long espn chat on hawks

[Admin]

I agree with your point sturt if you also qualify BK's qualifications as having been a bit of a moving target as far as criteria for draft picks. I can't help but see Marvin as a BPA pick and Shelden as a perceived need pick in consecutive years.

Good point, although I'm more inclined to think that the Shelden pick was a big FU to his critics (internal as well as external) rather than him truly changing his philosophy.

[Buzzard]

You speak as-if one can control how the players they acquire will develop, and my point is that there's more luck to that than you appear to be willing to acknowledge.... no one plans on missing in the lottery (or anywhere else in the draft for that matter). But about 99% of the time, they fail to draft a Robinson, Duncan, Jordan, Bird, or Magic... or Bryant or Shaq or James. (Drafting Pippen, McHale or Worthy is not the same thing until you draft a Jordan, a Bird, or a Magic respectively).

That's just the state of play. So, it's no great leap of faith to suggest that a given new GM would make a pointed attempt to use the odds in his favor by design. BK isn't the first, but he's among the few who had ownership patient enough to allow him to tear down the entire roster and begin from scratch with no particular urgency that might otherwise have tempted him to trade picks.

For my part, I'm slow to make any "guarantees" even though I see the evidence clearly points to the conclusions I've drawn--none of us, as far as I know, have access to any behind-closed-doors videotape or have the advantage of audio from tapped phone lines. I mean, you're certainly free to think the way you do about the situation, and you're not alone... but I just think there's some natural bad karma surrounding BK, particularly as a result of CP3's success, and that that clouds the issue. I believe as we get farther away from the BK era, though, those clouds are parting, and it's fairly clear to see that there was a rational plan in-place to control what could be controlled--and obviously, one can control to an extent their draft slot while one cannot control whether player X will become an instant HoF candidate. Sund has made comments that would appear to support this perspective--comments unprovoked by the questioner, but where he's referred to his predecessor's having followed some guidelines in constructing the roster handed off to Sund.

Controlling your draft slot is not new Sturt. Teams dump every year to get a better position in the lottery and barring a major injury to a all star; most GM's are intelligent enough to know (God I hope so) whether their team is playoff bound, playoff/lottery fringe, or lottery bound way before the season begins.

BK drafted forwards in the same manner the Bulls drafted guards around the same time. You want to call that a buleprint fine. I call it a tendency, that probablly stems from the fact BK and our modern day best player played forward and Chicago was still living the dream of finding a Jordan with Skyles as their Coach and/or GM. ( cannot remember if it was both or just one).

I think BK's biggest mistake was drafting all forwards (his blueprint) in the same manner the Bulls drafted all guards. If BK had a blueprint with forwards then certainly the Bulls had one with guards. Personally I think BK had a preference (bias) for a certain position and that deterred him from actually drafting higher caliber players; then he had to start reaching for inferior talent to fill our gaping holes. I also think BK and his staff did not judge talent very well which is why they took Chilz, Marvin, Acie, and Shelden over what turned out to be clealy superior players.

The lottery is a crap shoot, sure some guys are just luckier than others. BK's blueprint if you want to call it that, was due his bias and his staff not being a good judge of talent. At the end of the day, he is out of a job because he did not draft one player that has ever averaged over 17 PPG (His lowest and luckiest because he was still there IMO 1st round pick Smoove averaged 17) yet he missed out on several, several, several every year. You get a 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 11th pick in the lottery you better get one star; who even if he does not fit a need is so talented you can trade for another star and/or picks to fill a need.

I commend our ownership for taking the reigns away from BK and giving them to a GM who is known for making needed changes. Staying the course; if this team does not take the next step, Sund will not stay the course.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Buzzard

[jerrywest]

Controlling your draft slot is not new Sturt. Teams dump every year to get a better position in the lottery and barring a major injury to a all star; most GM's are intelligent enough to know (God I hope so) whether their team is playoff bound, playoff/lottery fringe, or lottery bound way before the season begins.

Cavs dumped Miller to maximize their probability of getting LeBron.

Hawks let Lue and Sura win against some teams at the end of 03-04. Those teams were trying to lose to get Howard/Okofer. Hawks were not.

[Buzzard]

Good point, although I'm more inclined to think that the Shelden pick was a big FU to his critics (internal as well as external) rather than him truly changing his philosophy.

Shelden and Acie will turn out to be known as reaches to try and fill holes due to his bad choices with Marvin and Chilz. He changed his draft philosphy to cover his *ss IMO. I love Marvin but he was a bad pick, Chilz was also a bad pick. Those who want to argue that they were BPA and the talent was so close it was hard to judge which player to take are mistaken. It was BK and his staffs job to know who to take and they clearly dropped the ball.

[Buzzard]

Cavs dumped Miller to maximize their probability of getting LeBron.

Hawks let Lue and Sura win against some teams at the end of 03-04. Those teams were trying to lose to get Howard/Okofer. Hawks were not.

And the coach was fired with a quicknes IMO for that one.

