Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like


sturt

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I do need to wait until season's end to celebrate my infinite correct-ness. I could still be wrong.

But just for the record, here's some foundational positions-o-mine argued throughout the off-season, and even before... and those positions are looking pretty stout, even while others are desperately grasping for new ways to couch their old positions so that they don't seem SO wrong.

I'll put it in my tickler file to revisit these in April to see if they seem any more or less true...

Posted Image

=======================================

1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.

2. BK did execute that plan for the most part.

3. The few exceptions to that are glaring: the attempt to jump-start the process by throwing money at Kenyon Martin and at Speedy Claxton... though the glare is slightly mitigated by the point that injuries are always a wild card to some degree.

3. Patience, something fans too often have little of, is wonderful when an ownership and a GM have a good dose of it.

4. When Marvin Williams ends his career, ATL fans will look back on his body of work and consider him clearly worthy of his #2 selection.

5. The perception of "being a good coach" is only as good as the won-loss record that his team has accumulated... and in the end, too few fans recognize the great difficulty in distinguishing between when success or failure is primarily a reflection of the coaching, as opposed to a reflection of the talent.

6. Obtaining Andrew Bynum this past off-season would have been a mighty good idea... he is as good as I'd advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Quote:


1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.
Did that plan include being so bad last season to be able to get a top 3 pick?
Did you catch that part about "couching?" Shoe fitted and worn.But alas, perhaps I'm being too cynical.Pretending no disingenuousness in the question, though (*stretttttttttttcccccchhhhhhing*)... by "plan," perhaps it's unclear to some how that term is being used... it is similar to how one might speak about a "business plan"... That is, one does not presume that they can anticipate every twist and turn in the marketplace such that they can manipulate all of the external forces to their benefit or such that they would pre-determine every decision all to their ultimate benefit... But rather, one reviews historical data, considers current data, and from that, renders the foundational guidelines and premises they will utilize throughout the process of growing their business.That's essentially the contention of the assertion. BK was committed to (a) gutting the team (check), (b) building a roster through high picks with an emphasis on athletic guys who can play multiple positions (check), and © attempting to use cap space for a critical acquisition as the opportunity presented itself (check... see Johnson, Joe). Hope that helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.
Did that plan include being so bad last season to be able to get a top 3 pick?
Did you catch that part about "couching?" Shoe fitted and worn.But alas, perhaps I'm being too cynical.Pretending no disingenuousness in the question, though (*stretttttttttttcccccchhhhhhing*)... by "plan," perhaps it's unclear to some how that term is being used... it is similar to how one might speak about a "business plan"... That is, one does not presume that they can anticipate every twist and turn in the marketplace such that they can manipulate all of the external forces to their benefit or such that they would pre-determine every decision all to their ultimate benefit... But rather, one reviews historical data, considers current data, and from that, renders the foundational guidelines and premises they will utilize throughout the process of growing their business.That's essentially the contention of the assertion. BK was committed to (a) gutting the team (check), (b) building a roster through high picks with an emphasis on athletic guys who can play multiple positions (check), and © attempting to use cap space for a critical acquisition as the opportunity presented itself (check... see Johnson, Joe). Hope that helps.
It was a yes or no question. I will take that as a no rather than assuming you are dodging the question. The Hawks sucked last year. That wasn't part of BK's plan when he traded for JJ and signed Speedy. He expected to be competitive last season, and if they were competitive they wouldn't have Horford. Was it BK's plan that Indy would finish with the 11th worst record in the league last year? Somehow i doubt he has that kind of foresight. If memory serves last season was the first time Indy had missed the playoffs in 10 years. If indy had decided to tank (which they should have) and lost two more games the hawks wouldn't have had the 11th pick.So BK had to figure that he was trading Harrington for a non-lottery pick which would be the Hawks only first round pick last year. There is a big difference between good planning and good luck. The Hawks were lucky to get the 3rd and 11th picks last year. Without those two picks the Hawks perennial problems inside and at the point would be much worse with very little help possible on the Horizon. I can give BK credit (for the first time) for making good use of his picks in this past draft. But giving him credit for landing the picks in the first place......not happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be somewhat more impartial here, BK also tried to angle the franchise to get Howard, but that team he assembled was actually too good (Sura et al). We also lost out on the Bogut sweepstakes (whew). My point is that luck has run both ways during the BK years. If the Hawks had won the Howard lotto, then this team would be much different today than it is. But the Hawks didn't win it. Conversely, the Hawks got lucky that the Pacers ended up with the 11 pick. Do I think that BK thought the team wouldn't make the playoffs last year, nope. I believe the organization thought that Speedy would get them to the 8th seed. Thus, they took the gamble and lost big time. To me BK isn't horrid, but he certainly isn't a maverik genius either. Some of the moves BK has made were good, others were head scratchers. But, almost every GM in any sport has a similar record. For example, Shuerholz is argurably the best GM in Atlanta history, yet he still traded David Justice and Marquis Grisom for Kenney Lofton and Alan Embree (simply an AWFUL trade). Thus, the current state of the Hawks is certainly better than it was before BK, but the team still has a way to go. For me, BK has to make a move with one of the youngsters this year to get something in the post be that Gasol or whatever else is on the market. And then they have to add a shooter with some height. To me those are the moves left to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say it this way in my opinion: BK's IDEA of long athletic players that can play multiple positions (which is excellent for defending picks) is brilliant. We have already seen other teams and their coaches comment on this. NOW whether or not, he took the appropriate journey to that destination is debatable on both sides and sketchy in instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


