Honesty Corner's 5 Truths: Vol. 11
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 18, 2011 5:26 PM EDT
Email
PrintWe'll be providing a complete Year In Review once the NBA Finals are over, but for now - here's some truths to tide you over - mostly dedicated to the news that Rick Sund will continue to be our GM...
Disclaimer: As always, all criticisms come after blaming the Atlanta Spirit Group first, management second, and then coaches and players last. Those criticisms come through the prism of winning championships (or the things that result in championship team building).
Truth 1. Jeff Teague needs to keep his nose clean.
There will be a report tomorrow on the Today Show discussing his role in an alleged sexual assault. Now, I will let the legal system determine how much truth there is to this, but I will say this to Mr. Jeff Teague. There were already rumors about your lack of dedication to your craft early this season and let's just say - if you know who your coach is (and will likely be next year), then we'd advise you to stay on the narrow path of goodness. Primarily because as a human, that's just what you should do, but also because of the fact that you know it takes very little to get Larry Drew to put you back on the bench (and if you were actually involved in a sexual assault, then you are dead to me.)
(Let me find out this girl is affiliated with Larry Drew or his circle in any way and the season long quest for what really is happening is solved.)
Truth 2. Consistent Inconsistency = Player Movement.
I'm going to spend more time during the offseason proposing the right changes for the Atlanta Hawks, but I'll just reiterate what I've been saying for the past 2 offseasons and that's that - short of new owners, a new GM, and a new coach - the players have to change. We'll talk about who at a later date, but I think it's pretty clear when watching the remaining teams in NBA playoffs and you can see a marked difference between the Hawks and those teams. The Hawks do not look like a team, but instead a group of individuals playing for the same organization. There are pockets of fire and energy, but outside of that - Joe, Al, and Josh do not look like they are on the same page and it's 4 years in on this journey. If you can't put it together in 4 years (while the Heat were able to get on a page in half a season), then you probably are never going to get on the same page.
We have watched the Hawks be consistently inconsistent for over 2 years and now, it's time to make moves. We know that the fan base is leery of moves due to our track record with trading our assets, but this isn't a time for timid, passive management. If we want to win, bold and aggressive moves must be made. The time is now (or whenever the CBA says so).
Truth 3. Year In Review Preview (The Pluses).
So, let's make a list of the things that were positive this year.
1. Damian Wilkins - Anytime you can sign someone off the street and they can contribute in any way. That's a win.
2. Jeff Teague’s Playoff Performance – We have no idea if it’s transferrable to the regular season and is sustainable over the rest of his career, but for the offseason – the Hawks and its fans can finally settle on the idea that they have a point guard who can contribute on offense and DEFENSE.
3. Al Horford – Playoffs excepted, Al had his best year yet. He’s deadly with the pick and pop. We won’t discuss whether this is enough to move the Hawks forward, but for the season – it’s hard to say All Star and 3rd team All NBA are negatives.
4. Zaza Pachulia – Simply put, when he played consistent minutes, he played fairly well. Every team needs a Zaza.
Truth 4. Year In Review Preview (The Negatives).
So, let's make a list of the things that were negative this year.
1. Player Development – For Jeff Teague and Zaza Pachulia (and Damian Wilkins upon the revelation that Marvin Williams has regressed tremendously) to not receive consistent minutes for this team, just continues the poor use of the meager assets at our coach’s hands.
2. Joe Johnson – Yes, he made the All Star game. No, he didn’t get one vote for All NBA. To be one of the top paid players in the league and to only have about 3-4 special games in an entire season and to decline in almost every category says – epic fail.
3. Marvin Williams – He just regressed to the point that he was usable in the biggest games in recent Atlanta Hawk history. You can blame Billy Knight for drafting him, but isn’t it worst if you re-sign him and he provides you less than during his formative years.
4. The Bench – When Damian Wilkins is your coup signing, you’ve failed to bring much needed help to a bench that consisted of little used Teague, sometimes used Zaza, and over used Jamal.
5. Regular Season – When you lose 9 more games than the year before with the same cast and winning a 1st round series that you have won the last 2 years sounds like success, then you really had a bad regular season. Simply put, the fact that you played hard in the 2nd round is looked at as progress sends the signal that you really didn’t put forth a regular season’s worth of professional efforts.
Truth 5. Billy Knight runs laps around Rick Sund as a GM.
Let me preface this with another truth – I don’t want Billy Knight back as the GM for the Atlanta Hawks, but I’ve written this before and after seeing that Rick Sund was given an extension – I figure it’s time to try to understand once again why people think Rick Sund has provided this team with assets to make us viable contenders. The Sund era is much closer to rivaling the Babcock era than coming close to the star-crossed Knight era.
Let’s recount what happened during the 2003-2008 tenure of Billy Knight. He did the following:
· Positives:
o Dismantled a team that was last in attendance, at the salary cap limit, and devoid of draft picks due to Pete Babcock (the players he had to get rid of were – Abdur-Rahim, Terrell Brandon, Alan Henderson, Theo Ratliff, Jason Terry (who we could have kept, but he signed a $8M/yr contract that we matched and wasn’t worth that), Al Harrington, Antoine Walker.
o Acquired 4 additional first round picks and 1 second round draft over his tenure
o Drafted the following NBA players (Josh Smith, Al Horford, Boris Diaw, Josh Childress)
o Signed or traded for Joe Johnson, Zaza Pachulia, Mike Bibby
o Attendance increased from last to 20th (not huge, but it’s positive)
o Rumored to have had a deal for Amare Stoudamire (ASG intervened)
o Attempted to fire Mike Woodson
o Had the finest wife of any GM I’ve ever met
· Negatives:
o Drafted Shelden Williams, Acie Law, and Marvin Williams (though my sources have continually said that he wanted to draft Deron Williams, ASG wanted Marvin Williams)
o Signed Speedy Claxton
o Got little value out of our 2nd round picks
o Too much love for Mario West
o Had the worst haircut in the NBA
The Rick Sund tenure includes the following:
· Positives:
o Traded for Jamal Crawford (though this is a small positive since there was no signing that brought defensive talent to compliment Jamal’s offense)
o Signed Damian Wilkins and Flip Murray for cheap (I’m reaching here)
o Re-signed Al Horford, Josh Smith, and Zaza Pachulia to market friendly contracts
o Drafted Jeff Teague (conditional to whether he gets to play)
· Negatives:
o Drafted Jordan Crawford
o Sold 1st round draft pick & getting no value out of 2nd round draft picks
o Resigned Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, Marvin Williams, and Maurice Evans to cap killing contracts
o Traded away 1st round draft pick and Jordan Crawford for Kirk Hinrich (further muddying our cap situation)
o Poor cap management
o Hired the backup of the guy he fired
o No use of the D League for players who need seasoning.
