Can we just move on?

[smabie]

I know, we didn't draft Chris Paul. We didn't draft Deron Williams. We didn't draft Luol Deng.

But you know what? We traded our pick in 2001 for Sharif Abdur Rahim, instead of picking Pau Gasol, Eddie Curry, Joe Johnson (a lot cheaper than trading for him), Richard Jefferson, Troy Murphy, Zach Randolph. We did draft Jamaal Tinsley instead of Tony Parker.

If we hadn't traded away our 2002 pick, we could have had Amare Stoudamire. Picked David Andersen instead of Juan Carlos Navarro.

In 1999, we drafted Cal Bowdler and Dion Glover and Jumaine Jones instead of Manu Ginobli, Gordon Giricek, or Francisco Elson. Jason Terry instead of Ron Artest, anyone?

Roshown McLeod instead of.. well, Tyronn Lue, Al Harrington, or Nazr Mohammed... or Brian Skinner...

Its really, really easy to go through all the coulda-shoulda-wouldas. But we're not the only team to have them. And Billy Knight isn't the only GM to have them. You think if the '05 draft was done over, that Milwaukee would pass on Paul? I don't think so.

And even if we had drafted the players who turned out after the fact to be the best picks available, do you honestly think they would have turned out the way they did? Hmm? You don't know, I don't know, nobody in this dimension of how things turned out does; and until someone creates a way of visiting alternate universes where Paul was picked instead of Marvin, we have no way of knowing. Maybe we pick Paul, New Orleans picks Marvin, and we end up with a PG who's not properly developed and ends up being trade fodder, while New Orleans ends up with a multi-year All Star.

So if you want to go on about how bad Billy Knight is, fine (at least the most of the guys he picked are still playing significant minutes the league 3 years after, instead of being 10th-12th men at best, like a certain guy before him with the initials Pete Babcock). But can we please put a moratorium on the "We coulda had Paul! We coulda had Deng! We coulda had Williams!" crap, hmm? Because looking in the rear view mirror is a helluva lot easier than looking forward. And some of your whining and crying certainly doesn't help. If you don't like how things have been done, fine; but really, do you constantly need to post the same crap over and over again?

[HoopsGuru25]

People won't move on until we actually fire BK. "Moving on" is alot easier when ownership actually holds the GM accountable for misfiring on so many draft picks and setting the franchise back. We have every right to complain as long as he's still in charge.

[HoopsGuru25]

You are also using non-lottery picks(didn't the entire league pass on Ginobili?) to show why Babcock was worse than BK. The reason BK sucks so bad is because he had very high picks and the people chosen directly after his picks were better. You don't see people blaming BK for not getting Andrew Bynum or Josh Howard do you? I do think he should be held accountable for passing on Paul,Deron,Deng,etc because he worked all them out and they were taken directly after he made his pick.

I think both BK and Babcock are terrible, but BK just has nothing going for him...his coaching hires,draft blunders,and overall record rank among the worst in sports history.

[JoshB914]

Cal Bowdler... Was that suppose to cheer me up? Now I'm really starting to get depressed.

[conleyorbust]

Also, don't forget that it was the number 2 pick that we didn't use on Paul or Williams. Not a second rounder we didn't use on Manu or the last first we didn't use on Parker (of course, BK hasn't done a great job with his second rounders anyway).

The BK stuff has come up recently because of all the issues between management and the coaching staff.

I've said before that each of his moves has a rationalization. The problem is that there are too many big moves that need rationalization.

[smabie]

Isiah Rider.
Sharif Adur Rahim.
Glen Robinson.
90%+ of Pete Babcock's draft picks.

And we put up with Babcock for 7+ years.

That needs Rationalization.

Billy Knight, he doesn't talk on the record. And rarely off the record. So we don't usually know what's going on. Until last week, we blamed him for not firing Woodson; after last week, y'all blame him for hiring Woodson in the first place and throwing him under the bus after.

Billy Knight took the Memphis Grizzlies, a more sorry franchise than Atlanta, and if it wasn't for the Big Name Hire of Jerry West, would have lead them as GM to the playoffs. As it turns out, West was a worse GM in Memphis than even Pete Babcock might have been, and they ended up squandering what they had.

Billy Knight took the Atlanta Hawks, a team with a bunch of dead contracts and bad draft picks and veterans who didn't give a damn, knocked them to the ground, and rebuilt them. At that time, IIRC, he said it was a 5 year process. We were warned.

