The model our owners say they are using

[Buzzard]

Gearon said he was using the Spurs and Pistons as his model for our Hawks. If that is the case then he must surely have noticed that neither of those two teams starting rosters were built solely through the draft. The only things constant about the Spurs championship teams were The Admiral and Duncan, then presently Duncan and Parker. The Pistons aquired Billups, Rasheed, and Big Ben via trades. To further emphasize this point, Kobe and until this season, Fisher were the only constants for L.A. Pierce is the only constant for Boston. Orlando is the same with Howard and Jameer.

My point is, sooner or later our owners are going to have to make a decision concerning who will be our constants. If they do not do this, then they are not following the models laid out by the Spurs and Pistons or any other championship contender in the history of the NBA for that matter. They are just offering lip service, to sell a product, that cannot compete at the highest level in the manner those two did.

If Gearon and company do not grow some balls and make some moves, they are just trying to bullsh*t a bullshitter IMO.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Buzzard

[Guest]

The Spurs drafted The Admiral, then Tim Duncan, they also drafted Parker and Ginobli and George Hill and DeJuan Blair and they also drafted Splitter....they acquired Avry Johnson, Bowen, Bonner, McDyess, Jefferson, (role players).....most of SAS core has been together for awhile.

When Billups went to Detroit it was his 6th team in 5 years, Ben Wallace his 3rd team in 4 years (no one knew they would be that good), we know Rasheed's story (the Hawks had him for like a day then sent him to Detroit)....they also acquired Rip Hamilton.....of that Championship team starters only Prince was drafted by the Pistons. It still took them awhile to win playing together.

San Antonio and Detroit built their teams totally differently.

At best whoever you consider the core of the Hawks (Joe, Josh, Al, Marv?) to be have allbeen together at most 3 years...the Hawks have acquired Bibby and Crawford via trade.

Duncan, Pierce and Kobe have all been with their teams since they got drafted...teams have been built around them, but it didn't happen overnight.

Edited July 22, 2010 by jaybird

[niremetal]

The only things constant about the Spurs championship teams were The Admiral and Duncan, then presently Duncan and Parker.

That's like saying that the only thing constant about the Bulls were Jordan and Pippen. Kind of a big freaking constant there. And did you notice that the only perennial All-Star on our roster was acquired from another team?

I actually agree with your point - that the Hawks need to be more aggressive, and be more willing to shake the core to get to the next level. But that was some pretty shaky reasoning...

[sturt]

I think we're all just very anxious right now, and waiting to see if what we're being told is the philosophy actually ends up being evident. Sund's history is that he will make a big move at some point in an effort to nudge his club over the hump. He hasn't given me any reason to doubt that that's his intention, other than the fact that it just hasn't happened yet... I can be patient.

[Buzzard]

That's like saying that the only thing constant about the Bulls were Jordan and Pippen. Kind of a big freaking constant there. And did you notice that the only perennial All-Star on our roster was acquired from another team?

I actually agree with your point - that the Hawks need to be more aggressive, and be more willing to shake the core to get to the next level. But that was some pretty shaky reasoning...

Not really. My whole point is teams like the Spurs, Pistons, Bulls, Lakes etc...dont say things like we have a good core that we think will only improve. They are always in motion it seems and their rosters except for a few players at most are extremely fluid.

Our owners seem to think we are good enough whereas most championship caliber ownerships never think they are good enough. The Spurs and Suns ( two teams trying to build under the tax thresh hold) with Duncan, Nash, and Parker appear to make more moves involving starters and important bench players in one off season than we do in three or four.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

I think we're all just very anxious right now, and waiting to see if what we're being told is the philosophy actually ends up being evident. Sund's history is that he will make a big move at some point in an effort to nudge his club over the hump. He hasn't given me any reason to doubt that that's his intention, other than the fact that it just hasn't happened yet... I can be patient.

Sund is not what bothers me. It is the ASG. If I felt Sund could make a big move without interference, I would be less skeptical.

