RealGM

There are two positions we don´t need to cover: SG and PF.

At PG, Bibby ends contract and Acie has not proved to be a starter, it would make sense to draft a PG as this draft has a lot of them

At SF, Marvin also ends contract, we could draft a SF just in case we cannot resign him. Evans can also play the position

At C, we still don´t have a true center.

So here comes the question, who would you draft

PG: Maynor, Teague, Collison, Flynn, Curry
SF: Budinger or Young
C: Mullens, Blair or Brackins

I would personally take Mullens, if he is not available I would draft a PG: Lawson, Maynor or Curry

i think we have to get a point guard, of all the free agents, bibby is the one most likely to leave as he is an Unresricted free agent and the hawks will be asking for a paycut. the hawks will probably be looking at eric maynor and then darren collison with ty lawson a close third. we need some defense at the position. if bibby leaves i think that maynor could beat out law for the starting spot. of course law could surprise us and hold the job as well.

mullens looks like a project. he really looked lost on ohio state's bench. he also didn't help himself on the defensive department. i would only try to get him if he slipped futher past the hawks.

I don't believe in drafting for need- I just want to draft someone I think can contribute for sure. I'd take Curry or Blair easily over the rest.

lunarblues wrote:i think we have to get a point guard, of all the free agents, bibby is the one most likely to leave as he is an Unresricted free agent and the hawks will be asking for a paycut. the hawks will probably be looking at eric maynor and then darren collison with ty lawson a close third. we need some defense at the position. if bibby leaves i think that maynor could beat out law for the starting spot. of course law could surprise us and hold the job as well.

I personally would not have any doubt, if Lawson is there I would take him in a heartbeat. Not so sure about Maynor, Collison or Flynn. That's why I have doubts if we should give a chance to Mullens, 7 footers are hard to find and the guy has some upside, he could help us at the paint and provide the much needed size.

killbuckner wrote:I don't believe in drafting for need- I just want to draft someone I think can contribute for sure. I'd take Curry or Blair easily over the rest.

I doubt Blair gets enough minutes to be able to contribute with Josh Smith and Horford at PF.

Teams always make the mistake of trying to draft for need- once youa re out of the lottery you should just be taking the best player available and find ways to use them. Blair is by far the best rebounder to come out of college in recent memory- I think he is absolutely going to have a place in the league. Worrying about minutes is totally missing the point. You just want to get a player.

gurpilo wrote:

lunarblues wrote:i think we have to get a point guard, of all the free agents, bibby is the one most likely to leave as he is an Unresricted free agent and the hawks will be asking for a paycut. the hawks will probably be looking at eric maynor and then darren collison with ty lawson a close third. we need some defense at the position. if bibby leaves i think that maynor could beat out law for the starting spot. of course law could surprise us and hold the job as well.

I personally would not have any doubt, if Lawson is there I would take him in a heartbeat. Not so sure about Maynor, Collison or Flynn. That's why I have doubts if we should give a chance to Mullens, 7 footers are hard to find and the guy has some upside, he could help us at the paint and provide the much needed size.

only thing i don't like about lawson is his measurables. he has short arms for an NBA player and that hurts him on defense. i'm not talking about passing lane defense (he gets his steals), i'm talking about devin harris-why does he keep blowing by me defense. i think that maynor has the measurables and the speed to keep us with some of the top-tier point guards. collison also has the knack for getting in other point guards grills.

i don't know too much about mullens. even though we need size, i don't want to waste it on a project when we are so close to contention. but i'd only give him so many spots to slip before i'd try to trade up to get him.

also, what about that michigan state center. he looks like a good pick for a second rounder.

would it be possible to trade up offering a package of our 1st 09 + Chill for Monroe? That kid is only 19 and is already a monster. I would see him and Al as an interesting and dynamic duo at PF/C...unless of course Smoothe confirms that he can play consistently in the next 2 years.
surprinsingly, I think that our priority is to resign Marvin and Flip this off season...and rid off Speedy and Chil.

Childress isn't a tradeable commodity.

i seriously doubt that marvin's leaving next year. it's just gonna be too hard for him to get a contract that the hawks can't handle. with that being the case the only position we can improve on is point guard.

our second round pick will prob be used on a replacement for morris or gardener.

* we can't trade chills rights.

The best value for the pick is at PG.

I've suggested a Claxton/Law -for- TJ Ford and then using the #19 to pick a 'PG of the future.'

Then use the MLE on the frontcourt.

do you think tj ford would want to play with Al after he almost ended his career?

i'd like that trade but i doubt indiana does it.

mrhonline wrote:The best value for the pick is at PG.

