Feels Like a Lateral Move

[AnakinJoe]

BK to Sund. Very anticlimatic. Very disappointing.

Seems like a team with cap flexibility, a young roster and fresh off a surprisingly decent playoff appearance, would attract a stronger collection of candidates to lead the team into sustained prominence. (Of course, that assumes that you bury your head and ignore the pending ownership decision). If the Hawks were a stock, there is no doubt that it would be trading at a 5-year high. And we get Rick Sund?

Feels like a lateral move.

[Admin]

Such is life as a Hawks fan

[DrReality]

True. I half way expected it to get worse???? In that case lateral isn't half bad?

[AnnArborHawk]

Quote:

---

True. I half way expected it to get worse???? In that case lateral isn't half bad?

If you believe the rumors that BK was a difficult GM for other execs to deal with, then different might mean better (at least in terms of opening up some closed doors).

Now, of course, BK could have gotten that reputation because the owners wouldn't sign on the dotted line after he got his handshake agreement with another GM.

[exodus]

Given the ASG's situation and ineptitude a major upgrade was unlikely.

the way i look at it is that this guy has been in the business a long time so he will be less likely to be Gearons lap dog. He won't be "married" to the Hawks players since he didn't draft them so will probably be more likely to evaluate trade options objectively.

[DrReality]

One possible upside to this is a trade with the team he came from. He will know what they have and what direction they want to go. They have a piece or two that would be nice to have. Wonder what the chances are he could pull that off.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

One possible upside to this is a trade with the team he came from. He will know what they have and what direction they want to go. They have a piece or two that would be nice to have. Wonder what the chances are he could pull that off.

I certainly wouldn't mind having one of their centers but our lack of cap flexibility is an issue right now.

[EazyRoc]

Although his draft history is pretty bad, Sund has made some pretty good trades in Seattle. I believe this is a later move, but then again Billy Knight wasn't all that bad of a GM. We are not a team looking to rebuild, therefore his draft history really isn't as important to me.

People were just too enamored with Chris Paul to see Knight's career in Atlanta for what it was...average.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Although his draft history is pretty bad, Sund has made some pretty good trades in Seattle. I believe this is a later move, but then again Billy Knight wasn't all that bad of a GM. We are not a team looking to rebuild, therefore his draft history really isn't as important to me.

People were just too enamored with Chris Paul to see Knight's career in Atlanta for what it was...average.

When your best year is 37 wins that isnt average, especially considering all the guys he passed on in the draft (Deng, Iggy, Paul, Deron, Roy).

[mrhonline]

Well, seein' as how Knight claims to have "stepped down," a lateral move is probably the best we could have expected.

[jhay610]

ASG, guys, ASG.....

Maybe we should fire Woody and hire Isaiah Thomas as coach?

[Packfill]

I agree with most in that this is certaintly not an exciting hire, but they could have done much worse. This is way better then Chris Grant but not as good as Dennis Lindsey or someone of his ilk (i.e., Hammond).

Now, if Sund agrees to keep Woody that is a giant black mark and I will be skeptical and likely critical of every move he makes until he proves he proves otherwise.

[atlien]

Yep, I also agree. Lindsey wouldve been the guy I wouldve been excited for. Sund not so much. But hey, maybe he'll prove us wrong.

[sturt]

I'm not seeing how one can come to that conclusion with any confidence, except under the presumption that ASG is totally inept... which may or may not be the case, but regardless, in the interest of fairness, there just doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to the assertion that no one wanted the job. To the contrary, how could any reasonable, competent, legitimate candidate NOT want to explore the job, given Stern's recent announcement that the ownership dispute will reach an end relatively soon, and given the stable of young talent on this roster that is the envy of much of the league (...not my words, mind you, but as borne out by actual quotes from people across the league during the Boston series).

Look, it's not like we hired someone that wasn't on anyone else's radar screen (see Walsh, Donnie or Knicks, New York). And while he certainly has amassed some very disappointing coaching and talent moves over his decades of NBA employment, it's also not like we hired someone who has no track record of success.

In fact, one could even make the legitimate case that, from the time of hiring and over his first few seasons with DAL, DET, and SEA, he's always taken a franchise to a higher level than it had when he first started.

I know you can't put these things in a vacuum and make evaluations and predictions, but that factoid ought to have some weight that other factoids put on the scales would not.

Lateral hire? Depends on how you define "lateral." And... depends on the point in time in which "lateral" is evaluated.

To wit, Sund certainly has a greater track record than Billy Knight. However, ironically enough for many here, if Sund keeps this core of coaching and players and that group makes a statement in the 08-09 playoffs, BK will end up reaping immense glory from that (...particularly if Marvin--the one player who will forever be linked infamously, or famously, with BK--takes the high-watermarks in performance that he hit in about 10-15 games this past season and expands that to about 20-25 games next season)... and as a result, BK could actually be a hot property this time next year in that case.

I'll agree to this... it's certainly not a splashy hire.

But who needs splashy? Splashy in the sports world routinely turns out to be waaaaay overrated, and often disappointing, wouldn't you say?

Of course, this kind of thing always reveals the Tiggers and Eeyores among us, because in point of fact, we really don't have much of a clue of real, tangible knowledge of the man as a professional beyond the surface stuff that shows up in a bio...

And I'm decidedly a Tigger, ready and willing to give the benefit of a doubt until it turns out otherwise.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

BK to Sund. Very anticlimatic. Very disappointing.

It's like I said in the other thread: it's like trading in a Hyundai for a Kia.

[KB21]

Great post!