[Uncaged]

Sund is not what bothers me. It is the ASG. If I felt Sund could make a big move without interference, I would be less skeptical.

I agree. I happen to trust Sund more than any GM Atlanta has ever had. He has been hand tied financially. If he had a budget like the big spenders this offseason had, I believe he would make some moves and would do the necessary things to build this team into a contender. But when you have 9 different owners who can't seem to get out of each other's way what can you do?

[niremetal]

Not really. My whole point is teams like the Spurs, Pistons, Bulls, Lakes etc...dont say things like we have a good core that we think will only improve. They are always in motion it seems and their rosters except for a few players at most are extremely fluid.

Our owners seem to think we are good enough whereas most championship caliber ownerships never think they are good enough. The Spurs and Suns ( two teams trying to build under the tax thresh hold) with Duncan, Nash, and Parker appear to make more moves involving starters and important bench players in one off season than we do in three or four.

And my point was that you can afford to experiment and have lots of turnover among the "role players" when you have one of the league's 2-3 best players on your roster (as the Spurs did with Duncan and the Suns, more arguably, with Nash). The Hawks don't have that luxury. We don't have one of the 5 greatest players in the history of the game on our roster.

The Spurs had 1 megastar and 1-2 All-Stars that they built around during their title runs. Those 2-3 players were their "core." The Hawks have 1 perennial, oft-maligned All-Star and several very good players. Their "core" is much murkier. Constant turnover would be much more disruptive for a team like the Hawks than it would be for a team like the Spurs, who were always going to contend for a title as long as Duncan remained healthy. The 4th option on the '05 Spurs was far less essential to the team's success than is the 4th option on the '10 Hawks.

I think the Spurs are just an unworkable analogy. Sund was stupid to make it, and it's just silly for fans to talk about it.

Edited July 22, 2010 by niremetal

[Buzzard]

And my point was that you can afford to experiment and have lots of turnover among the "role players" when you have one of the league's 2-3 best players on your roster (as the Spurs did with Duncan and the Suns, more arguably, with Nash). The Hawks don't have that luxury. We don't have one of the 5 greatest players in the history of the game on our roster.

The Spurs had 1 megastar and 1-2 All-Stars that they built around during their title runs. Those 2-3 players were their "core." The Hawks have 1 perennial, oft-maligned All-Star and several very good players. Their "core" is much murkier. Constant turnover would be much more disruptive for a team like the Hawks than it would be for a team like the Spurs, who were always going to contend for a title as long as Duncan remained healthy. The 4th option on the '05 Spurs was far less essential to the team's success than is the 4th option on the '10 Hawks.

I think the Spurs are just an unworkable analogy. Sund was stupid to make it, and it's just silly for fans to talk about it.

I agree with some of this you say but I also think JJ and Horf could be a real "core of all-stars" to build around. If our owners were not so scared to get a better center, sf, pg. And no I am not talking about Shaq as a starter. I mean replacements for any of these three: Teague/Bibby, Marvin, or Smoove.

I think we could be fluid around JJ and Horf for a start; 1st by upgrading any of those three positions and maybe adding someone like Shaq as well. This is my point though. It seems our owners either one do not agree and think we are good enough, or two they are to afraid to try ( my grow some balls reference).

Just my opinion but until they shock the hell out of me and do something big that makes us better; it is one that I think applies.

[GameTime]

I'm sorry when did Josh Smith become replaceable? I've seen a lot (get rid of Smoove) talk like he is a hindrance to us. He was IMO our best/most important player last year.

[Dejay]

Not really. My whole point is teams like the Spurs, Pistons, Bulls, Lakes etc...dont say things like we have a good core that we think will only improve. They are always in motion it seems and their rosters except for a few players at most are extremely fluid.

Our owners seem to think we are good enough whereas most championship caliber ownerships never think they are good enough. The Spurs and Suns ( two teams trying to build under the tax thresh hold) with Duncan, Nash, and Parker appear to make more moves involving starters and important bench players in one off season than we do in three or four.