To be somewhat more impartial here, BK also tried to angle the franchise to get Howard, but that team he assembled was actually too good (Sura et al)
Poor example. First of all BK had control of that team. He could have deactivated Sura if he wanted to.

Quote:


My point is that luck has run both ways during the BK years.
The worst record has landed the 4th pick two years in a row. Is that unlucky? Not really since technically the 4th pick is the most likely single outcome for the team with the worst record. Trying to say the Hawks were unlucky because they didn't land Howard is ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with BK's dismantaling of the team he inherited and trying to build a long and athletic team. It is the execution that i have a problem with. If Marvin turns out to be a 18/19 ppg player while shooting well (and playing good D, hitting the boards) and if Acie turns out well at the point (i think both are probable) then that will reduce the sting of the '04 and '05 draft blunders. But there is nothing that will take the sting away from the '06 draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.








Did that plan include being so bad last season to be able to get a top 3 pick?






Did you catch that part about "couching?" Shoe fitted and worn.

But alas, perhaps I'm being too cynical.

Pretending no disingenuousness in the question, though (*stretttttttttttcccccchhhhhhing*)... by "plan," perhaps it's unclear to some how that term is being used... it is similar to how one might speak about a "business plan"...

That is, one does not presume that they can anticipate every twist and turn in the marketplace such that they can manipulate all of the external forces to their benefit or such that they would pre-determine every decision all to their ultimate benefit...

But rather, one reviews historical data, considers current data, and from that, renders the foundational guidelines and premises they will utilize throughout the process of growing their business.

That's essentially the contention of the assertion. BK was committed to (a) gutting the team (check), (b) building a roster through high picks with an emphasis on athletic guys who can play multiple positions (check), and © attempting to use cap space for a critical acquisition as the opportunity presented itself (check... see Johnson, Joe).

Hope that helps.






It was a yes or no question. I will take that as a no rather than assuming you are dodging the question.....






"Dodge?"

Hmmm... interesting choice in verbs.

Wouldn't you say that that is what happens when one presumes their own definition of the word "plan," and springboarding from that, frames a question so as to not address the original premise?

If one understands the use of the word "plan" as the original poster intended it, then your question isn't a "yes or no" question... rather, that's what we would call an IRRELEVANT question.

And, your response would be what we call a DISMISSIVE one... holding onto the irrelevant question you invented with all your might because you understand that if you don't, you lose the debate then and there.

I won't be as disingenous as you, however, as to ignore your central assertion, which appears to be that...

Quote:


There is a big difference between good planning and good luck. The Hawks were lucky to get the 3rd and 11th picks last year. Without those two picks the Hawks perennial problems inside and at the point would be much worse with very little help possible on the Horizon.




BK's "luck" has been good and bad... mostly bad until this past off-season. Yet, when the guy finally has something fall his way, you would disparage the whole enchilada as if he were just lucky.

Absurd.

I don't know how to make this any clearer: one can't control every eventuality whether you're a GM or a widget manufacturer... but good planning makes optimal use of eventualities as they present themselves because there's a core set of guiding principles there.