His biggest mistake, IMO, has been to draft a running team (a la Phoenix or Dallas), and hire a HC who was anti-running (out of the Larry Brown tree).

His second biggest mistake was failing to trade down in drafting Shelden Williams. If he felt Shelden was the best fit for Atlanta, or what, fine; you can argue all you want about who he should have drafted at 5, and it isn't going to change a thing. For all we know, he had as much say in that as he apparently does in firing Mike Woodson. Without knowing everything, we know nothing, and treating the man like less than a rat is really stupid of many of y'all.

Do I think Woodson should be fired? Yes. Do I think Knight's should be fired? Undecided. But I never make it personal. And its been going on for a whole lot longer than "recent, because of all the issues." Y'all have been after Billy for years, even before he passed on Paul.

Some of y'all make Philly fans look downright optimistic. Its a damned game, people. Saying that playing the Hornets is like getting kicked in the nuts is downright stupid. Half the posts on the board for 2 years now reference how we should have drafted one guy. Does Detroit do that for Carmelo Anthony? I seriously doubt it. And yes, Detroit's won a championship; but Dumars took 5 years to get Detroit to the Finals, and had Larry Brown as a coach.

[conleyorbust]

I'm confused as to the point of your topic and the comparisons you are making.

No one has ever said that BK hasn't ever made a decent move. Most here have given him credit for getting rid of the bad contracts, getting Bibby for pretty cheap, and drafting Josh Smith.

Still, he has made enough big mistakes to warrant serious and repeated criticism. I'm not willing to use his arrogance and disdain for the fan base and media as an excuse for him.

Are you saying that since Woody is bad, BK isn't? Are you saying that since Babcock was bad, BK isn't?

Its hard to compare BK and Babcock because they were given different situations to work with. That being said, Babcock wasn't the one that passed on Paul/Deron, signed Speedy to make up for it, and drafted Shelden Williams with the 5th overall pick.

What Babcock did or didn't do has no bearing on how bad BK has been.

[JoshB914]

If BK had a five-year plan, I have to say we are well off course. This is a poorly constructed team and that is a reflection of the GM. If you think we are being overly pessimistic you are probably right with some of us (myself included). But that doesn't make BK a good GM.

Just because BK did a nice job in Memphis doesn't mean he deserves to hang on to this job here.

[td00]

The quote that BK had when someone wanted to know who was making the decisions for this team....

"I am considered the basketball expert for this team". With that comment comes all the accolades and pain BK has created for this organization. He was the one who brought in Woody.......enough said.

The only move I stand behind BK on was the Bibby trade. He finally got something right IMO and admitted that his theory of not needing a real PG was a joke. Telling us JJ could be our PG was oh so bad! And don't tell me he decided to go with Horford....impossible for him to make that call himself after picking Shell the year before.

BK getting something right about 50% of the time is the best he has done so far. I would have liked to have seen Roy here as well. I am thankful that someone else bit on Bogut and we didn't have a chance to screw that one up! Doesn't sound like much of a basketball expert to me!

[JoshB914]

After watching CP3 last night, it's going to take a lot more time for me to move on. Damn he's good.

[LL Cool Scott]

Smabie - honest question:

Why do you defend Billy Knight so frequently and so passionately? Do you know him personally or something? Do you work for the Hawks? Or do you simply think he's getting a bad rap?

[smabie]

I think that Pete Babcock spent 7 years destroying this team, and nobody got on him. Even got a consulting job shortly thereafter (though, fortunately for Raptors fans, the Toronto management was a lot faster to realize he's a mistake).

I think that Billy Knight has spent 4 years trying to rebuild this team from the ground up, and has gotten grief the entire time -- even before the Shelden pick, even before the Marvin/Paul draft.

I look at other teams' GMs, and note that while they don't always have things work out -- San Antonio's had some pretty horrendous draft picks, to go along with Parker and Ginobli - that even 50% on what amounts to a guessing game of who might develop and who might not, coupled with who might get injured and who might not, is pretty damned good. Better than the less-than-10% that the predecessor who didn't get nearly a quarter of the grief.

And I've noticed over the course of the past 4 years that a lot of issues are coach-related: preparation, actual game management, team management, player handling, halftime-adjustments, plays out of timeouts, etc. We get repeatedly outcoached. Every other year, Woodson has pointed not to lacking size inside or to lack of a "true" PG, but instead to injuries and youth. Well, they've had our core for 3 years, they have been mostly healthy this year, and even with Horford there record pre-Bibby was worse this year than last year. So is that GMing, or is that coaching? I say it's coaching.