THIS....

I've been waiting for someone else to notice that other than me. Not once during this offseason (or any for that matter) did you hear execs from contending teams talk about liking their core guys when their team wasn't nearly good enough the previous season. It's one thing for Sam Presti in OKC to say something like that after the Thunder pushed LA to six games; it's an entirely different animal when you're expected to make a playoff push, get embarrassed on national TV, watch teams in your conference get exponentially better, only to come back with 'well, we like our core and want to see what Jeff Teague can do at point guard.' Huh?

I don't recall anyone in San Antonio, Denver, or Orlando talking about striving to just be a top-4 team in their respective conferences. I don't recall hearing Mark Cuban liking the core of his team sooooo much after getting knocked out the box in the first round in May. Utah lost Carlos Boozer in free agency, only to turn around and bring in Al Jefferson to replace him. There have been rumblings in Florida about the Magic wanting to deal for the longest. Even the Bucks made moves to improve when it could've been real easy to kick back and sell the masses on Brandon Jennings and a returning Andrew Bogut. And last I checked, not some, not most, but ALL of the teams I just mentioned have a higher payroll than the Hawks, which means that they are more than willing to spend into the luxury tax threshold if it means having a real shot at the conference finals and beyond. Those teams know that just standing pat and acting as if 53 wins was manna from Heaven just won't fly; their fans wouldn't stand for it.

None of the contending teams that didn't make the Finals are talking about filling out their second units with D-leaguers, fringe players, and summer squad guys who'll never see the court; they're too busy trying to add REAL PLAYERS to their rosters. The only 45+ win team that's doing that is ours. Now don't get me wrong; it's okay to add those guys at the end of your bench. But it's not okay to call that being your big summer move when the team is lacking.

After that debacle against the Magic, our GM should've been the first one ready to make a deal, the first one on the phone willing to part with Marvin, Childress, Zaza, Smith, Bibby, draft picks, et al in order to get better. Telling the world that you're ready to contend and spend big $$$ by breaking to bank on JJ, only to sell off draft picks, give away Childress, and sign Collins and Josh Powell to minimum deals isn't going to be enough to impress the masses who have been waiting on this franchise to break through for over 40 years.

What's going to be their slogan for next season? 'That was Woody's fault?' 'The gang's all back and this time, you won't need to buy Game 7 tickets because we won't last that long?'

I hope that I'm wrong. I really do...

[Buzzard]

I'm sorry when did Josh Smith become replaceable? I've seen a lot (get rid of Smoove) talk like he is a hindrance to us. He was IMO our best/most important player last year.

Everyone is replaceable except your all-stars IMO. And even then some of them may become replaceable, Parker was/is reportedly on the block. If he can be traded, Smoove certainly can.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Buzzard

[Dejay]

Everyone is replaceable except your all-stars IMO. And even then some of them may become replaceable, Parker was/is reportedly on the block. If he can be traded, Smoove certainly can.

You're not kidding. No one should be beyond reproach on this roster. Not JJ, not Smith; even Horford could be moved if the price is right. I don't recall any ticker-tape parades on Peachtree Street celebrating our world title this past June; you?

[Uncaged]

I'm watching TV right now and they're talking about Chris Paul wanting to leave N.O. You can't tell me that the Knicks, Blazers, Mavs or even the Magic can offer a more attractive package than our Hawks. You have a young Josh Smith, Al Horford, an expiring contract from 6th man Jamal Crawford. Not to mention draft picks. Rick Sund should be on the phone right now. NO ONE on our team is untouchable. After the Orlando debacle, player 1 thru 12 should've been put on notice that that type of piss poor performace is unacceptable. That's the difference from the Hawks model and that of championship teams. Champions don't sit on players who are underperforming their contracts just because there's a hope he'll turn a corner. They evaluate properly and react quickly. Chris Paul could've been a Hawk 5 years ago and he could be a Hawk this season. The question is, will our passive management make it happen. I say no.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Uncaged

[DJlaysitup]

Gearon said he was using the Spurs and Pistons as his model for our Hawks.

