Marty Burns talks Curry and the Hawks

[chillzatl]

marty Burns talks Curry and the Hawks

[Diesel]

As "Desparate" as we may be, I doubt that BK will spend 6 yr 80 million on Curry. We didn't even offer Kmart that much and Kmart was a much better player. I suspect that we will make an offer ... maybe something like 6 yr 50 million. However, with Dally and Swift being out there, I think those are probably more likely choices for BK...

[chillzatl]

I just wouldn't feel comfortable offering him that much (50 over 6). Every time you read an article about him you'll hear how he has all this potential BUT. It seems that every good quality he has is offset by 2-3 BUTS. He's got potential, but he's lazy. He's got good offensive skills, but he out of shape, etc.

I just can't justify spending that kind of money on a guy that doesn't have the self respect to work on his craft enough to seperate himself from mediocrity.

[Diesel]

The fact that he doesn't rebound well and he's not the best defender in the game makes me think it may be better to go after Dally and Swift. Curry is like a last option because I believe that he has pumped up his stats in his final contract year. Dally was looking good last year.

I could see:

Dally/Harrington/Chillz as our frontcourt.

[CBAreject]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

Too much money for Curry.

[JTFan31]

Chill is not a SF, he is a SG

[capstone21]

He is the Center I don't want. He doesn't rebound and has a work ethic problem. Once he gets his money I think he will become very lazy.

[Diesel]

Yeah...

And Diaw is a PG...

Come on man, this isn't your playstation. You can't have players play where you want out of convience... Some players are just better at certain positions. Chillz is a better SF than Sg. Sure, you can put him there and call him a SG, that doesn't mean that he will play the SG position well.

Tell me this...

If we had Ray Allen, would Chillz still be a SG?

I think my point is made.

[Admin]

Childress is a SG!!!...Childress is a SG!!!...Childress is a SG!!!

Billy Knight, Mike Woodson, AND Childress himself have all said that Childress is a SG and will be an incredible SG for a long time that will create HUGE mismatches for the opponent. What more do you need as proof than the 3 of them saying it and Childress actually PLAYING SG for us and in college?

Yeah, Ray Allen is a great SG and he would start over Childress at SG if he were here...but lets apply your logic (if thats what you can call it). What if Michael Jordan were on the Sonic, what would you do with Ray Allen, make hiim a SF and bench Rashard Lewis? Please.....

[macdaddy]

I like Dalembert too but at some point you have to take a chance. You don't see many championships won with a defensive oriented center (i know i know the pistons).

I'm not saying lets throw money at Curry but we need a big man. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett types are not on our horizon. We will have to take on a project with a big upside.

[macdaddy]

I don't seem to care as much about this as you guys, but to me the operative word in shooting guard is shooting. I don't think Chills shot is good enough to be a career SG.

This year they claim he's a SG because we don't have one and we have a lot of SFs. Once we have an opening at SF they will all say 'its great that he's back at his natural position'.

[Admin]

Would you bench Josh Smith or Al Harrington? Obviously you have to bench one of them to move Childress to the unfamiliar position of SF.......so which one would it be?

By the way, the position hasnt been shooting guard for too long. For the majority of basketball's history there has been 2 guards, both capable of passing and scoring. It wasnt until fairly recently that the positions were divided up. Childress is a more than capable scorer, even if he isnt an excellent shooter.

[Diesel]

Mike would come off the bench.

He's 40 something.. he could use the rest.

If it was Mike in his prime... Guess what, we trade Ray Allen for what Ray could get us.

However, having MJ does not make Ray Allen a 3. You guys kill me with your playstation logic.

[Diesel]

[Diesel]

Josh Smith gets benched until he can prove that he's either a better 3 than Chillz or a better 2 than whoever is there or a better 4 than Harrington. The point is that you don't make moves out of convenience when there's specialization involved.

It's almost like you're punishing Chillz because he's one of 3 Sfs that we have. He's the better of the two between him and Smoove right now. The competition for the spot should be good (as we have seen all year).

Like I have said several times, I think it's VC that's the only guy who we've seen in recent years that is able to switch between the 2 positions. That's because VC can actually shoot from outside. But when you watch CHillz play, he plays like a 3. He's Pippen all over again. Why punish him and make him a 2?? Convenience... Come on Dol... Get off the playstation.

[macdaddy]

There's plenty of minutes for 3 guys to rotate 2 positions. Chill and Al are the starters right now with Smoove off the bench in my book. I hope in another year or two if we still have all 3 that Harrington will come off the bench like he did at Indy.

[Traceman]

If we are going to spend big for a FA big man, Curry would be my first choice out of the bunch BY FAR. He clearly has the most potential of the group to be an All Star caliber player. Everyone talks about what he doesn't do but no one talks about what he does do, score in the low post while shooting a VERY high percentage. I still think he has a LOT to learn and a lot to improve upon but Swift, Dalembert and Chandler would have to improve TREMENDOUSLY just to get ANYWHERE NEAR where Curry already is as an offensive player.

Giving ANY of the 4 a big contract would be somewhat of a risk for a variety of reasons. There are questions about Curry's work ethic, weight management and poor rebounding. There are questions about Chandler's back and lack of offensive skills. There are question's about Dalembert's lack of offensive skills. There are questions about Swift's work ethic, heart, smarts and ability to stay healthy. I haven't talked about Kwame Brown but he has the same questions as Swift.

Actually, I would understand if BK tries to see which of the 4 he can get for the cheapest price because honestly, all 4 have questions. But, if he is going to take a chance, he might as well take it with the guy with the most potential of the bunch, and in my opinion, that is Curry.

[Packfill]

There is no question that Curry has the most offensive potential of the group you mentioned. Really it is not even close. The problem with Curry is his attitude and lack of defense and rebounding. Those are some serious question marks. So is a very high risk signing with his attitude and questionable conditioning, I think that is why people are reluctant to suggest he be offered a big contract. The others have their share of "ifs" too, it is just a question of which question marks you are mor comfortable with.

[TheDude]

i think you go with the most potential also and i say that's Curry or Brown...and if there's anyone that I feel can get these guys motivated and demand respect, it's Woodson...

[Packfill]

My only concern with that is that you can't coach attitude. Good coaching can guide a player but unless that player has some desire and the right attitude then it does not matter. There are legions of talented big me who for whatever reason never reach their potential - guys like Olowakandi, Benoit Benjamin, Jerome James, Stanley Roberts, Leon Smith, Chris Wasburn, William Bedford, Sharone Wright, Shawn Kemp, etc.

Some guys it is drugs, others laziness, others injuries.

Kwame and Curry, because of the attitudes they have shown thus far in their careers are big risks and in danger of not living up to what their physicals talents suggest.

I would prefer Dalembert or Chandler. Both are superior defensive players to Kwame and Curry.