Traditionally, a GM is given a chance to either stick by his current coach, or fire him and hire a new one, before the GM is himself directly held accountable (aka fired). Babcock had several coaches that he hired and then fired, without being accused of throwing any of them under the bus to cover for his bad decision-making. And yet BK isn't given any of these benefits of the doubt? Even after it comes out that he wanted to correct the mistake of hiring Woodson, y'all still blame him, and not Woodson?

No, I don't know Billy. No, I don't work for the team. Hell, I don't even pay to be a season ticket holder; I tivo every game, and have attended an average of slightly more than 1 game a year for the past 4 years (that would be the Spurs game, and occasionally the Levenson RealGM special). Never met any of the owners or front office or coaching people.

And not to play a race card, but I have to note this: I find it extremely interesting that a horrible white GM got ignored for so long, and a moderate black GM held to such a high standard for such a short time. Is that a coincidence, or might it be something more, hmm?

[LL Cool Scott]

^ I see where you're going with that. I still own a baseball cap I used to wear to Hawks games that says in huge block letters "FIRE BABCOCK." I can't comment on other people though.

[tontoz]

As far as i am concerned Babcock and BK both suck. I don't see the point in arguing about who sucked less.

it might be a little easier to let things go after BK gets canned. But right now when Paul (who wanted to play here) comes in a drops 23/18 with 1 turnover it is a little tough.

NO sucked not long ago and now they sit at the top of the west and we are 11 games under .500 in the East. it is tough to swallow.

[conleyorbust]

As far as i am concerned Babcock and BK both suck. I don't see the point in arguing about who sucked less.

it might be a little easier to let things go after BK gets canned. But right now when Paul (who wanted to play here) comes in a drops 23/18 with 1 turnover it is a little tough.

NO sucked not long ago and now they sit at the top of the west and we are 11 games under .500 in the East. it is tough to swallow.

Yeah, I didn't like Babcock and I don't like BK. If I admit that I thought Babcock did a worse job than BK, which he did, does that absolve BK of the terrible decision making he's done? No. If I admit that Woody has done a poor job with the roster he was given, that this group should be at the 6th seed right now, does that mean that BK has fulfilled his duty? Of course not.

The thing is smabie, BK has done a bad enough job on his own to warrant criticism. The fact that someone else did a bad job, or that someone he works with is incompetent doesn't change the reality of the things he's done. Does race come into it? I doubt it, I hope not. Does that have anything to do with BK taking Marv? Shelden? Speedy? Lo?

Sure the Spurs have missed some picks. The only problem is that its not really "blowing" a pick if you miss one mid-second rounder. They get lucky but they also nail their low picks and a guys with the last pick of the first and second round respectively that would be the best players on our team.

BK did a good job of blowing the team up. He has done a bad job of rebuilding this team. In my mind that is enough to give him the ol' boot.

[smabie]

BK did a good job of blowing the team up. He has done a bad job of rebuilding this team. In my mind that is enough to give him the ol' boot.

I think you miss my point. People were calling for BK's head before he had even started rebuilding the team. People were complaining about the fact that BK had "secured his job," by not shaking hands with Belkin, and that was before anyone knew how the Marvin/Paul thing would turn out. The same people who were complaining that we gave up to much for JJ, where were they for Robinson, Rider, or Abdur-Rahim?

And it goes well beyond just the fans. Lets take the writers in the AJC, for one. With Babcock, it took 6 years for them to even start questioning his moves; and there was never any strong commitment from any of them that Babcock needs to go, nor that Time-Warner needed to sell the team. Occasional? Sure; but not full-blown. Note, also, that Babcock was friendly with the local media, and reachable for interviews. With the current front office, most of these guys have written them off years ago, and now -- despite the fact that every season so far they've improved (just not fast enough) since the blowing up, and are likely to do so this year as well -- these guys are already deciding that they're not to be kept.

And the owners as well. Let's take a look at how their other franchise has been handled. Their GM has been in the job for 6-7 years now (depending on how you count), and has had one playoff appearance (where they were 3rd seed, but would have been 7th or 8th on record alone). They've been through 2 head coaches (not including the stretched of GM/Head Coach like now), both fired well before the end of the season much less their contracts. Poor drafting has lead to a team with too many wings and not enough centers and big defensemen, and it took years for them to finally find a goalie who could actually stop a puck. Sure, the Heatley/Snyder thing through a wrench into their rebuilding, but still... And yet, the owners let them fire a coach. And game the GM multiple chances to re-formulate his plans. Etc etc etc. A complete hypocrisy on how they handled both teams.

