Hawks have hired Rick Sund as new general manager

HoopsGuru25 · Post #41 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Thu May 29, 2008 6:22 pm

Rip you don't think Mcmillan leaving had anything to do with Paul Allen offering $10 million more than Seattle's owners did? You are really overrating the 'disrespect card". The reason that Joe and McMillan left is because the Hawks and the Blazers were willing to pay more money. It's as simple as that. They may say it's not about the money but it always is.

As for Wilcox. He's a big man...big men always get more than players like Childress. Look at the contracts handed out recently. Darko 3 years $21 million...Kwame 3 years $24 million...Gooden 3 years $23 million...Harrington 4 years $35 million(and a 1st round pick). Wilcox isn't overpaid at all...infact I'd say Sund did a very good job negotiating since Wilcox wanted alot more(5 years $55 million range). That's not even getting into the $10 million dollar per year range with players like Chandler/Nene/Kaman/ Dalembert who are signed for 5-6 years. I only consider people overpaid when you couldn't trade them for an expiring contract....that's clearly not the case with Wilcox.

Rip2137 · Post #42 » by **Rip2137** » Thu May 29, 2008 7:12 pm

But to me, Darko, Kwame and Drew are all ridiculously overpaid. By your definition of overpaid, then you are right, he isn't. he could get traded for an expiring, but basically every GM in the league openly pointed out that he didn't play with any passion until a contract year then he all of a sudden looked like he could play. I think that should be known as pulling a Tim Thomas. No one else touched him and his salary request because everyone knew he would regress afterwards, which he did.

As for the Nate thing, yes, Paul Allen offering all that money had something to do with it. What also had something to do with it was that he didn't resign nate to an extension when he obviously should have, just like Joe. The Portlands and Atlanta's never should have had a chance to over pay if the people were treated with the respect they earned. Nate wanted a extension before the year and Sund wouldn't do it. During the year, he wouldn't discuss it. After the season was over it took Nate all of 3 minutes to jump ship to Portland. That was just mismanagement of the situation all together on the Sonics side, but if you want to give GM's props for hiring great coaches you have to give them a minus for losing a great coach.

HoopsGuru25 · Post #43 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:35 pm

I think Sund is a slight upgrade from BK. I have no problem with his free agency and trades. He has some bad moves(Calvin Booth)but everything else seems logical even if it didn't work out. I think his trades for Ray Allen and Wilcox were steals considering that Payton and Radmonovich left for L.A. after only 2 months with the Bucks/Clippers. He has yet to make a draft pick that altered the fate of his franchise but his picks lead me to believe he has no creativity or eye for talent. Picking 3 centers for 3 years in a row is like if BK picked Rondo/Conley/Law for 3 consecutive picks after realizing that he missed on Paul.

I think it could potentially be a good hire if Sund is really in charge. They need to bring in someone else as an assistant GM to help him with the draft though.

killbuckner · Post #44 » by **killbuckner** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:39 pm

I just really hope that he understands that you don't need a dominant center to win in the NBA these days.

Rip2137 · Post #45 » by **Rip2137** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:41 pm

I will agree. He is a slight upgrade to Billy if nothing else because he isn't a a-hole to the media and the fans just because.

But he is a guy that sits pretty stagnant and that bothers me. he rarely even made tweaks in Seattle. He would just jump in when there was somthing there for the taking. Hell, I am still convinced that the only reason that he made the Wilcox trade was because Rad told him he wouldn't resign and wanted to be traded.

StutterStep · Post #46 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 7:16 pm

HoopsGuru25 wrote:The 2004,2005,and 2006 drafts make him look like an idiot. His draft picks don't look like he actually has an eye for talent(like a Danny Ainge or Isiah Thomas). I know Seattle has needed a center for years but it looks like he just picked the highest rated center available and hoped that one of the projects turned out to be good..NONE of them have and Swift and Sene are staring to look like busts(Petro is a decent backup).
:
:
He also wasn't dumb enough to re-sign Jerome James which has to count for something.

