and I am sure everyone else on the board did the same thing. Obviously, I drew a different conclusion than the vast majority of the board but that's okay. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion has not changed and WON'T change just because YOU think it should.

I still think there were a LOT of reasons that our players didn't fit together very well last season. Different combinations of players had totally different results. For instance, we were 15-16 with Glove starting at SG beside Dog versus being 11-25 when Ira started at SG beside Dog. Of the 9 road wins we had, 6 of them came with Glover and Dog starting. We were 6-11 (35%) on the road with Glover and Dog starting and we lost SEVERAL very close road games with that combo (@ TOR by 1 twice, @ Indy by 1 in OT, @ GS by 3, @ POR by 3). Still, if we had just won at the same 35% rate on the road for the entire season, we probably would have made the playoffs. If we could have added a big body off the bench to deal with the physical play of the MIAs, NYs, TORs, PORs, INDs, DETs, etc. of the world, I think we would definitely have been in the playoff hunt.

You say we "won" without Big Dog but with the exception of the NJ win, I am not impressed. What eaxctly did we win? Primarily, we won games at HOME against teams that we should have beaten. I think we would have won all the games we won without Dog WITH Dog with the possible exception of NJ.

You say they can get something "reasonable" for Dog now? Well the big rumor out there is that we will trade Dog to Houston for Glen Rice in the offseason because Rice only has one more year on his contract. You call that reasonable? Unless we are able to move Hendu AND either Theo or Reef, what's the point? We still won't have any cap room the following year and next year, we will get a player EXACTLY like Dog but with far more injury problems and far less game. That is not addition by subtraction, that is foolishness.

"As far as Vince, look closer now." What does that mean? Did he just lead Toronto to the playoffs or to Lenny's worst season EVER? And just because you don't like Deke's game doesn't mean that he didn't meet the criteria you laid out for Dog.

I am not arguing that Big Dog needs to stay! I simply don't agree that he was SOLELY responsible for this team's poor record as YOU are trying to make it appear. Dog has PLENTY of flaws and I have posted what I think they are in this thread. But he's certainly not the only player we have with flaws and I don't think trading him for the likes of Glen Rice or anything that RESEMBLES Glen Rice is going to make us better.

Finally, I could give a d@mn less about what you THINK I mean when I say that Dog is not solely responsible. If you want to continue to THINK I am blaming Theo and Reef despite the fact that I have stated that I don't on numerous occasions, so be it. I'll chalk it up to your inability to comprehend written English (I hope you note my sarcasm as well!)

[Diesel]

Before you continue Reading Minds... Wrongly...

Let me Correct you.

In reply to:

---

Again, your the only one but Diesel that "thinks" Big Dog doesn't doom this team to failure next year.

---

I said that Big Dog isn't our SOLE problem. I maintain that if we brought in a Ball Handler that Can Shoot from outside that we could win more. Just Like Trace, I recognize that the Hawks have more problems than Just Big Dog. Moving Big Dog (especially for JUNK) won't help.

We won't gain any cap room.

We won't get better players.

Why trade?

So that we can say... Finally, we've gotten rid of him?!?

Wasn't you the one that said trading Nique was good for the team?

Wasn't you the one that said trading Smitty for JJ/JR was a good trade?

Wasn't you the one that was willing to trade Deke for Big Country? I believe you said in 2 yrs big Country would be better than Deke?

Figures.

[Guest Walter]

Name one player who in his absence the team PPG differential was EIGHT, count'em E-I-G-H-T points better!

Just one.

W

[Traceman]

Hey, what the heck. Being that Reef, JT and Theo all missed only ONE game, I guess this won't take very long.

We lost the game that Reef missed (the first game of the season at NJ and Glove missed that one too). Dog's stats in that game: 60% fg, 34 pts, 10 rebs, 8 assts.

We WON the game that JT missed at Philly at Philly by 14 so I guess our point differential with JT out is more than 8 pts. Dog's stats in that game: 67% fg, 33 pts, 8 rebs, 3 assts.

We WON the game that Theo missed vs Seattle by 3. Dog's stats in that game: 46%fg, 37 pts, 12 rebs, 5 assts.

So we were 2-1 when Dog played and one of the other so called "Big 4" didn't play. Dog had MONSTER games in all 3 games, averaging 34.7 pts on 57% shooting, 10 rebs and 5.3 assts. If Glove had played against NJ, we might have been 3-0 in those games.

The fact that we were 2-1 with Dog in and one of the other Big 4 out suggests that the problem is NOT solely Dog but the fact that the pieces don't fit together very well. Sound familiar!

[Guest Walter]

3 games? 1 from each player?

D@MN! There's a whole league out there and history of a whol eleague and you can't think of ONE player (playing significant minutes) that made his team better by being gimp?

Man you are desperate.

Who'd a thought I'd have to qualify my statement to include examples where a player was out more than ONE game!?!

Sorry and desperate.

...

"Hi I'm Big Hog. The team wins at a 30% higher clip without me, the PPG differential is +8 FOR THE HAWKS without me, and I'll be making $10-12 million per...I N-E-E-D APOLOGISTS because there is NO excuse for my making the team this much worse and costing this much more."

W

[beav]

"Hi I'm Big Hog. The team wins at a 30% higher clip without me, the PPG differential is +8 FOR THE HAWKS without me, and I'll be making $10-12 million per...I N-E-E-D APOLOGISTS because there is NO excuse for my making the team this much worse and costing this much more."

W

But it sounds like you are trying to be sarcastic here?

[Traceman]

That being said, I thought that you were referring to players on OUR team based on the following statement you made in an earlier post in this thread. You said:

"Name another player whose absence makes US 8 PPG better. Anyone. I'd imagine with all OUR other "REAL" flaws that wouldn't be so hard. [censored], I'd be impressed if you found a player who merely made US 1 point better in his absence."

Based on that statement, I thought you were talking about a player on OUR team whose absence made us 8 ppg better. I KNEW that none of our significant players had missed many games. That is why I said that a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

That being said, don't you find it at least a LITTLE bit interesting that Dog played GREAT each time that one of the other Big 4 guys was out? Don't you think there appears to be at least SOME credence to the idea that the problem is more about a lack of chemistry among the Big 4 than the idea that it is SOLELY Dog's fault?