Billy Knight haters

[Sasquatch]

I have seen the ridiculous comments about what Billy Knight should have done...

"We could have had..."

"We should have had..."

I have never seen that standard applied to any other general manager. General managers in any other case are judged by the team they assemble. Right now, this team is the third youngest in the league (i have heard). No off the court garbage. No salary cap hell. And playoff bound with a promising future.

But?

Fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However, if your opinions are to have any legitimacy, name the general managers that are judged by the players they "could have had" and not by the TEAM they assembled.

Case closed.

Good job Billy!

[exodus]

I have seen the ridiculous comments about what Billy Knight should have done...

"We could have had..."

"We should have had..."

I have never seen that standard applied to any other general manager.

That is because there aren't many GMs that had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons.

[Sasquatch]

That is because there aren't many GMs that had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons.

Exactly as I thought.

Cant name one.

I garauntee we will see a million excuses but not one example of where a general manager was judged by something other than the team assembled.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

YOUR team looks great!

[exodus]

Exactly as I thought.

Cant name one.

I garauntee we will see a million excuses but not one example of where a general manager was judged by something other than the team assembled.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

YOUR team looks great!

So the people nationwide who viewed BK as a joke because of his draft mistakes are wrong and you are right. Sure

The Hawks were national laughingstocks for years because of BKs draft blunders. Just because we can't recall other GMs with similar notoriety isn't exactly a feather in BK's cap. If anything it is just the opposit.

If there were several other GMs known widely for their draft screwups then it would be easier to argue that BK wasn't that bad. After all he would just be one of the crowd.

[Sasquatch]

So the people nationwide who viewed BK as a joke because of his draft mistakes are wrong and you are right. Sure

The Hawks were national laughingstocks for years because of BKs draft blunders. Just because we can't recall other GMs with similar notoriety isn't exactly a feather in BK's cap. If anything it is just the opposit.

If there were several other GMs known widely for their draft screwups then it would be easier to argue that BK wasn't that bad. After all he would just be one of the crowd.

That's right...

Cant name one General Manager that was judged according to the same standard as Billy Knight!

Lol!

This was supposed to be an easy one.

Great Job Billy!

Your team looks awesome and has a future that is shining bright!

[exodus]

That's right...

Cant name one General Manager that was judged according to the same standard as Billy Knight!

Lol!

This was supposed to be an easy one.

Great Job Billy!

Your team looks awesome and has a future that is shining bright!

You really can't see the flaw in your logic? Wow

it has nothing to do with standards. It has everything to do with the magnitude of BK's screwups. Just because other GM's didn't botch top 6 picks to the degree that BK did isn't a positive for BK. It is just an indication of how bad he blew it.

I notice nobody is in a hurry to hire him. I wonder why.

[crimedog]

That's right...

Cant name one General Manager that was judged according to the same standard as Billy Knight!

Lol!

This was supposed to be an easy one.

Great Job Billy!

Your team looks awesome and has a future that is shining bright!

Steve Kerr (and Sarver before him, even when the team was winning 60 a year people were talking about how stupid they were for selling picks)

Donny Walsh

Bickerstaff

Paxson

Every GM in the league gets critical coverage from the local media and fans - go on realgm, listen to sports radio from other cities.

[Sasquatch]

Steve Kerr (and Sarver before him, even when the team was winning 60 a year people were talking about how stupid they were for selling picks)

Donny Walsh

Bickerstaff

Paxson

Every GM in the league gets critical coverage from the local media and fans - go on realgm, listen to sports radio from other cities.

What?

Nice try dude!

How bout explaining what happened on those teams! Which team and which year are you talking about with Kerr and the rest?

Get real!

[Sasquatch]

You really can't see the flaw in your logic? Wow

it has nothing to do with standards. It has everything to do with the magnitude of BK's screwups. Just because other GM's didn't botch top 6 picks to the degree that BK did isn't a positive for BK. It is just an indication of how bad he blew it.

I notice nobody is in a hurry to hire him. I wonder why.

Are you serious?

Are you talking about flawed logic?

According to your logic, I could go into every draft, look at who Sund picks, and then analyze every player picked after that. If any of those players turn out to be better than the one Sund picked, then Sund is awful, irrespective of the quality of the team he assembles (talent, character, cap security). I think you should revisit your premise.

BTW I noticed you have not named any GM judged according to the standard used to judge Billy Knight.

Heckuva job Billy!!!

[TheTrueSiete]

Billy Knight = Matt Millen...

7

[Dsinner]

Exactly as I thought.

Cant name one.

I garauntee we will see a million excuses but not one example of where a general manager was judged by something other than the team assembled.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

YOUR team looks great!