o Started falling back in attendance to 22nd
o Signed Joe Smith, Jason Collins, Josh Powell, Randolph Morris, & Etan Thomas to all be back up big men (did I mention that we sold a 1st round draft pick while signing these guys?)
So, explain to me why I should want Rick Sund to continue to lead the franchise. The only thing that Sund didn’t do is make the big mistake (Shelden) and the perceived mistake (or what I call – taking the bullet for his bosses on Chris Paul or Deron Williams), but he did take this franchise and make a relatively large jump in viability that we haven’t seen from Sund’s tenure. In fact, we’re regressing and we have few assets to even make any changes. Think about this – we have $3M remaining to sign 6 players for next season. He basically bet the farm on the core and I don’t know one fan who believes in the entire core any longer, so why again are we spending any time on Knight? Shoot, as far as I’m concerned, Knight has proven qualifications of cleaning up the messes that guys like Sund make. Again, NO – I don’t want Knight back because he presided over two franchise changing picks and he has to be accountable for that, but on the Josh Smith pick ALONE – he’s done more for the Atlanta Hawks than Rick Sund could dream about. Knight in a KO!!!
And with that note, that's this week's 5 Truths....agree or disagree if you must, but if it's the Honesty Corner, then it can't be lies. See you in the comments...
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Have to agree with #2
This current group has definitely reached the peak of it’s powers, and some sweeping changes need to be made. As you pointed out, the “team” plays more like 5 individuals out on the court, as evidenced by the 4th quarter of game 5 vs the Bulls. Why Joe Johnson went away from the team concept that brought them back into the contest to run more isolation sets is anyone’s guess.
I don’t think we can continue to progress further into the play-offs with Joe Johnson as the focal point of the offense. People have made the excuse that he was constantly being double teamed hence his performance dropped away, but his lack of ability to find the open man out of the double team is what hurt us this year. I think that in order to play as a more cohesive unit, the Hawks need to try and move JJ (as much as most fans wouldn’t like to see him go) to create more room under the cap as well as provide a more team focused offense.
Will making it back to the Eastern Conference Semis give Larry Drew another year at the helm?
Well if you want to continue with Knight
he was technically involved with getting rid of Pau Gasol, though he was with memphis at the time. lmao
I like to think of Jeff Teague as our secret weapon..... so secret that the Atlanta coaches have no idea who he is.
Yes, but missed in the positives:
1. Allowed himself to be photographed refusing the handshake of Steve Belkin. Should be number 1!
Well lets see
1. Yes he does, but I don’t think there is much to this story. And what you marked out at the end, classic.
2. You could argue with that, but you would be wrong and it isn’t like they can’t play together, they were doing it at the beginning of the season. For some reason Joe needed to prove he was worth it.
3. Can’t really add or take anything away from that.
4. Now you have Marvin Williams as a negative, and I am done making excuses for him, but I don’t feel like he has ever gotten a fair shake. Now has he been given more of an opportunity then a lot of other players on this roster, yes, should he be performing better, yes, but I do think Larry Drew not getting the team to stick to his offense and poor substitution habits are a larger negative and have to do with four of the five negatives you have listed. Simply put he was an upgrade, but he still has some major flaws and I guess the only other question is who doesn’t?
5. I wouldn’t mind have Billy Knight back I will never forgive him for drafting Shelden Williams (which he actually made up for in a decent trade), but I will never blame him for Marvin Williams if I didn’t like Marvin I couldn’t blame him for it, because it wasn’t his fault. Not to mention him trying to fire Mike Woodson!!!
Throw now that is a good point.
#2 is wrong...how again?
So, you’re saying that the Hawks in the past 4 years have an identity of playing well for any appreciable amount of time and more importantly, when it matters most. We’ve been less than cohesive for the last 3 years. If we hit jump shots, we win. If we don’t, we don’t (unless of course we’re playing pretty bad teams. The beginning is a great example – we played the easiest schedule in the NBA the first half of the season and as soon as that tightened up – our team lost 20 of our last 31 games. So, anything else is just untrue on that point…
As for Marvin, sorry, but I’m not even asking him to be awesome. I’m asking him to be a viable rotation player. He’s been given as much of a chance, a consistent 25MPG since he’s been drafted even when Childress was playing better than him – so for the price we’re paying him – he’s simply not worth investing any more time in him. I completely disagree that he hasn’t gotten a fair shake. He’s at best the 6th most talented guy on the team and is getting minutes and pay that are over and above his production. If he just played lockdown D, I’d respect it, but when Damian brings more to the table – that’s a problem. He hasn’t had more than 1 decent playoff performance in 4 years.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
the hawks add a big man and bring marvin and teague off the bench next year and they will be pretty good. damien is not even close to bringing more to the table than marvin. marvin will have a much more defined role coming of the bench than he had being one of four starting hawks forwards.
but they can't
that’s the issue – they have no money to add someone even reasonably mediocre with the money they have. They’ll have to trade someone. As for Marvin, he hasn’t shown any ability to bring something to the table from the bench. He hasn’t bought into that role at all and having Josh as the SF has its own issues as well. I agree that Damian is not as TALENTED as Marvin, but what we need from the 5th best player on the court is the dirty work and defense and with Marvin’s defense regressing and his reluctance to do dirty work (or inability) – the role that needs to be filled for that starting lineup is filled much better by Damian and that’s what i was conveying.