Am I saying BK is without blame? No. Am I saying that BK has been a great GM? No. He's been adequate.

But we've had 4 years of "BK sucks," and he doesn't deserve that. We've had daily references to Marvin-over-Paul, and neither of them deserve that. Not because he hasn't made mistakes, and not because Paul shouldn't have been drafted over Marvin (though I still contend that even if we had drafted Paul, he would have been mis-handled, and we'd be whining now about him not drafting Marvin instead). But because BK has never been given a chance by most of the people in this town, and this complete lack of respect for him, his picks, etc, is imbecilic.

I'm not saying that BK isn't a bad GM because he's better than Babcock.

I am saying that the duplicitous treatment he gets is ridiculous, and is as bad if not worse than Cubus fans blaming one of their own for the Cubs blowing a 5 run lead in the 8th, or for the Red Sox fans blaming a single error for their blowing 2 games.

(Of course, I suppose I should expect such behavior from someone named 'killbuckner.' Its people like that who give fans a bad name.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that we should put things in perspective. That things could be worse -- we could still have Babcock as GM, or we could have drafted Paul and screwed him up royally -- just as much as they could be better. Instead of posting every other time on how much better you're fantasy world team of Paul on the Hawks would be, why not consider how much better our Real Life team of Law on the Hawks might be if he was actually coached properly.

All I'm asking is a little unofficial moratorium on the "We shoulda had Paul" stuff. It does nothing to help the situation, and leads to ridiculous statements (having been kicked between the legs by a rather vindictive ex, I can promise you that watching Paul beat us is absolutely nothing like that, and a page full of that metaphor was pretty dumb) and pointless arguments (like this one ). There's lots of things to be both positive and negative about, harping on one singular point is repetitive, and wasteful. Debating the pros and cons of legalized abortion would be more productive.

[conleyorbust]

I think you miss my point. People were calling for BK's head before he had even started rebuilding the team. People were complaining about the fact that BK had "secured his job," by not shaking hands with Belkin, and that was before anyone knew how the Marvin/Paul thing would turn out. The same people who were complaining that we gave up to much for JJ, where were they for Robinson, Rider, or Abdur-Rahim?

I understand your point and I don't disagree with it necessarilly. It also doesn't matter to me. I'm not, "people" who didn't give BK a chance. I'm a person that has evaluated the moves he has made vs the moves he hasn't made and determined that he has done a poor job of rebuilding this team.

I come here to talk about basketball, specifically the Hawks. As of now the future of the team is in question and a management change is in order. Thats what I'll talk about. When evaluating the positives and negatives of BK, you have to look at the decisions he's made. Taking Marv with the number 2 was a decision he made, it will get brought up.

I have enough people to talk about politics, law, society, and culture with. I come here to talk about the Hawks.

[tontoz]

With Babcock, it took 6 years for them to even start questioning his moves; and there was never any strong commitment from any of them that Babcock needs to go,

They were a consistent playoff team for a long time. If they were a bottom dweller the way the Hawks have been for BK's tenure then maybe things would have been different.

It took awhile for Babcocks horrid drafting to catch up with him.

[JoshB914]

Babcock didn't catch a lot of grief? Well he did from me. Can you say Priest Lauderdale? What does it matter that BK's predecessor was awful as well? Since Lon Kruger was a terrible head coach does that mean Woody is better?

Here is the issue with BK. His goal was to come in here and build a TEAM from the ground up. He tore the team down, and rebuilt through the draft and JJ. Conceptually, I agreed with this, but his execution is awful. This is MUCH MORE than Marvin over CP3. It's getting fooled by PHX in the JJ deal, refusing to draft a PG, hiring his boy as a head coach who was clearly a bad a fit for this team, and drafting Shelden Williams over anyone.

Someone had a post here recently with all of his picks and the players taken just after them. Other than Smoove there were far superior players being selected after our pick.

I don't understand how we can say anything good about BK. You said yourself he had a five-year plan, well what exactly was the plan? This team is currently going nowhere.

[LL Cool Scott]

#1 - I fully stand behind my comment that watching Chris Paul play against us is like getting kicked in the testicles. I only hope that it was Billy Knight's testicles getting pulverized. Publicly. By a strong-legged mule.

#2 - If the constant criticism of Knight by fans and writers and tv and radio hosts gets him canned, I'm all for it. He did a TREMENDOUS job destroying Babcock's mess, and a PUTRID job reconstructing the team. With those high picks we should be a championship contender at this point.