You talking about the team that was never even over .500 basketball and never even close untill he left? That team? GM's aren't judged on the talent of the team assembled, they're judged on that teams record. His sucked until Sund added a couple of pieces. Too bad he didn't stick aroud cause I'm sure we coud have had at least 3 more lotto pics.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Dsinner

[exodus]

What?

Nice try dude!

How bout explaining what happened on those teams! Which team and which year are you talking about with Kerr and the rest?

Get real!

John Nash drafted Telfair at 13 over Jefferson, much to the surprise of everyone in his draft room who was expecting Jefferson to be picked.

The next year he had the chance to draft paul/Deron he decided to trade down and take Webster because he felt telfair was their pg of the future.

Instead of getting Jefferson and Paul or Deron they got Telfair and Webster. The result? Nash got canned and left a huge mess for the next GM to clean up. Luckily for Portland he did just that.

Just because Nash's screwups aren't as famous as BK's doesn't mean he was judged by a different standard. They both got canned.

[exodus]

Are you serious?

Are you talking about flawed logic?

According to your logic, I could go into every draft, look at who Sund picks, and then analyze every player picked after that. If any of those players turn out to be better than the one Sund picked, then Sund is awful, irrespective of the quality of the team he assembles (talent, character, cap security). I think you should revisit your premise.

BTW I noticed you have not named any GM judged according to the standard used to judge Billy Knight.

Heckuva job Billy!!!

That is complete nonsense.

Nobody is talking about using hindsight. The reason BK is so notorious is because his mistakes were seen as big mistakes at that time. Nobody thought Shelden was a top 6 pick except BK. The "Shelden Promise" was widely ridiculed long before the draft.

The Childress pick shocked Childress and prompted laughter from Philly's GM who happily took Iggy at 9.

And the Marvin pick.... ugh. It isn't like Paul and Deron were nobodies.

[sturt]

That is because there aren't many GMs that had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons.

And that didn't "just happen," either, any more than the disingenuousness underlying that statement "just happened."

No.

There aren't many GMs who had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons because there aren't many GMs who wouldn't have drafted (and, acquired talent through whatever means) according to what was best for the team in the long-term instead of the benefit to the immediate season.

And... which is because there aren't many GMs that have the luxury of having an ownership that buys into their plan and are willing to sacrifice financially as a result of long-term decisions.

There is a balanced view of the BK years, and then there's what exodus consistently brings to the table every single time this topic gets brought up.

I've made the point extremely well, if I do say so myself, that regarding drafting specifically, it is simplistic and shallow to only evaluate draft outcomes on the basis of how many times a given GM, BK or otherwise, hits a home run. Short of finding that Nostradamus out there who perfectly hits home runs every time, to the contrary, drafting is as much about not striking out relative to the talent available at a certain draft slot in a certain year as it is about hitting those home runs. (Even Jerry West, who arguably can boast the best draft record of my lifetime, has come back to earth in recent years--assuming he had total control of that w/ Memphis.)

Now, the next post from you-know-who is predictable... he'll whine about how he's merely pointing out the "just the facts" and that he's always thought of himself as being something other than anti-BK. Further, history shows he'll attempt some vindication by resorting to playground tactics.

Well, he's right--they are JUST the facts, without context... to the contrary, they are facts that lack any interest in context. He pointedly denies that there was any "plan" at the beginning of the BK admin, and expects his words to hold up against what Sund's voluntary and spontaneous confirmation in one of the first interviews after his hire that there were long-term principles that BK followed in constructing this roster. ex will say that Sund was kissing up, and I say, he had no motive to say what he said other than simply to acknowledge and offer a tip of his cap to his predecessor. There was nothing to be gained from his bosses for Sund to do that.

And now, we have coach after coach, Carlisle being the most recent just yesterday, who make positive statements about the principled development of the team's roster.

Unfortunately, BK will never get his due around here with those who still imagine and promote themselves to be his superior, and are dumbfounded at how ASG failed to interview a single one of them after BK left.

I see some unfamiliar userIDs in some of these threads, but like ex, I've tired of going back and rehearsing all of the arguments, that now, are plainly providing increasing support to my earlier assertions, while tanking others'. But they're available for all to see thanks to the archives on this board... just pull up the threads w/ my username under keywords like Knight.

[Dsinner]

And that didn't "just happen," either, any more than the disingenuousness underlying that statement "just happened."

No.

There aren't many GMs who had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons because there aren't many GMs who wouldn't have drafted (and, acquired talent through whatever means) according to what was best for the team in the long-term instead of the benefit to the immediate season.

Sooo are you saying his plan was to never win and keep acquiring draft picks? In that case he was a huge success. A success story like that should have scooped up a job pretty quickly. What's BK doing these days again?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Dsinner

[TheTrueSiete]

And that didn't "just happen," either, any more than the disingenuousness underlying that statement "just happened."

No.