If Marvin embraced being a 6th man, he’d be much more valuable to the Hawks from the bench in the way that Jason Terry is infinitely better than DeShawn Stevenson, though Stevenson starts. That role Terry fits is better for roster balance and scoring and is more valuable to the Mavs as a result. That’s what Marvin would have to do to justify the cost of having him on the roster. I’m not sure he has the temperment to do so. And by the way – he needs to lose some weight and get leaner and faster at the SF position.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions
i didnt hear marvin complaining at all about his role change this season. i think you are incorrect that he didnt produce and that he didnt produce off the bench. he played a pretty big part off the bench in the orlando series.
im assuming that jamal crawford will not return next year, wont that free up 11 million or so?
teague has shown that he can be instant offense off the bench as well as play great defensive point guard. marvin is a spot up shooter with the ability to drive the lane and play solid defense. that is a good start to the bench. with zaza and collins being backed off to less crucial roles that suit their games better with the addition of a true big man with an actual offensive skill set, i think the hawks are near the tops in the eastern conference.
Seriously?
You didn’t hear about it because you weren’t listening. He was in the paper on 3 occasions talking about how he didn’t like coming off the bench. Go to ajc’s hawks blog and you should be able to find them. Coach Drew even talked about the funk he thought Marvin was in because of the fact that he’s not always starting.
As for production, in all areas this year – his numbers are down, so I’m not sure what measure you’re using. Finally, he only showed up for 1 game vs. the Magic and none vs. the Bulls. What did I miss there?
As for Jamal, nope – it doesn’t get freed up because the Joe and Al extensions increase our outlay. The only reason we can get Jamal back is because of his Bird rights (and if that changes with the CBA – that might not work out either (and that would be a good thing)). Anyway, the Hawks will be the 5th or 6th seed if they bring back the same players as last year.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions
i have failed to understand bloggers’ insistence that the hawks are in horrible cap shape when they have always made sure to stay under the luxary tax. if the hawks are in trouble, are teams like the heat going to be forced to play 3 on 5 next year?
also, i am not saying they should bring back the same team as last year. they clearly need a big man with a complete game.
It's not an insistence
there’s no one who doesn’t know that we’re in horrible cap shape. Let’s assume the CBA is similar for next year. The cap is at $58M for this year, so let’s just make it $60M for next season. We’re already committed to $65M to 7 players (JJ, Horford, Smith, Teague, Zaza, Marvin, and Hinrich). There are some exceptions that will allow us $3M more million without incurring the tax. So, that’s $3M for 6 players. The minimum for vets and first round picks (which we don’t have) is around $1M. For 2nd round and rookie free agents around half a million (we only have a 2nd round draft pick if I’m not mistaken).
Now, the key here is that other teams in the Hawks position cap-wise are willing to pay the tax, so they can just sign players they want. So, there’s no worries in Heat land. Otherwise, teams trade players to avoid it or they’ve managed their cap well. We aren’t paying the tax due to our financial issues, so that means we will have another free agency where we are signing the Josh Powells of the world.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions
is that the usual cap inflation? 58mill to 60mill? i thought players salaries and salary caps generally inflate at a similar rate.
In reality
the cap will probably go down significantly this season giving the Hawks even less room to operate.
Remember they have to have 13 players on the roster
@Kris_Willis
No, that's not usual, he's just using it as an example.
In fact, the cap has decreased each year for the last 3-4 years, while player salaries have increased. Most player salaries in the NBA are structured to increase by a certain percentage each year, but depending on the negotiation some actually decrease. Teams may decide to have a player with an increasing salary so that they can afford more/better talent to win now, while others are willing to pay more up front and have a player’s salary decrease so that they are easier to move near the back end of their contract, which also is when most expensive players tend to decline.
Take Mike Bibby’s and JJ’s contract extensions by the Hawks as an example. When it was Bibby’s turn to get a new contract, it was pretty evident that he provided no defense whatsoever and that his offensive performance was beginning to slip. His contract was structed so that he was paid more up front and it declined each year. JJ’s contract should have been the same way because if you are going to sign a player for six years with a majority of those years being in the player’s 30’s, then you should know and understand that the player is more than likely to decline in performance. However, in the ASG’s infinite wisdom, they essentially handed JJ’s agent a blank piece of paper and a blank check and said, “your write it, we’ll sign it.” Even with the current trend of declining salary caps and future outlooks predicting yet another decline in the salary cap, the ASG still signed an increasing contract. Not smart.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
Completely agree with the Damien assesment
Throughout the playoffs, I kept wondering why Damien wasn’t getting more PT. When he is out there he hustles, attacks the basket, and defends. When Marvin is out there, he seems to disappear
My greatest sports achievement is taking a shot with Al Horford!
by allenjoseph5 on May 19, 2011 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with number two completely; I just said you could argue the point, i didn’t even try to argue it though
Yeah how many truly decent playoff performances has Joe Johnson had? All I know is every time Marvin isn’t the number five option he plays up to his contract
Truth
I can’t even tell you how frustrating it is that we’ve watched Joe Johnson be Michael Redd for the last 3-4 years where he gets numbers, but has no special-ness to him and yet folks wanted all last offseason to talk about how important Joe Johnson is to the Hawks. I promise that there are about 20 players in the league who can do about 80-90% of what he does for a fraction of the cost.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Say What Now?
There will be a report tomorrow on the Today Show discussing his role in an alleged sexual assault
Ugh, hadn’t heard about this somehow. Just read up on it here. Doesn’t look good for the plaintiff since the University judicial board already cleared Teague of any wrong-doing. But, why is this just now coming up, and why is she going on the Today show to tell this story? There must be something else here that we’re missing. That’s what worries me.
wow, its amazing this comes up
when Teague suddenly gets national attention
I like to think of Jeff Teague as our secret weapon..... so secret that the Atlanta coaches have no idea who he is.
I had not heard either
That story is strange, two years ago this happened and now she is coming out with it. You know athletes and actors will always get hit by lawsuits if they are not careful.