Notice how they never say "as a cheap and dumb drafting team..we are following the Clippers model"

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Totally agree with Buzz, Dejay, and Unchaged.

And that's what pizzed me off yesterday. LOL @ Sund.

And I agree. NO ONE is untouchable on the Hawks. If a trade can be made that upgrades the team . . you do that.

Instead, it seems that the marketing strategy of the ASG, is to add as many guys that has ties to Atlanta or the state of Georgia as possible. What was that guy's name that used to play at Michigan? Pettway (aka "Air Georgia" ). Might as well sign him too ASG.

[Chinky_eyed_hawk]

we know Rasheed's story (the Hawks had him for like a day then sent him to Detroit).

A tear drops my eye. If Josh didnt pan out as well as he has I would have walked away a long time ago. Oh thoase were the golden days... I mean day

[sturt]

Sund is not what bothers me. It is the ASG. If I felt Sund could make a big move without interference, I would be less skeptical.

I'm aware of nothing beyond the routine conjectured cynicism around these parts that would lead one to have anything more than a basic skepticism about ASG... nothing we were told seems to have changed... it had been said long ago that they go above the luxury tax threshold,. but only in the case that an upper-tier player was the motivation for that... that's reasonable and even sensical in my book.

[Buzzard]

The Spurs drafted The Admiral, then Tim Duncan, they also drafted Parker and Ginobli and George Hill and DeJuan Blair and they also drafted Splitter....they acquired Avry Johnson, Bowen, Bonner, McDyess, Jefferson, (role players).....most of SAS core has been together for awhile.

When Billups went to Detroit it was his 6th team in 5 years, Ben Wallace his 3rd team in 4 years (no one knew they would be that good), we know Rasheed's story (the Hawks had him for like a day then sent him to Detroit)....they also acquired Rip Hamilton.....of that Championship team starters only Prince was drafted by the Pistons. It still took them awhile to win playing together.

San Antonio and Detroit built their teams totally differently.

At best whoever you consider the core of the Hawks (Joe, Josh, Al, Marv?) to be have allbeen together at most 3 years...the Hawks have acquired Bibby and Crawford via trade.

Duncan, Pierce and Kobe have all been with their teams since they got drafted...teams have been built around them, but it didn't happen overnight.

Detroits problem I think was not making the correct decisions on who their core was. IMO it was Billups ( all-star), RIP(all-star), and Big Ben(defensive all-star). Instead they kept Rasheed ( aging former all-star) and Prince ( young player with all-star potential) longer than both Big Ben and Billups. Their fluid starting positions should have been SF@ Prince and PF@ Rasheed. Not center @ Ben and PG @ Billups IMO.

This is why I say when you have a all-star core of players that compete well you build around them. And I think JJ and Horf compete well together and fit their postions in a much more rounded way ( offensively and defensively) than our other three non all-star position players.

Could we have a core of three and keep Smoove? Sure but what and how do we get replacements for Marvin and Bibby/Teague? And making up for Smoove @ PF and Horf @ Center is another delimena. IMO it is a much more classic lineup and easier to build around with just JJ and Horf. But I really do not think our owners are going to do anything other than stay under the lauxury tax.

Marvin, Teague/Bibby, nor Smoove are going anywhere. If anything we may move Craw. But I am having my doubts about that since his ten million added to Evans four coming off the books will allow the ASG to sign Al and stay under the luxury tax.

Their goal is simple, stay under the tax thresh hold. If we make moves involving our expirings to better this team, they will not accomplish that goal. The only way to really improve then is to trade Bibby/Teague, Marvin, or Smoove. Smoove is obviously the best trading peice for a good player and IMO this is where the gutless part comes in, the ASG is afraid to make a bold move like that.

We are going to be stagnant once again as it involves our starters or adding one more solid bench player. Its funny honestly, we add Craw last season and give props all year long for that one great signing. The trend to notice though is that the only position that has really stayed fluid has been our 6th man coming off the bench. We never change starters and never upgrade 7 through 9.