He would have been better off paying Jerome the MLE-level deal, instead of wasting 3 draft picks, right?

HoopsGuru25 · Post #47 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 7:26 pm

StutterStep wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He would have been better off paying Jerome the MLE-level deal, instead of wasting 3 draft picks, right?

Jerome James has sucked his entire career except for a couple of playoff series though. Does drafting 3 redundant players 3 years in a row make any more sense than giving the full MLE to a bum? This is like asking if drafting Shelden was worse than signing Blo Wright. Sure the Shelden pick did more damage...but that doesn't mean signing a useless player like Blo wasn't just as dumb.

He actually would have been better off signing Zaza(who has been a quality rotation player for 2 of his 3 years)or Diop. James,Hunter,and Gadzurich are all free agent busts.

Rip2137 · Post #48 » by **Rip2137** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 7:34 pm

To be fair, Diop was a overweight bum that didn't put forth any effor to get better before he got to Dallas. that would have been just as bad of a pick up.

And i can't really blame Gad either. He gave them exactly what he was giving them before the contract. It was just a dumb offer.

StutterStep · Post #49 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 8:08 pm

HoopsGuru25 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Jerome James has sucked his entire career except for a couple of playoff series though. Does drafting 3 redundant players 3 years in a row make any more sense than giving the full MLE to a bum? This is like asking if drafting Shelden was worse than signing Blo Wright. Sure the Shelden pick did more damage...but that doesn't mean signing a useless player like Blo wasn't just as dumb.

He actually would have been better off signing Zaza(who has been a quality rotation player for 2 of his 3 years)or Diop. James,Hunter,and Gadzurich are all free agent busts.

Yes, it would have made more sense to give up the MLE money and draft more wisely. As you said yourself he has drafted not only redundant but USELESS players for 3 consecutive years at the same position.

Think about it, Zaza had one good year since you acquired him. Imagine instead of acquiring him, you had drafted with your picks, 3 busts at Center, who are still on your roster.

HoopsGuru25 · Post #50 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 8:17 pm

Stutter I don't think you get the point. It doesn't matter...you are asking me if one terrible move was better than one non-terrible move. If you need to sign Jerome James in order to stop yourself from making a dumb draft pick then you are not qualified to be a GM. Even the thought of letting Jerome James(or even a better player like Zaza)influence your draft picks is hilarious. I could sign a random guy in the NBDL for the league minimum who would be more productive than Jerome James.

BTW Zaza has had 2 productive years with the Hawks. Even Zaza at his worst(this year)has been 100000x more useful than James in his entire career with the Knicks combined.

StutterStep · Post #51 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 8:29 pm

HoopsGuru25 wrote:Stutter I don't think you get the point. It doesn't matter...you are asking me if one terrible move was better than one non-terrible move.

:
:
BTW Zaza has had 2 productive years with the Hawks. Even Zaza at his worst(this year)has been 100000x more useful than James in his entire career with the Knicks combined.

You are right on Zaza being better than James... that was never in question.

But, I don't get your point on why a terrible move of James wouldn't have been better than wasting 3 picks... but I guess it's just a matter of preferences.

HoopsGuru25 · Post #52 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 8:39 pm

StutterStep wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You are right on Zaza being better than James... that was never in question.

But, I don't get your point on why a terrible move of James wouldn't have been better than wasting 3 picks... but I guess it's just a matter of preferences.

I think the 3 picks are worse but that doesn't really matter. 3(maybe 2 because Petro is ok)is always bigger than 1 mistake. My point is that you shouldn't have to make one mistake to avoid making another mistake. It's the same thing as Hawks fans saying "if we didn't pass on ____then we wouldn't have been able to draft _____". Good GM's don't give Jerome James $30 million and good GM's don't just draft 3 project centers and hope that one of them pans out.