Regardless of truth of this matter, the focus is now on Teague. For better or worse, he is going to be analyzed and looked at a little differently. News media will look for any small transgressions and will make a big deal out of it. He needs to be ultra careful and not get himself mixed in situations like drinking & driving, or being in clubs in strange places and times. Reputation is something that will be very difficult to mend, once it is damaged.
It seems Josh has missed
the positive and negative list. Hope he’s not getting a pass….hmm?
Anyway, I think with number 2, the core has gotten stale and needs changing if the current management stays…(and in some cases if it doesn’t). I still wonder what this group would look like if a different coach (LD is still mostly Woody) would coach this team and actually strategize. As much as LD’s getting credit for winning the Orlando series and two games in the second round…….why couldn’t the Collins strategy work last year? Why couldn’t he get it through to Woody that that is what they should do? Thibs pretty much ran the defense in Boston and Doc credits him for that leading to him getting the Chicago job doing the same.
We had almost the same complaints about LD as we did with Woody in that the rotations never changed and the bench (outside of Jamal) was hardly used. Personnel changes were almost automatic, hierarchial type changes instead what was best as far as matchups are concerned.
Atlanta will win a championship....someday
collins drew two obvious charges on howard in game 2 last year that were called blocks. larry drew insisted on him losing weight if he were to make the team and he was a valuable member of the rotation all year and one of the keys to winning the orlando series.
valuable member of rotation?
uh, i’m not sure about that. I’ll give you that he was a factor in the orlando series, but he only played in 30-something games. Not a rotation make…
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
49 games at 12 mpg. was the starter in the big man lineup. semantics aside, twin was in the top 3 of the big man group, making him(in my opinions) a valuable member of the rotation. he would be great depth if we added a true starting big man in the offseason.
ok, well
i’ll just agree to disagree on whether he’s part of the rotation or valuable. I’d rather we play our 1st and 2nd best center all the time vs. the part-time DHoward stopper or just get a big man who can be a center and pair him with Zaza, then let Al Horford or Josh Smith pair up with another big man who is a factor on both ends of the court. I like that he was useful vs. the Magic, but against everyone else – he’s pretty useless.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions
let's put it this way
if he’s one of the top 10 players in the Hawks rotation, we’re in trouble when it comes to a deep run for the title. he’s a specialist at this stage of his career. You bring him in to play big guys for less than 15 minutes a game in about 30 games a year, so it’s hard to say that’s really valuable. I’d rather we get someone who can play both ends of the floor all 82 games.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
are we going to agree with each other that the hawks need a true big man until the sun comes up? i think collins is good depth.
sure
as the 5th big man in the C/PF rotation – Collins is useful
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Nope
Josh isn’t getting a pass, but he’s positive and negative, so I just didn’t list him. I guess I have a caveat for him because while I like Al’s discipline – I can’t get over the fact that Al didn’t show up for this thing we call..uh, the playoffs. So, I’m torn on who has to go – the guy who can be a superstar or the guy who is likely to stay a star (though not a superstar). Obviously, the shooting has to go, but I feel pretty strongly that that’s something coaching can fix. It may take lots of benching and tough love, but I can’t conceptualize that a coach can’t come in and say – we’ll just lose games until you get it through your head that I don’t want your 35% from outside no matter how hot you think you can get. A shot outside of 3 secs on the shot clock from outside 15 ft will find you on the bench and anyone who passes to Josh while he’s setup at the 3pt line will also find the bench.
Anyway, you already know much I would love to see our team with real coaching. There’s not much credit for him to receive as far as I’m concerned. Team regressed in regular season, we played a flawed team to win a round, and we played harder than we had before. So, you’re right – damn that LD.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
If we're really waiting on Josh to "get it"
We might as well wait for Joe to become a superstar, top five player in the league. This team’s growth has as much to do with Josh as it does with Joe and Al. I don’t see how coaching can help Josh and not help Joe.
Atlanta will win a championship....someday
True
Listen, I can’t argue that other than to say there’s 5-6 years of difference in age that can hopefully change the game. Much harder to get Joe to start coming off screens and to pass quicker, but yes – I agree that he can be coached MUCH better. The key is – will his game get better with the coaching. I’m not really convinced of that. I’ve never been enamored of Joe for the last 3 years. His first 2 years – he actually had a great game about once a week. Now, it’s surprising when he takes over. So, I don’t even know that when doing the ‘right’ things if he could get to superstar status. Part of his problem is as much in mentality as it is physical gifts. So, I agree Joe has to get it too, but I just don’t know if given the formula and if he executed it – if he’d give us superstar value. I do believe that if you take Josh off the perimeter, teach him to give the ball to the point guard 95% of the time after the rebound, and to stop carping with the refs that he’d be a top 20 player in the league.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Any man who can turn Speedy Claxton and Acie Law...
into the sixth man of the year? Come on? Was Jamal a defensive liability… sure. But, so is Kyle Korver, Mike Bibby and a lot of other players in the league.
Uh...
well if you look at Jamal as a benefit to the team, then ok, but I said then and say now that using the cap space (and that’s all he used, so it wasn’t that hard) to get a shooter at a position that you already had players wasn’t smart when you had other more pressing needs. Backup shooting guard was not the need position. So, as far as I’m concerned, sure – it was good and I said it was goo, but it’s not franchise changing at all. Getting the core of our team here is wayyy more valuable.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if you subtract Jamal and put nothing back on the team
Keep Jamal next season and we have an absolute glut at SG.
Not when you consider that JJ often plays the 3 while Crawford is in
And I wouldn’t call a solid 4-guard rotation a “glut”.
It's a glut when they all deserve and will expect significant minutes.
JJ needs to steal some minutes at SF just to create enough for any 3 of the guards and some developmental minutes.
Not to mention a ridiculous allocation of the cap to the backcourt.