This is where the good teams make multiple changes almost every off season. One or two starters, and 6 through 9. We make one change every two seasons and they want to call us ( themselves included in the us ) being like the Pistons and Spurs. I think it is hilarious that some fans are actually buying into that line of B.S.

If they shock me and make a major deal, I will be more than happy to eat some crow. But right now the ASG is just running a line of B.S. as far as I am concerned.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Buzzard

[sillent]

Not really. My whole point is teams like the Spurs, Pistons, Bulls, Lakes etc...dont say things like we have a good core that we think will only improve. They are always in motion it seems and their rosters except for a few players at most are extremely fluid.

Our owners seem to think we are good enough whereas most championship caliber ownerships never think they are good enough. The Spurs and Suns ( two teams trying to build under the tax thresh hold) with Duncan, Nash, and Parker appear to make more moves involving starters and important bench players in one off season than we do in three or four.

What do you mean their rosters were fluid. When you look at the Championship teams for the last couple of decades you will notice a common factor. All of these teams had a solid roster for years. They may have tweaked the roster here in there like a (Robert Horry/Rasheed Wallace or in our case Bibby/Jamal Crawford) but their core remained solid. You knew it was going to be Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr coming at you most nights when you faced the bulls. They made necessary/minimal tweaks every now in than mainly just replacing a missing/needed role like getting Rodman after Horace Grant left.

Spurs had D Robinson, Duncan, Bowen and later added Parker and Ginobilli as the core.

As already stated in an earlier post the Pistons had their core of Ben, Chauncey, Prince, Rip and Rasheed became their X Factor.

The Lakers of course had Kobe, Shaq, Fischer and Horry was a key factor for a couple of championship teams.

Their recent championships came with getting a win-win opportunity where they got Pau Gasol without having to give up their core of Odom, Bynum, Fischer, Luke or give up their key guy in Kobe.

Rarely do you see a team that makes drastic moves get there and even if they do it is hard to maintain their elite status.

Celtics traded their young core for a big opportunity but that move will now restart the rebuilding process as age continues to be a factor. With players like Rondo who was considered to be not ready or tradable ala Teague will help their rebuilding process be a lot easier because of his skill set and age.

Miami made the big move for the Big Fella and added a not to shabby cast at the time (Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, James Posey, etc.). They could not keep that core together for too long because of chemistry, contracts and age. The only reason the Heat were able to remain relevant is because they got a guy name Dwayne Wade.

The ASG are following the course of true "Championship Caliber" Franchises. They are keeping a good “young” core (yes the main core/draftees are still young) together that continue to progress individually and collectively. They(ASG) attempt (financial restraints or not) to add the best suited tweaks(Bibby/Jamal) for reasonable prices while maintaining our core (with the exception of Chills but you can't win/keep them all). This is a very difficult tasks. Our players know each others characters and tendencies and have been through big ups and downs together which is a big plus for chemistry. Add our players being very familiar with each other and a coach that is just as familiar and you might have a winning formula. For a coach like Drew (that has studied/assisted under the likes of Phil Jackson) to say he has an offense that hasn't been seen in the NBA should be very intriguing. He grew up with our core just like Woodson, which is another bonus for chemistry and to top it off we got him for a very low price. In my opinion that sounds like a move that someone with good basketball and business sense would make. Let the experts do what they are spending "their" money to do. Two heads are better than one (Belkin) and believe it or not we got a lot of good basketball/business minds on our side. A lot of us as fans lack the sense to have both and with our lack of patience will usually end up on the losing side. Just ask a well known fan with money (Mark Cuban). If you have taken notice you will see his maturation in his latter years as an owner. Although he still has the win now mentality he is starting to understand that it takes time for a roster to gel and get that chemistry. The old Mark Cuban would have picked up an available Shaq in a heart beat. Although he still may you notice he is working more on getting players that will compliment his core and being more cautious of moves that may cost without getting the ultimate reward.