I have to disagree with all this.ATLHawksfan21 wrote:I think ranking Scott by bigs is not the most efficient way to do it. Brand and Antic will both get all of their minutes at C so I don't see the point in including them. Scott will get most of his minutes at PF and he could end up getting a good bit at SF, depending on the matchup, if he shows improvement in the areas that are needed for that position. Scott will probably be the first PF off the bench to start the season.
SF: Demarre, Thabo?, Scott
PF: Millsap, Scott, Payne, Horford
I'm not sure if Muscala gets the majority of his minutes at PF or C. I forget what our rotations looked like when he played last year and they should look different with a healthy roster.
1st, I know we all want Scott to be able to play SF (it would solve so many problems), but the issue is that he was generally pretty terrible at it in the scant minutes he played there the last 2 seasons. If he was any good there, do you honestly think that Cartier Martin would have gotten as many minutes as he did last season? I mean, Cartier was heroic for us, but he's replacement level at best. Or that Coach Bud would be wheeling out 3 PG lineups which he did especially late in the season when Korver or Demarre was out? All I ask here is that we at least wait until he actually proves he can play the position before we anoint him a spot on the DC... h3ll, I'd take the proof even if it came from the D-League.
2nd, the problem with assigning positions (i.e., Scott is the PF backup) is that this isn't and won't be how the minutes break out. Since Horford can play extended minutes at PF, Scott will have to overcome both a) the head to head battle against the backup Cs and b) whatever premium the coaching staff would put on being able to move Horford over to PF for spells (if any, I know us fans would like this but I don't know if the coaching staff actually cares). In the end, there's 96 minutes per (excluding OT) between PF and C and I expect - and hope - that Millsap and Horford will be getting 60-65 of those. Hence, there's only 33-38 minutes that Scott is competing for. If Antic helps us win more games by giving him 20 minutes at C and moving Horford to PF over inserting Scott @ PF, then no one has to guess as to who'll get those minutes. The only exception to this will be Payne who could get some "developmental" minutes as a 1st round pick... maybe Muscala could get some of those too. Unfortunately, I can't see a 26 yo 3rd year vet as someone who gets developmental minutes - either he wins his minutes or he rides the pine.
ATLHawksfan21 wrote:How exactly has the signing of guys like Scott and Mack affected our ability to land bigger names? I'm assuming that's what you are saying with this line. "we argue "flexibility" at every opportunity and want values across the board to the point were we're losing out on our top FA picks"
We lost out on our top FA picks because Horford went down last season along with several other injuries. Players see a 38 win season and think we're the same old Hawks team of old. We have to start consistently winning and finishing in the top 4 of the East while making noise in the playoffs before we start turning heads on the FA front. The best way to do that is by trying to win now while remaining flexibility, which seems like exactly what Ferry is doing.
Spent money on defense on guys who didn't shoot well last season?? Bazemore shot 37% from 3 once he started receiving regular PT with the Lakers. Thabo had a slow start to the season in the first 7 games and he struggled to shoot at the end of the season when he was recovering from an injury. He shot over 37% from 3 in the 49 games of the middle portion of the season. This is after shooting over 40% for the prior two years.
and once again you won't attract stars unless you start winning. Ferry is trying to win, while remaining flexible, so he can jump at the right star when the moment comes. We have to start winning first and this team is good enough to get the job done. We just need to stay healthy!
No, I don't think that an FA will say no to us because we have Scott or Mack nor do I think an FA would day no to us because we had Lou on the roster and Bebe overseas. Just that when it comes time for Ferry to decide he wants his flexibility again, Scott's contract in particular shines like a beacon that you can get out from it fairly easily without having to give up a king's ransom in the way of assets - again like Lou. 2 years ago, I wouldn't have thought that I'd be in favor of dumping Lou to get enough room to offer the max, but here we are. I see no reason to think the Scott contract will be much different.