BK had a good set of guiding principles, and the proverbial rooster appears to be coming home to roost... and to crow about it.

smirk.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


BK's "luck" has been good and bad... mostly bad until this past off-season.
Maybe you could explain how BK has been so unlucky in the draft. I must have missed this.

Quote:


If one understands the use of the word "plan" as the original poster intended it, then your question isn't a "yes or no" question... rather, that's what we would call an IRRELEVANT question.
How would BK's "plan" look right now without Horford and Acie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Quote:


BK's "luck" has been good and bad... mostly bad until this past off-season.
Maybe you could explain how BK has been so unlucky in the draft. I must have missed this.
Disingenuous is your hallmark, my friend. You are not so blind."Unlucky" in terms of ping-pong balls and draft position? "Unlucky" in terms of the LA Lakers failing to make the playoffs, which had consequences to ATL? "Unlucky" in terms of previously-undetected knee problems for an FA who, even conservatively-speaking, was ticketed to be an adequate point guard?And you missed all of that?*rolls eyes*Now, again, in order to not be as disingenuous as you, let me presume that your question was more specifically to drive at the point that BK didn't "plan" to be bad, and that all of these high draft picks aren't luck, but rather are the product of having put together incompetent, bad teams.I, of course, disagree. Completely.When one guts a roster and starts from scratch, they inherently know that they're not going to be amassing good records for a few years... one can't know the exact draft position from year to year, but back when the planning was done, one can anticipate that they'll have some top 10, and likely some top 5 or even top 3 picks. As bad as we've been and for as long as we've been bad, one would have thought we'd have more than one top-3 pick to show for that... but that hadn't happened until Lady Luck showed her face for the first time in forever just this past off-season, and yes, she appeared to take great pains to make up for her absence.

Quote:


Quote:


If one understands the use of the word "plan" as the original poster intended it, then your question isn't a "yes or no" question... rather, that's what we would call an IRRELEVANT question.
How would BK's "plan" look right now without Horford and Acie?
Somewhere between better than it did this time last year, and worse than it does in actuality now. There's no mistaking the impact of Horford. Similarly, there should be no mistaking the impact of simple maturity for Marvelous and Smoove.But again, it is what it is. A business plan doesn't anticipate every eventuality, but it does set in-place some guidelines for how the business will respond to different eventualities.You can argue all the "what-ifs" you want to... what if Joe Johnson blew his knee up?... what if Utah or New Orleans had been willing to trade up for Marvin... what if Belkin had assumed control at some point... what-if, what-if, what-if... But in so doing, you miss (conveniently?) the more astute question: were there guidelines, how well were they followed, and what is the net result of having followed those guidelines compared to having not done that?Therein lies the crux of my assertion... BK did have a plan, he mainly stuck with that plan, and the team right now is in about as envious a position as any team in the league as a result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


"Unlucky" in terms of ping-pong balls and draft position?
No specifics as expected. You obviously don't understand the lottery.

Quote:


Unlucky" in terms of the LA Lakers failing to make the playoffs, which had consequences to ATL?
The Lakers sucked after they traded Shaq. That isn't unlucky that is just inevitability. They did what Indy would have done of they were smart.

Quote:


"Unlucky" in terms of previously-undetected knee problems for an FA who, even conservatively-speaking, was ticketed to be an adequate point guard?
Speedy's injury was unlucky? It was unlucky that he couldn't play much at all last year, causing the Hawks to lose more game and giving them the chance to land Horford? It is unlucky that insurance picks up 80% of his salary, easing the cost on our cash strapped owners?I would take Horford and an injured Speedy over a healthy Speedy any day, as would anyone who has common sense.

Quote:


But in so doing, you miss (conveniently?) the more astute question: were there guidelines, how well were they followed, and what is the net result of having followed those guidelines compared to having not done that?
The problem is the guidlines changed. When the Hawks should have drafted for need ('05) they drafted for the alleged BPA. When they should have drafted the BPA ('06) they drafted for need.

