RealGM

http://blogs.ajc.com/terence-moore-blog/2009/02/28/silent-knight-on-hawks-progress/


Your thoughts, gentlemen?

i've always considered terrence moore and carter strickland the two worst sportswriters i've ever read...

No comment.

This is just as dumb as when he said that Knight deserved to be fired and not Woodson. 3 of Knight's lottery picks(Law,Shelden,and Chil) aren't contributing when you factor in that the Bibby trade was a salary dump for Sac. Which of his moves look any better than they did last year when he was considered one of the worst gm's in the league? The moves he was criticized for making before he quit still look just as bad today despite the improved record. I would bet that whoever wrote the article just goes by win/loss records instead of watching the games.

My take is this - Billy Knight had 5 lottery picks in 4 years, 4 of which were top 5 lottery picks. And he whiffed BIG TIME on 4 of those 5 picks. I am thoroughly convinced that if a trained chimpanzee or my immigrant grandmother had been making those picks, that we would be competing for a championship this year and for many years to come. Instead we have a roster that will never get out of the 2nd round, barring some blockbuster trade and a major roster shakeup.

I'm almost glad that he got fleeced in the Joe Johnson trade to needlessly give up those 2 1st rounders. What's the likelihood either of those picks would be major contributors to this team, or that they would even be in the league anymore? Billy Knight is the worst talent evaluator of his generation.

It's not hard to be a positive spin on Knight's results if you ignore as much as Moore just did.

#1. In spite of trading away 2 1sts and a player for Joe Johnson, yes he won that trade because we sucked bad enough to delay the pick that became Robin Lopez until last summer and because of Phoenix selling away picks. It would have been an even bigger success if it was an outright free agent signing that part is ignored in the article.

#2. The Sheldon Williams pick and what it could (should) have been was ignored. Some people do this because they say he was part of the Bibby trade which has worked out. Sacramento would gladly have taken another expiring contract instead if we had one to include. Instead they had to pay Shelden Williams another year to shed Bibby's salary.

#3. The article ignores the impact of Flip Murray and Maurice Evans to the bench and the success of this year's team. They were signed post-Knight and their contributions highlight that in the entire stint of Billy Knight he never gave Woodson a capable bench to work with. We needed a bench scoring spark for a long time and his solution was Ty Lue, who gave up more than he added any time he was on the floor.

#4. While the article does mention that Billy Knight passed on many opportunities to land a PG before finally dealing for Mike Bibby. There is no pondering of how the lack of a PG may have slowed the development of the other players. Nor is there mention of his ill-fated attempt to fill PG by overpaying Speedy Claxton who had a history of injuries that would predict future problems and a skill set (poor shooting) that didn't mesh with the offense (if you can it that) of Mike Woodson.

#5. There is no mention of his repeated drafting of similar players contributing to losing their services for nothing or next to it. The writing was on the wall that Childress and Marvin would result in one having to leave (look back at the posts). Much like Al Harrington before them. Knight failed to make deals that returned value before the out man out hit free agency. On Al Harrington he salvaged it in a sign and trade to dump a bad BK signing (John Edwards) and a pick. He spent the pick on Acie Law, which is looking like a flop. We know what happened with Josh Childress. BK left that problem for the next GM to make the hard decision. What choice did Sund have? If he traded Childress it would have left him without the cap room to add Evans and Murray and possibly resign Marvin. If he signs him, then he wouldn't have room to sign Marvin.

#6. The article makes no mention of the complete mishandling of 2nd round drafting. 5 years of 2nd round picks (some were traded), but all we have to show for it was Solomon Jones and he's no Leon Powe, Paul Millsap, or Craig Smith (all PFs drafted after him that year). Billy Knight rarely seemed to maximize his first round picks (Childress over Igoudala and Deng, Marvin over Deron Williams and Chris Paul, Sheldon Williams over anyone) and didn't even seem to try with 2nd round picks.

If you highlight just the positives and ignore all the missteps, missed opportunities, and lack of decisions you make a simplistic love letter to a former executive like Moore just did. If you look at the whole picture you'll still wind up with a former executive more deserving of a punch in the nose than a hug from a Hawks fan. At least that's how I rate his performance.

Is there anything remaining to say that hasn't already been said?

Reading the comments at the AJC site, I'm amazed at the # who are still trying to list Marvin as a bust.

The thing I like about the AJC is that they have terrible columnists who have different styles when it comes to being terrible.

Moore is the consummate apoligist. Bradley is the ultimate, Joe Buck-esque "heart and grit is what makes you win in this game" moron who doesn't actually watch the games.

some people just have trouble understanding there is a difference between "bust" and bad pick.

T.M. makes NEWS a four letter word.