Having said this, I do think you're a bit off-base with our FA pursuits. I think the reasons why we're not attracting FAs runs much deeper than one guy - or even a handful - getting injured. I'm not saying we didn't seem cursed last year - we did (dear God we did) - but we've been winning and that hasn't been the silver bullet that it seems your stating here. Look, you're an ATL fan as I am. Considering that you're as happy as I am just to while away the time discussing the team, I'd assume you're in the top 10% of Hawks' fans in terms of passion for the team. Even so, you cite that 38 wins as the same ole Hawks. But recent history says this isn't the same ole Hawks - we have the 2nd longest playoff streak in the NBA (outside the Spurs). At this point, the same ole Hawks team is a 2-and-out team which would also be a top 4 seed. Our problem isn't winning, it's perception. People see us as losers - h3ll, our own fans see us as losers - but we're not.
That isn't all though, we also have to analyze how we're going after FAs. If you're fishing for the Lunker, then you don't put bread crumbs on the hook. I've brought up on this board in the past what we pitch versus what other teams pitch and we're far inferior. Take us versus the field in the Dwight sweepstakes last year. HOU had a presentation and then brought in players - past and present - to woo him. IIRC, Hakeem was present; Parsons openly recruited him before, during, and after (albeit he had some selfish motives for doing so). LAL's presentation was similarly large and Kobe played a part. We show up with Ferry and the newly hired Coach Bud... no players, no steaks, no women - just two married white guys with 9 (!) kids between them. Being the "Hip Hop Capital", you'd think we could add a little zest. I think this attitude drips down as well and I cite our players reluctance to recruit others to help win. Noah openly admitted to recruiting players at the AS game; D-Wade recruiting Bosh and LeBron while with Team USA - these are just 2 high profile examples. How many times have you heard of Korver parlaying his VP of the Player's Union into a friendship with an upcoming FA? Or Horford's or Millsap's AS appearances being what amounts to a Rush Week? When Koonin came in, he talked about putting some zest back into the club and I was hoping that the 1st area he'd hit was how we pursued FAs. Apparently, we haven't turned that corner yet.
One last thing: Bazemore had a nice run with LAL but still shot < 34% from 3 for the season and doesn't really have a track record of being a shooter; Thabo's numbers were obviously down last year. Still, I don't care about this except to say this: I actually think it's a solid bet for us right now to bet on our shooting coach. Not only did Millsap and Demarre show an incredible turnaround last season in their deep shooting, but it seemed that everyone across the board had some improvement (except Teague although he took a bigger role in the O overall so there was a trade-off there). Now, sure, you don't go from < 30% to league average without a lot of things clicking and the shooting coach is just one aspect of this, but still... that guy worked wonders last season. I don't even know who the guy is, but I'm a believer in him.
I answered part of this above, but I'll put this out here: as of right now, Mike Scott is no better than the 6th best shooting big we have under contract right now. In terms of strictly shooting a set shot, Horford and Millsap are easy; Muscala and Payne have the reputation and pedigree; I'd also take Antic over him... Brand too if we sign him. Now, Scott is a far better scorer than some of those, but as a shooter, I think you are overrating him by quite a bit here.azuresou1 wrote:Agree with ATLHawksfan in that we shouldn't be ranking Scott by bigs, but rather by likely minutes played at the forward positions. Furthermore, I think you can never have enough quality bigs or enough shooters, and Scott happens to fit both criteria at once.
I think Scott helps us win games, and it will be particularly evident in the playoffs when Scott can be the second big/forward off of the bench and playing effective minutes while other teams are bringing in guys like Kevin Seraphin or Bismack Biyombo.
I think we're very much looking to San Antonio for inspiration, and noticing how shooters like Patty Mills and Gary Neal have come off the bench in the playoffs and had huge impacts on games. I'd expect that we look for Mike Scott to have a similar role.
The other thing here is the comment on SAS. I see a lot of things about SAS, but I have to say that paying someone $3.3M to be in the deep rotation is about at the bottom of the list I can see SAS doing. Their hallmarks are a) having role players who can be positive on court contributors throughout the rotation and b) never overpaying them. Let me put it this way: Gary Neal was a sometimes starter who played more minutes than Scott albeit he was slightly older. When MIL offered Neal a contract somewhat similar to Scott's, SAS didn't bother to put up a fight, they just went to the next guy. This is the difference between us and SAS - SAS has the confidence they can find the next guy and won't overpay the current guy because of it. Not only did we overpay, but we overpaid against a (fictitious) Russian team.