JJ needs to be our SF, period...
it keeps Marvin from starting, and until we have a better option, that’s where he needs to be.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Maintaining status quo...
my thoughts would depend on Teague. Hinrich, at least to me, has shown he’s a better player at PG than when he has to play SG, but that wouldn’t bother me since Teague needs to develop for the future. Personally, if I’m Sund, my first target is Shane Battier (why does he always seem to be on teams that play way above their head, Memphis, Houston, etc. Maybe it’s his D, shooting, and all around smart play? If only Marvin had become a player like Battier, who his physical skills seem to mirror to me).
But I’d also want a defensive minded SG (even if it’s a starter in name only ala Deshawn Stevenson in Dallas), with Pietrus being my first choice if we could possibly afford him, allowing Joe to take SF and Hinrich to take Crawford’s minutes/6th man role.
Teague
Pietrus
Johnson
Smith
Horford
Hinrich, Marvin, and a C acquisition as the main bench pieces
with Zaza, Damien, and other young acquisitions rounding out the bench
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on May 22, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
It's just not
we need defense more than we need a backup SG who doesn’t play defense or provide ANY other intangibles. So, if we didn’t have Jamal, we’d get another guy, but with Kirk, JJ, and JT – we only need one more player who can shoot the ball and honestly, those can be found for cheaper than Jamal and hopefully a young guy (and this is why Jordan Crawford was important) fills that role. You don’t need 30 minutes from Jamal Crawford. Against good teams, you need a guy who does more than shoot the ball. He has to be servicable on both ends or extremely lights out. Jamal is not that guy.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
We already have Kirk, who can fill the 2-guard back-up role to better effect at both ends of the floor than what Jamal can.
Will making it back to the Eastern Conference Semis give Larry Drew another year at the helm?
i'd agree
but just like you don’t need a $10M backup shooting guard, you don’t need a $8M backup combo, so I agree but Hinrich as a trade chip is much more valuable in my eyes. As for a name, I’m not sure of the free agents, but as an example – we can have a shooter like Daquan Cook to come in and make some shots (not saying he’s a defensive master), but if you get him on the cheap, then you can ensure you have another guard that’s your defensive specialist.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 21, 2011 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
From the below link, the names that intrigue me most...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-11-12
Damien Wilkins
Nenad Krstic
Troy Murphy
Joel Pryzbilla
Rasual Butler
Anthony Parker
Tyson Chandler
Deshawn Stevenson
Arron Afflalo
Nene
Wilson Chandler
Jonas Jerebko
Tayshaun Prince
Deandre Jordan
Shannon Brown
Matt Barnes
Sam Young
Shane Battier
CDR
Brandan Wright
Marco Bellinelli
Daequan Cook
Thaddeus Young
Aaron Brooks
Grant Hill
Mickael Pietrus
Greg Oden
Patrick Mills
Marcus Thornton
Samuel Dalembert
Marquis Daniels
Sonny Weems
Julian Wright
Alexis Ajinca
CJ Miles
Nick Young
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on May 22, 2011 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
This may take a bit, bear with me
HawkStr8Talk: Rick Sund’s Negatives
Drafted Jordan Crawford – How is this a negative? Has played well (Offensively) since the move to Washington, and was an asset we flipped to get Kirk Hinrich.
Sold 1st round draft pick & getting no value out of 2nd round draft picks – I don’t think any fan supports selling picks, but I don’t blame that on Sund. When picks get sold I tend to think the owners are making those choices. And we have to wait-and-see on the 2nd round picks.
===
And once again, I don’t really count attendance as a GM’s duties. So if you take it away from BK’s positives, you are left with only 2 positives for the guy.
Resigned Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, Marvin Williams, and Maurice Evans to cap killing contracts – JJ was getting paid that money by somebody. You can debate if we should have resigned Joe, but the price tag isn’t the issue. Mike Bibby and Mo Evans were traded for Kirk. And Marv…. well that’s a swing and a miss.
Traded away 1st round draft pick and Jordan Crawford for Kirk Hinrich (further muddying our cap situation) – The cap situation is something to be worried about. But at the same time I feel like the front office of a NBA team has more info on what the next CBA is going to look like. Kirk Hinrich was a good move, he helps this team. The draft pick was arguably overkill, but didn’t you just say drafting JoCro was a mistake by Sund? Bibby and Mo were not gonna get us Kirk, so it was JC2 and a pick for Hinrich. I’ll give Sund a slight reprive for trading the pick only because it’s a horrible draft and everyone is trading picks.
Poor cap management – He’s done a fairly decent job at keeping us under. But I understand the criticism.
Hired the backup of the guy he fired – Larry Drew was a success. I will argue about THAT at another time, though.
No use of the D League for players who need seasoning – Pape Sy? injuries and the trade were the only reason he came back to the bigs.
Started falling back in attendance to 22nd – This is the GM’s fault?
Signed Joe Smith, Jason Collins, Josh Powell, Randolph Morris, & Etan Thomas to all be back up big men (did I mention that we sold a 1st round draft pick while signing these guys?) – While Jason actually helped out a lot, I agree with you here. At the same time there weren’t many alternatives. Most of the bigs in the draft we could have grabbed are stapled to the bench or in the D-League. It was a lose-lose situation.
HawkStr8Talk: Rick Sund’s Negatives
Drafted Jordan Crawford – How is this a negative? Has played well (Offensively) since the move to Washington, and was an asset we flipped to get Kirk Hinrich.
Sold 1st round draft pick & getting no value out of 2nd round draft picks – I don’t think any fan supports selling picks, but I don’t blame that on Sund. When picks get sold I tend to think the owners are making those choices. And we have to wait-and-see on the 2nd round picks.
Resigned Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, Marvin Williams, and Maurice Evans to cap killing contracts – JJ was getting paid that money by somebody. You can debate if we should have resigned Joe, but the price tag isn’t the issue. Mike Bibby and Mo Evans were traded for Kirk. And Marv…. well that’s a swing and a miss.