There aren't many GMs who had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons because there aren't many GMs who wouldn't have drafted (and, acquired talent through whatever means) according to what was best for the team in the long-term instead of the benefit to the immediate season.

And... which is because there aren't many GMs that have the luxury of having an ownership that buys into their plan and are willing to sacrifice financially as a result of long-term decisions.

There is a balanced view of the BK years, and then there's what exodus consistently brings to the table every single time this topic gets brought up.

I've made the point extremely well, if I do say so myself, that regarding drafting specifically, it is simplistic and shallow to only evaluate draft outcomes on the basis of how many times a given GM, BK or otherwise, hits a home run. Short of finding that Nostradamus out there who perfectly hits home runs every time, to the contrary, drafting is as much about not striking out relative to the talent available at a certain draft slot in a certain year as it is about hitting those home runs. (Even Jerry West, who arguably can boast the best draft record of my lifetime, has come back to earth in recent years--assuming he had total control of that w/ Memphis.)

Now, the next post from you-know-who is predictable... he'll whine about how he's merely pointing out the "just the facts" and that he's always thought of himself as being something other than anti-BK. Further, history shows he'll attempt some vindication by resorting to playground tactics.

Well, he's right--they are JUST the facts, without context... to the contrary, they are facts that lack any interest in context. He pointedly denies that there was any "plan" at the beginning of the BK admin, and expects his words to hold up against what Sund's voluntary and spontaneous confirmation in one of the first interviews after his hire that there were long-term principles that BK followed in constructing this roster. ex will say that Sund was kissing up, and I say, he had no motive to say what he said other than simply to acknowledge and offer a tip of his cap to his predecessor. There was nothing to be gained from his bosses for Sund to do that.

And now, we have coach after coach, Carlisle being the most recent just yesterday, who make positive statements about the principled development of the team's roster.

Unfortunately, BK will never get his due around here with those who still imagine and promote themselves to be his superior, and are dumbfounded at how ASG failed to interview a single one of them after BK left.

I see some unfamiliar userIDs in some of these threads, but like ex, I've tired of going back and rehearsing all of the arguments, that now, are plainly providing increasing support to my earlier assertions, while tanking others'. But they're available for all to see thanks to the archives on this board... just pull up the threads w/ my username under keywords like Knight.

Wow... Where's the emotion icon of someone falling asleep? There it is...

:bedtime2:

7

[Plainview1981]

I have seen the ridiculous comments about what Billy Knight should have done...

"We could have had..."

"We should have had..."

I have never seen that standard applied to any other general manager. General managers in any other case are judged by the team they assemble. Right now, this team is the third youngest in the league (i have heard). No off the court garbage. No salary cap hell. And playoff bound with a promising future.

But?

Fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However, if your opinions are to have any legitimacy, name the general managers that are judged by the players they "could have had" and not by the TEAM they assembled.

Case closed.

Good job Billy!

Billy drafted Marvin Williams (Who wasn't even a starter on his college team) over Chris Paul. He failed. He drafted Shelden Williams who has next to no NBA talent. Really, what did he see in this guy that would have led him to believe that he could be a good player? Billy Knight has failed to even draft an all-star. All those picks and no all-star? Are you kidding? Dude had little idea about talent. If Josh Smith wasn't from Atlanta, he probably wouldn't be a Hawk either.

There is nothing great about this team. It's took them 5 or 6 years just to win a good number of home games. There still nowhere near a legit title contender. They have no big men and no real point guard. We continue to watch this team continue to flop on the road. Over and over and over.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Hotlanta1981

[exodus]

And that didn't "just happen," either, any more than the disingenuousness underlying that statement "just happened."

No.

There aren't many GMs who had top 6 picks in 4 consecutive seasons because there aren't many GMs who wouldn't have drafted (and, acquired talent through whatever means) according to what was best for the team in the long-term instead of the benefit to the immediate season.

And... which is because there aren't many GMs that have the luxury of having an ownership that buys into their plan and are willing to sacrifice financially as a result of long-term decisions.

There is a balanced view of the BK years, and then there's what exodus consistently brings to the table every single time this topic gets brought up.

LOL @ balanced.

Your idea of balanced is trying to to contrive 3 totally different draft standards for 3 consecutive years none of which made sense given the circumstances.

[Dsinner]

LOL @ balanced.

Your idea of balanced is trying to to contrive 3 totally different draft standards for 3 consecutive years non of which made sense given the circumstances.

3? Let's not leave Memphis out of this thread.

[Plainview1981]

LOL @ balanced.

Your idea of balanced is trying to to contrive 3 totally different draft standards for 3 consecutive years none of which made sense given the circumstances.

Anything other than saying Billy failed is bogus. Any attempt to call anything else fair and balanced is on par with Fox News being fair and balanced.