There are a lot of presumptive posts on here about this hire, particularly when it comes to the ASG. There isn't a GM in the league that you can't bring out something they have done in their past that can be characterized as a terrible move. Look at Jerry West. He did great in LA, but he left the Memphis Grizzlies's roster in shambles and in salary cap hell. Kiki Vandeweghe really has only one move that he can lean on, and that was the drafting of Carmelo Anthony. Outside of RC Buford (who doesn't have final say), Joe Dumars, and maybe Kevin O'Connor, there aren't any GM's in the league that are beyond some type of criticism.

I'm willing to take a wait and see approach on Rick Sund. I don't know a lot about the guy. I don't know what his core basketball philosophy is. He's made some great moves in the past, and he's made some bad moves. Name a GM that hasn't made bad moves though.

[EazyRoc]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Although his draft history is pretty bad, Sund has made some pretty good trades in Seattle. I believe this is a later move, but then again Billy Knight wasn't all that bad of a GM. We are not a team looking to rebuild, therefore his draft history really isn't as important to me.

People were just too enamored with Chris Paul to see Knight's career in Atlanta for what it was...average.

When your best year is 37 wins that isnt average, especially considering all the guys he passed on in the draft (Deng, Iggy, Paul, Deron, Roy).

Our disappointing win total had much more to do with coaching than our actual players, and I'm sure a lot of 'squawkers would agree with that. It's a shame that people look at who he PASSED on rather than who he actually drafted. If you do assess all the GMs around the league in the same manner, then mostly all of them are below average.

Just a brief example, the GM in Detroit drafted Darko, and passed on Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, etc. However, this is the same guy who drafted Prince, Stuckey, and Maxiell. Is he below average, as well ?

I could go on and on with examples of GMs who passed on good players, but that's not how you judge a GM. You judge him by the team he's built, and I think the team he built was definately better than 37 wins. Once again, you've got to look at your coach.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

It's a shame that people look at who he PASSED on rather than who he actually drafted.

BK drafted Childress, Marvin and Shelden in the top 6 in 3 consecutive years. That doesn't make things look any better.

Our coach sucks but it isn't the coaches fault that we have an undersized front line and are the second worst perimeter shooting team in the league. Not exactly a recipe for success.

When BK had the 5th pick, a tradable free agent and a ton of cap space in the summer of '06 what did he wind up with? Shelden, Blo Wright, Craig and a top 10 protected first rounder. That just flat sucks.

[josh_pwns_newbs]

Quote:

---

I'm not seeing how one can come to that conclusion with any confidence, except under the presumption that ASG is totally inept... which may or may not be the case, but regardless, in the interest of fairness, there just doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to the assertion that no one wanted the job. To the contrary, how could any reasonable, competent, legitimate candidate NOT want to explore the job, given Stern's recent announcement that the ownership dispute will reach an end relatively soon, and given the stable of young talent on this roster that is the envy of much of the league (...not my words, mind you, but as borne out by actual quotes from people across the league during the Boston series).

Look, it's not like we hired someone that wasn't on anyone else's radar screen (see Walsh, Donnie or Knicks, New York). And while he certainly has amassed some

very

disappointing coaching and talent moves over his decades of NBA employment, it's also not like we hired someone who has no track record of success.

In fact, one could even make the legitimate case that, from the time of hiring and over his first few seasons with DAL, DET, and SEA, he's

always

taken a franchise to a higher level than it had when he first started.

I know you can't put these things in a vacuum and make evaluations and predictions, but that factoid ought to have some weight that other factoids put on the scales would not.

Lateral hire? Depends on how you define "lateral." And... depends on the point in time in which "lateral" is evaluated.

To wit, Sund certainly has a greater track record than Billy Knight. However, ironically enough for many here, if Sund keeps this core of coaching and players and that group makes a statement in the 08-09 playoffs, BK will end up reaping immense glory from that (...particularly if Marvin--the one player who will forever be linked infamously, or famously, with BK--takes the high-watermarks in performance that he hit in about 10-15 games this past season and expands that to about 20-25 games next season)... and as a result, BK could actually be a hot property this time next year in that case.

I'll agree to this... it's certainly not a splashy hire.

But who needs splashy? Splashy in the sports world routinely turns out to be waaaaay overrated, and often disappointing, wouldn't you say?

Of course, this kind of thing always reveals the Tiggers and Eeyores among us, because in point of fact, we really don't have much of a clue of real, tangible knowledge of the man as a professional beyond the surface stuff that shows up in a bio...

And I'm decidedly a Tigger, ready and willing to give the benefit of a doubt until it turns out otherwise.

Agreed. The man has just been hired and is highly respected. He deserves the benefit of the doubt. and he has no ties to the ASG previously. so you cant complain about that.

[EazyRoc]

It's not too late for Childress and Marvin to have really good careers. Shelden was a god awful pick, but hey...what GM is flawless ?

Even though we are undersized, our front line is better than a lot of front lines in the league. Also, there were quite a few teams that finished worse than us in 3pt%.

I believe that top 10 protected first rounded was the reason we got Al Horford. Craig could potentially come back next year, and that would give us a pretty solid rotation at PG. Billy Knight has not had enough failures to be considered a below average GM. If he did, he wouldn't have even been considered for the NY job. I'm not saying he is a top GM, but you are delusional if you really think Billy Knight is a flat out BAD GM.

As a matter of fact, barring RC Buford, Dumars, and Pritchard, you can name any GM in the league and I can easily point out that he's made mistakes just like BK did. Hindsight is a motherlover man..