Traded away 1st round draft pick and Jordan Crawford for Kirk Hinrich (further muddying our cap situation) – The cap situation is something to be worried about. But at the same time I feel like the front office of a NBA team has more info on what the next CBA is going to look like. Kirk Hinrich was a good move, he helps this team. The draft pick was arguably overkill, but didn’t you just say drafting JoCro was a mistake by Sund? Bibby and Mo were not gonna get us Kirk, so it was JC2 and a pick for Hinrich. I’ll give Sund a slight reprive for trading the pick only because it’s a horrible draft and everyone is trading picks.
Poor cap management – He’s done a fairly decent job at keeping us under. But I understand the criticism.
Hired the backup of the guy he fired – Larry Drew was a success. I will argue about THAT at another time, though.
No use of the D League for players who need seasoning – Pape Sy? injuries and the trade were the only reason he came back to the bigs.
Started falling back in attendance to 22nd – This is the GM’s fault?
Signed Joe Smith, Jason Collins, Josh Powell, Randolph Morris, & Etan Thomas to all be back up big men (did I mention that we sold a 1st round draft pick while signing these guys?) – While Jason actually helped out a lot, I agree with you here. At the same time there weren’t many alternatives. Most of the bigs in the draft we could have grabbed are stapled to the bench or in the D-League. It was a lose-lose situation.
===
And once again, I don’t really count attendance as a GM’s duties. So if you take it away from BK’s positives, you are left with only 2 positives for the guy.
My retort
First, if you’re not going to blame Sund for draft pick stuff, then how can you do it for Knight. That’s really his big negative. Yes, I think attendance factors into why we have no money, so yes – that matters..not hugely, but matters.
Second, I dispute greatly that Joe was getting paid that money by any smart GM. Almost everyone in the NBA was saying that the Hawks were bidding against themselves. Yes, franchises were saying they were interested in Joe. They weren’t saying they were interested in paying him max money. And it doesn’t matter that those guys were traded, that it was bad to sign them in the first place. The cost in signing them was in lost time for Teague and for the players who we might have brought in to greater value to the franchise (and a cap friendly price). Oh, and the draft pick and Crawford lost in the meantime.
Third, everyone keeps saying Hinrich was a good move. It wasn’t. We didn’t get any farther with Hinrich than we did with Bibby the last two seasons, so if you’re going to go all in – it better pay off. It didn’t. Not in the regular season or playoffs. I’m not giving Sund a reprieve at all for the draft. Just because every team doesn’t win in the draft doesn’t mean we should accept it when some players do come from them. Is it every season that we have to say – oh, well – only 50% of the teams got players, so if we’re not one of them..we’re just like the other 15. No, we haven’t gotten ONE player from the draft to play for us since Sund hit town. Teague might be the first.
He hasn’t done a good job of giving us VALUE for the cap. So, yes – we aren’t over. That’s not what I meant. To not be over, you can just say – we’re not signing anyone else over this amount. That’s what we’ve done and our signings reflect it. We’ve paid everyone at the minimum and our bench reflects it. So, no, the cap management is awful. That’s why we weren’t a player for even the mid-level guys during the biggest influx of free agent talent EVER b/c we’re bidding against ourselves for Joe Johnson and in past years – Marvin, Mike, Mo, Zaza, etc.
And yes, let’s definitely debate Larry Drew as a success – that certainly will be an argument.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
As far as the draft goes
I was saying I’m not gonna blame Sund for SELLING picks. All of the picks that were made or traded are up for scrutiny, though.
Sund hasn’t even been around long enough to judge his draft picks. You can’t say they’ve been a bust after one year/two years. Especially the overseas players.
The only retort I have real issue with is the idea that Hinrich wasn’t a good move. He did miss the Chicago series, so you can argue he didn’t work out, but the acquisition itself was a good one.
we'll disagree
I don’t think it was…the relative difference btw Hinrich and Bibby isn’t big enough to justify taking on more salary when you have other needs and giving up on the replacement for JC1 and the young cheap talent you could have selected at 18 this year. If he was a put us over the top talent, I’d agree, but to simply tread water – it’s the kind of move that keeps your team from getting better (as in get you to the next level of the playoffs better). And that didn’t happen, so it’s a bad trade.
As for his draft picks, I’ll simply say – there’s no indication AT ALL that any of the overseas guys will ever play a minute in the NBA and I wouldn’t even complain about that if you didn’t buy out Sy’s contract in order to not play him. That’s just idiotic. Teague is a talent – you hope he doesnt’ get ruined with Drew’s reluctance to play him. Same for Crawford – if you get the guy at the shooting guard position and you trade Jamal and he does similar things for cheaper – that move makes sense and is a win. If you don’t play him and you keep Jamal, then it was wasted pick. Soooo, right now, it’s tracking toward a lose. If he turns out to be a good player up to star level, we’ll give an A for scouting, but then a F for trading him for a player that doesn’t put you over the top. Which means you still don’t gain ground in terms of your ability to be a good GM.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
you cant say that hinrich didnt put us over the top because he had put us past orlando when he suffered a TRAGIC injury. if you think jeff teague would have been able to do what he did against chicago against dwight howard you might be crazy. he did a great job on rose and will be a great asset next year, but hinrich is the starter and he was able to get the offense to work with the best defender in the league under the goal, while jeff teague was able to get miracle layups for himself against the bulls, but everything else outside of josh smith pretty much stopped.
Well, as I said
we simply disagree. I didn’t see a smooth offensive operation going on vs. the Magic. I saw a hot Crawford and an awful Magic squad outside of Howard. Since I had higher expectations than getting past the 1st round when the season started (well, let me take that back – I did if we started Teague from day 1), getting past the Magic is not getting us over the top. The goal isn’t 1st round or even 2nd round wins for everything that we gave up to get him. So, if your position is that Hinrich is better than Teague, then that’s your opinion. Let’s go with that. Even if that’s true, it’s still not going to make us a better team than 4-5 other teams in the East next year and didn’t this year…even if he was healthy, there’s a lot of doubt as to whether we win that series b/c you have to subtract out what Teague accomplished. So, I say to you – it doesn’t matter if the outcome is – we still can’t get past the 2nd round and we’re now without assets and even money to get better with.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 20, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
I get where you’re coming from. But, despite not getting the RESULT you wanted (i.e. getting to the 3rd round) would you admit that the team was better in the playoffs overall, and that we could be better next year?