[sturt]

Shelden and Acie will turn out to be known as reaches to try and fill holes due to his bad choices with Marvin and Chilz. He changed his draft philosphy to cover his *ss IMO. I love Marvin but he was a bad pick, Chilz was also a bad pick. Those who want to argue that they were BPA and the talent was so close it was hard to judge which player to take are mistaken. It was BK and his staffs job to know who to take and they clearly dropped the ball.

Buzzard, I think we just foundationally disagree about the degree to which a team/GM can predict with accuracy how good Player X will turn out to be. To my mind, a GM cannot be faulted for taking a player that, conventionally-speaking and according to practically anyone else's conjecture, made sense at Slot Y. He can, otoh, be faulted for taking, say, Shelden as early as he did (with the previous post explaining my caveats to that conclusion). Not so much Acie. The problem, I believe, with your approach is, you're ALWAYS going to be right just by virtue of hindsight. That's what makes it nice to be a fan instead of a GM, I guess... us fans have that luxury.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard, I think we just foundationally disagree about the degree to which a team/GM can predict with accuracy how good Player X will turn out to be. To my mind, a GM cannot be faulted for taking a player that, conventionally-speaking and according to practically anyone else's conjecture, made sense at Slot Y. He can, otoh, be faulted for taking, say, Shelden as early as he did (with the previous post explaining my caveats to that conclusion). Not so much Acie. The problem, I believe, with your approach is, you're ALWAYS going to be right just by virtue of hindsight. That's what makes it nice to be a fan instead of a GM, I guess... us fans have that luxury.

I agree 100% Sturt that we fans have that luxury :-) But as a new GM when you have five lottery picks and do not draft one star; and there are multiple stars drafted after you, the odds are pretty good you will be unemployed.

We as fans do have the luxury of hindsight, but we don't get the luxury of seven figure salaries.

[Admin]

Shelden and Acie will turn out to be known as reaches to try and fill holes due to his bad choices with Marvin and Chilz. He changed his draft philosphy to cover his *ss IMO. I love Marvin but he was a bad pick, Chilz was also a bad pick. Those who want to argue that they were BPA and the talent was so close it was hard to judge which player to take are mistaken. It was BK and his staffs job to know who to take and they clearly dropped the ball.

Marvin was not a bad pick, neither was Chillz. They weren't the best picks but they weren't bad either. If Chillz were in the NBA he'd be a productive starter and Marvin is improving every year. Shelden and Acie were definitely bad picks as neither are capable NBA players, at least at this point in their careers.

Regarding Marvin being the BPA I've said this a million times but why not once more, he was WIDELY seen as the BPA and both Deron (shooting/speed) and Paul (size) had major question marks coming into the draft. Hindsight is 20/20 but the vast majority of teams would have taken Marvin over both of them if given the choice. The only way for the Hawks to take Paul or Deron would be if we were looking for need and then picked the BPA (at the time) according to need.

[Buzzard]

Marvin was not a bad pick, neither was Chillz. They weren't the best picks but they weren't bad either. If Chillz were in the NBA he'd be a productive starter and Marvin is improving every year. Shelden and Acie were definitely bad picks as neither are capable NBA players, at least at this point in their careers.

Regarding Marvin being the BPA I've said this a million times but why not once more, he was WIDELY seen as the BPA and both Deron (shooting/speed) and Paul (size) had major question marks coming into the draft. Hindsight is 20/20 but the vast majority of teams would have taken Marvin over both of them if given the choice. The only way for the Hawks to take Paul or Deron would be if we were looking for need and then picked the BPA (at the time) according to need.

OK bad pick is not a good way of putting it. How about incorrect pick. And though a lot of amateur draft boards and sporting magazines said BPA for Marvin; others said Paul and Deron had just as much upside as anyone in the draft. My point is BK was paid to make the correct pick. And to assume what another GM would do without quoting him before or right after the draft is pure conjecture. Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Draft City, and what other GM's think is not always on the same page to say the least.

Marvin and Chilz were draft day mistakes of a high magnitude; he then reached for Shelden and Law which made matters even worse. I liked the Marvin and Chilz picks but I was wrong; so was BK. If you cannot see that then you are just failing to grasp the point.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Buzzard

[RedDawg#8]

Marvin was a set up pick in my mind. It was like the entire world kept saying he was too good to pass up that even we as fans believed it and didnt want to "take a chance" the undersized Paul. I honestly dont remember what made him so much better than everybody else at the time. I think cuz he could do a little bit of everything.

As far as Chillz, I really didnt want to draft him because I didnt like his afro, thats all I had against him tho. Shelden was the MOST painful of all of those misses because I think he was the only one that everybody could agree before hand wasnt worth the pick that high. It hurt so much knowing we were going to select him, praying when our pick came up that a miracle would happen, then we still picked him. I was so mad at our franchise for that one. He truly was overkill on another 6'9 forward.

Acie didnt bother me as much because it was a weak point gaurd draft. I woulda been happy with him or Crittenton at 11 because of Critts size and being from Tech, and Acie's supposed "sharpshooting". The jury is still out on Critt and Conley but Acie's days may be numbered in the NBA.