Quote:


Somewhere between better than it did this time last year, and worse than it does in actuality now.
Take off your rose colored glasses.Without Acie and Horford the Hawks would have gaping holes at the point and at C without the means to fill them other than trading a major piece (marvin, Smith).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Quote:


When Marvin Williams ends his career, ATL fans will look back on his body of work and consider him clearly worthy of his #2 selection.
Uhm...Is clearly worthy of #2 different from the best pick at #2??
Interesting how the conversation changes... I coulda swore that this time last year, and certainly the year before that, Diesel was calling Marvin a bust... so, now that he's clearly not a bust, the criteria has to be altered in order to save face.I get that, and I'm not alone.But to genuinely address your question, obviously, it begs to compare Marvin with Chris Paul.I can't know whether the continued rise of Marvin's stock is going to eclipse Chris Paul's. Neither am I predicting that it will.What I am predicting is that both will essentially have accomplished a similar body of work.And, going back to where this started, the selection of a 6-8 guy with Marvin's skill set was more consistent with BK's plan than the selection of a 6-0 guy to fill the most current deficit in the starting roster.I'll have to leave history to judge whether it was smart to rely on the plan, and we're about 5 years away before history will even begin to suggest one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My contention was always that Marvin would be a meager talent similar to Tim Thomas. (Not a Bust).

However,

you say clearly worthy of the #2 pick.. that speaks to him being the right pick at #2. (at least to me it does).

If that being the case, yes, that means you directly compare his body of work to Paul's body of work with team need also being a strong factor.

I insist... that Marvin was not the best pick for the Hawks in 2005. Not from a need standpoint and thus far, not from a talent standpoint. I don't think that will change.

-NOSTRADIESEL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


And, going back to where this started, the selection of a 6-8 guy with Marvin's skill set was more consistent with BK's plan than the selection of a 6-0 guy to fill the most current deficit in the starting roster.
So how is spending $6 million/yr on a 5'11" pg (who was injury prone and a career backup) consistent with BK's plan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


To be somewhat more impartial here, BK also tried to angle the franchise to get Howard, but that team he assembled was actually too good (Sura et al)
Poor example. First of all BK had control of that team. He could have deactivated Sura if he wanted to

Quote:


My point is that luck has run both ways during the BK years.
The worst record has landed the 4th pick two years in a row. Is that unlucky? Not really since technically the 4th pick is the most likely single outcome for the team with the worst record. Trying to say the Hawks were unlucky because they didn't land Howard is ridiculous.
RE: Sura and the gang, possibly, but they had to evaluate the talent on the team. If I remember correctly it was a one or two game difference that lead the Hawks to having fewer ping pong balls than the top two teams.You are making assertions on both side of the fence, hence you are being ridiculous. It was unlucky to not land Howard, as it would have been lucky to land him. This statement uses your original post that the Hawks were lucky to land two picks in last years draft as the basis for your luck model (e.g. things out of direct control). If you want to bash BK go for it, but be consistent with definitions. Again, I have no particular affinity for BK, but I don't think of him as a horrid GM (that's Babs in his last few years).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


"You obviously don't understand the lottery..."


ex, we've reached the point where seemingly every thread reaches when it involves you...

You begin to fall back to the only ammunition you have left, which is to attempt to assasinate the competency of the other side... yep... you are the ONLY competent, knowledgeable, coherent person in the discussion, and it's just a dang shame that no one else seems to understand that.

*rolls eyes*

I'm less offended by it than I am just plain bored with it.

However, there is this one point you raise that I think is worth a response, in light of the original assertions I made:

Quote:


The problem is the guidlines changed. When the Hawks should have drafted for need ('05) they drafted for the alleged BPA. When they should have drafted the BPA ('06) they drafted for need.


I'm sure you're a competent, knowledgeable, coherent person.

But, my friend, this argument fails to affirm those admirable qualities. The argument is bass-ackwards.

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad and needing talent at multiple positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?

BPA. That's conventional wisdom, anyway.

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad, but essentially stocked with young talent at several positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?

Need. Again, conventional wisdom.

So, at an earlier stage, it makes sense to draft BPA, sometimes even if that means duplicate skill sets since appreciation of assets is paramount; and as the team progresses, it makes sense to begin drafting to fill more exact roles.

So, where's the beef?

That's what should have been done.

That's what was done.

And, now, the team is enjoying success consistent with doing things the way they should have been done.

I've got friends coming over for the rest of the day, and some chili that should be just about ready in time for some bowl games... Happy New Year to all.

http://www.hawksquawk.netPosted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


You are making assertions on both side of the fence, hence you are being ridiculous.
No. Bad luck is when something out of your control goes completely against you. But if you have control of the situation and you LET it go against you it isn't bad luck, just bad execution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...