I don't....
we won more games in the second round, but we lost, and only won when their best player had off nights.
As for next year, I see no reason to think a team that has shown a veteran team with a hard 2nd round ceiling will somehow break that through a year older, and looking at the current roster/salary situation, will almost certainly be thinner too. How are we going to magically get better without the ability to improve the problems of depth, lack of a C, poor team play, etc.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
We only won when their best player had off nights?
I think our defense had something to do with DRose having a few off nights.
Last year we got blown out in three losses to the Bucks, having to go to 7 games after being up 2-0. Then we had the the WORST playoff series in NBA history. Not Atlanta playoff history, NBA! I would say we definitely improved. And fixing up some of the mistakes from this year will be a process, but it’s too soon for you to simply say we’re never gonna make it past the 2nd round. We ARE in an upward trend whether you admit it or not.
I would admit
that we did better in the playoffs this year, but I don’t agree that we’ll be better next year. The difference between this year and the last 2 years was effort, not talent or skill. So, I would say that we should have won 1-2 games those last two years if we tried. We didn’t and we got our asses handed to us. So, no – I don’t see any upward swing. I don’t see the team getting better and particularly not relative to the other teams. The other teams are all getting better as teams in talent AND experience. All we’re doing is hoping experience gets us over the hump. I’m not convinced it makes much of a difference for us going forward.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 22, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
you dont subtract what teague accomplished. you factor him in off the bench, bringing defensive balance and a much more effective offensive threat. its a fact that we met our demise in the second round. it is also a fact that you cant call hinrich a failure in improvement due to the fact that an injury can happen to anyone. shit happens. it is an easy stance to take that “if teague had played from day 1 we would have EASILY won the world series” because it is infallibly hypothetical. if youre saying hinrich wasnt key in defeating orlando, straight talk aint your game. either way, next year we are going to have a 2 man point guard rotation that can score and play defense, making the trade a success. it wasnt a one year must win now deal, it gave us a necessary improvement last year and the improvement will remain through next year. so please stop disgracing the term straight talk with crooked talk.
first...respect
so, that’s just the first thing we should establish. I respect your opinion and vice versa. Ok, that said…I am simply going to say that the 3 guard rotation of Hinrich, Teague, and Johnson is not inspiring me to think that that’s all we need to become a contender. So, I didn’t mention anything about Hinrich not having a role in defeating the Magic. I also am not of the notion that beating the Magic meant that we grew in the postseason. We’ve been winning 1st round series…we’ve been doing ok in that realm, but it’s beyond that where we have trouble. So, the trade is not a success to me if the trade further kills your ability to add the talent you need to get over the 2nd round hump.
You talk about necessary improvement and all I remember is that we went 11-20 upon his arrival. So, yes, he was good in the Magic series, but that is not indicative of trade success. Lots of factors go into that. So, we’ll see what happens, but if you think Hinrich by himself makes us a contender – you can have that opinion..I just happen to not share it.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 22, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Can we really judge Sund yet?
It’s easy to judge BK now since his moves have had time to pan out. But, Sunds moves haven’t. What if Teague turns into a All-Star? What if Pape Sy turns into a starter. What if
ok
and if that happens – I’ll reassess, but at this juncture – he’s had enough time to see the fruits of his labor and so far I see two good contracts (Smith and Zaza), one that could be good (Al) and a bunch of carnage cap-wise. One possible good draft pick that’s been stunted by the coach he selected. A complete mystery pick in Sy, who I wouldn’t blame him for if it wasn’t for the fact that he bought out the contract to bring him here and no inkling that he’ll touch the court anytime soon, even as a part of the rotation.
so, yes – he can be judged…
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Comparing Rotten apple to poisoned apple
The whole BK vs. Sund thing, has now morphed into who is better GM?
I think if we are talking drafting for Hawks, BK record is not defendable.
But as Mr Sanchez said on another thread, if we need to look before Hawks, it is not as easy to say BK sucks worse than Sund.
If you generalize the discussion into who is the better GM, as opposed to drafting for Hawks, it becomes more diffiuclt to answer.
You must ask yourself a simple question though, why is BK not hired anywhere else yet? Why is Sund around?
Like I said not much to choose from when the choice is one of two bad apples. But Hawks fans will not agree with you about BK, you have to take your BK friendly glasses off. Hawks are where we are with an unbalanced team exactly because of BK, not because of things Sund has done. No comparison. Or you are just missing the reality of our situation
by ATLpaul on May 19, 2011 5:36 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
They both have their faults and both missed out on some opportunities.
How many GM’s in the league can you say that about?
@Kris_Willis
tons
I also give him credit for taking a really bad situation and turning it into a playoff squad vs. taking a pretty good foundation and finding a way to push into a position where it has very little growth opportunity. It’s pretty clear that unless some genius move comes about – we’ll have to go backward to go forward and that is not Knight’s fault in the slightest. All the contracts have come back around, so Sund made the decision to double down all on his own.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
WE're going to just disagree on this one
I tend to think this is one of those things that’s not fact based, but more emotional for people who would give Sund a pass and Knight not. Kinda like LeBron not being the best player in the NBA. The hate is so strong on him because of the Decision that all kinds of criticism that’s emotional is added to the mix when evaluating him. So, again, I’m not in any way saying Billy Knight missed out on some exec of the year situations or anything of the sort. I am saying – you don’t have a team that was seeded #3 last year, that has all stars, etc without Billy Knight. You can argue that maybe it’s a better team if he makes more moves, but bottom line – you can’t argue that and that includes the moves in trading, free agency, and the draft.
I completely agree that he flubbed some picks. I also said that if you are going to give Sund a pass for ASG meddling, you should be able to figure out that his former boss had to deal with the same thing and in the one case I know about – Deron Williams – to disastrous results. So, that’s all. As for the BK re-hire, I would answer it by saying – I am not saying he’s a ripe peach. I acknowledge his faults. The message is not – why BK was awesome? It was BK is better than Sund to highlight how BAD Sund has been in his tenure here and to not let the emotion of Marvin and Shelden overshadow what good BK did (and that we still enjoy to this day) vs. what Sund isn’t doing. And under that prism, it’s not even close. As for why Sund’s around, this is ASG we’re talking about, right? You should be able to answer that question for yourself.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
We agree on one thing
Lebron is the best player in NBA.
Rose is the MVP because of his singular value to his team but i would not even put Rose as my starting point guard on the NBA first team (that belong to the esteemed CP3).
true
it’s not even questionable to me – the hate is so strong. LeBron is the best. Rose was the MVP. That’s easy enough to see, but folks want to throw up smoke screens like – he misses end of game shots and he doesn’t have a mid-range game. And to that I say – so what? Shaq couldn’t shoot free throws and had very little outside of 4 ft and he still was an all-time great. LBJ is the best player of his generation and it’s not even close.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Write this down
I agree with with most of your “truths”. I’m still on the fence about Knight vs Sund, but I can see where you’re going with that.
@ I_20sFinest
WOW
Peace in the Middle East is coming next
Atlanta Spirit Group: Destroying Atlanta sports and the hopes and dreams of Hawks and Thrashers' fans since 2004.
by a hooter's baby on May 19, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
True indeed
but I think dstdeelite understands that I’m not anti-hawks. I’m anti-hawks not trying to win this title :). Anyway, I think I’ve stirred people into thinking my point about Knight is to make him exec of the year. It’s certainly not. It’s simply to say – at minimum, Knight’s players are still playing for the team and in many ways are the reason for our relative success. Sund’s moves and additions are not contributing even close to as well. If we really look at it, all he had to do was fill out the bench and he’s had a lot of trouble doing that. hey, is that dst stand for delta sigma theta? If so, I see why she dislikes me so – the Nupes have that effect :) Carry on…
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
How is Jordan Crawford a negative
and why and how is the attendance issue a GM problem? That is a league wide problem beyond GM’s right?
by xavip on May 19, 2011 6:45 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Here's how
Jordan Crawford was presumably selected to replace JC1. If that wasn’t the plan, then it was a stupid selection. If it was the plan, we didn’t trade Jamal in order to get an asset that could fill another void in the team (SF or C). The perception was that point guard was the problem, but we can see that point guard had talent – we just weren’t playing it. So, if you trade Jordan and esp. if we resign Jamal – it was a negative.
As for attendance, the revenue comes from putting on a product that people want to see. It’s an indirect reflection of your team. A team that doesn’t play hard and is inconsistent. That’s his imprint on the team by way of the coach and players. The GM has his fingerprints on all parts – marketing, scouting, sales, etc. I’m not going to tell you it’s the biggest thing to judge a GM by, but I will say that Knight to them from 30th to 20th. We’ve now dropped to 22nd. It’s a nitpick, so let’s not make this too big of a point.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 19, 2011 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Well if JC2 was a negative because of your reasoning, then Teague has to be a negative
Also if he never plays and we make a trade to strengthen a position he is playing right? Why draft Teague in the 1st place if Sund eventually traded a contract that expires sooner for a longer contract, a promising SG, and a 1st rd pick? I think the drafting of both players was a positive in finding players that can contribute sooner than later which can/ could have help with our cap issues. The personnel moves as a whole after the drafting of these players are the problems.
And I won’t make the attendance too big of an issue even though you listed it. But I still think in the 2009-2010 season when we went 34-7 at home there was no reason we should have been 18th in attendance. That is not a GM problem.
by xavip on May 20, 2011 12:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
But is that a GM negative or coaching negative?
Str8’s got a good point, that if we swap Jamal for a SF or C, Jordan Crawford showed he could give similar occassional hot hand scoring, and maybe more in other areas like movement, defense, etc. Jamal does have a certain flair off his tough shots and routine 4 pt plays, but I’d take Jordan and bring in a SF or C. This team would have looked a lot better imo that way, if they’d carved out playing time for the two young Gs.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
I agree with this as well
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
That's actually fair
as Mr. Sanchez says – I’d say that Teague will be a bigger negative on the ledger of Drew more than Sund. Now, you could say that it’s on Sund to tell Drew that he’s not making that trade and that you better start playing teague if you want to get better perimeter play and to suck up the 3pt shooting. But Hoopinion brought up some great points in his blog (definitely check that out) about the fact that if you didn’t select Drew (and we are fairly sure that he didn’t – ASG did) as the coach, then what kind of sway do you actually hold with the coach that you didn’t hire. So, the GM has to get you talent. Teague is a talent. The fact that the coach doesn’t play him is a coach/player problem, not the GM problem.
The only way that’s a negative for Sund is if Woodson/Drew said – yo, I’m not playing that Wake Forest kid, so if you draft him…just know that he needs about 3-4 years of seasoning and I’m not down for that. If that was said, then maybe (just maybe) that’s a Sund problem.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 20, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with a lot of what you said.
I’m not a big Rick Sund fan, but I cannot put the mis management of the cap solely at his feet. As I stated in another post, I think Michael Gearon Jr is pulling all the string behind the scenes, and Rick Sund is simply doing what he has been told to do.
IMO, Sund can be 100% faulted for being a complete push over and a yes man.
1000%
Can’t argue that at all. Without knowing the inner workings of things, I can say that if that’s the truth, then yes – I default to the pushover and yes man disappointment. And I think even that gives Billy Knight a leg up. He did participate in some of it, but not all of it and for that, I can’t be mad that he just said – you know what…I quit.
Hawk Str8Talk
by Hawk Str8Talk on May 20, 2011 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Peachtree Hoops
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Heat grabbed control behind LeBron James’ amazing afternoon
- Behind the Box Score, where the Oklahoma City Thunder dominated the fourth quarter. Again
- Kevin Durant’s game-winner beats the Lakers in Game 4 (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Los Angeles Lakers answered at home
- Pau Gasol wins the 2011-2012 J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award