I've suggested a Claxton/Law -for- TJ Ford and then using the #19 to pick a 'PG of the future.'

Then use the MLE on the frontcourt.

I'm still very high on TJ Ford. I'd actually throw in the 19 pick along with Speedy/Law if they wanted it.

I could be swayed if his wingspan/standing reach are insane- but I would stay far away from Mullens if he's there at 19. Drafting a guy with a questionable work ethic(based on the reports)with no skillset at all seems like a pointless pick. I also think drafting a 7 footer mid-to late 1st round is pointless because they would have gone higher if they could play. Javale Mcgee and Marc Gasol are the only two 7 footers taken after the lottery in the last 3-4 years that I would consider good value.

Flynn and Maynor are the two I think the Hawks should target at 19. I also think Jeff Teague has very good upside for where he is projected to go but he isn't really a point guard yet. Jrue Holliday is also a guy I could see becoming a quality player. He reminds me of Kirk Hinrich or Devin Harris defensively and he is still very young. Westbrook playing well out the gate despite mediocre college numbers makes me think Holiday can do alot more than he showed this year.

lunarblues wrote:do you think tj ford would want to play with Al after he almost ended his career?

i'd like that trade but i doubt indiana does it.

Horford went to visit him in the hospital and he said Phillips was his favorite arena to play in after that OT game in April last year.

Don't like your deal. Speedy is finally a valuable commodity (exp), Law might still develop into a starter and still has two cheap years left to find out.

TJ hasn't been able to keep a starting gig.

There are other PG's I'd rather target; Hinrich, Lowry or Sessions, Blake.

I'd put all my efforts into bring in a starting C. I'd also be willing to try to develop Mullens. 7'0" and 260 with some ability and quite a bit of potential. Can't find one if you don't look for one.

I only have one concern about drafting players, don't draft a guy to play out of position specially at PG. Combo guards are 80% SG and 20% PG most of the times. I remember Law playing off the ball a lot at Texas A&M (more of a SG), then you bring the guy into the NBA and you don't know why his game simply disappears ? I'd rather see us taking Mullens than any PG. He might be raw, but look back at Biedrins, even Bynum and all these guys with a lot of potential, you have to gamble sometimes, but I think he'd be a solid gamble.

Skyhawk1 wrote:I only have one concern about drafting players, don't draft a guy to play out of position specially at PG. Combo guards are 80% SG and 20% PG most of the times. I remember Law playing off the ball a lot at Texas A&M (more of a SG), then you bring the guy into the NBA and you don't know why his game simply disappears ? I'd rather see us taking Mullens than any PG. He might be raw, but look back at Biedrins, even Bynum and all these guys with a lot of potential, you have to gamble sometimes, but I think he'd be a solid gamble.

Law's scoring has actually been far more troubling than his passing. He is actually 15th among all point guards in assist rate...which is significantly better than both Bibby and Flip. The biggest problem is that he's been an absolutely terrible jumpshooter in both his 1st 2 seasons.

Skyhawk1 wrote:I only have one concern about drafting players, don't draft a guy to play out of position specially at PG. Combo guards are 80% SG and 20% PG most of the times. I remember Law playing off the ball a lot at Texas A&M (more of a SG), then you bring the guy into the NBA and you don't know why his game simply disappears ? I'd rather see us taking Mullens than any PG. He might be raw, but look back at Biedrins, even Bynum and all these guys with a lot of potential, you have to gamble sometimes, but I think he'd be a solid gamble.

beidris and bynum were better players than mullens was when they were drafted and you didn't hear any red flags with them either. also, golden state and los angeles has two of the best bigman coaches in the league. what big man have you seen get developed here in atlanta?

Warning - Book length
It is fine to fill a need with a draft pick, but not allow need to override reason. Billy Knight did this when he picked Shelden Williams. He used the argument that we really need a banger on the team to justify picking PF when there wasn't one who was good enough to go anywhere near that pick. Roy, Foye, or Gay would have not filled a glaring need perfectly, but would have given the team more talent and found a home in the main player rotation their rookie year. It is further irony that he used the opposite argument the year before, picking Marvin Williams citing that his upside as the reason to ignore the glaring need at PG and the availability of quality solutions to pick. He also missed horribly in his evaluation of Chris Paul and Deron Williams as NBA PGs.

The other thing to understand is the nature of the need. Not resigning Bibby doesn't credit a draft need for PG since a #19 pick at PG is unlikely to lead a playoff team in his first year. It creates a need to trade for or sign a starting PG. A decision on Acie Law governs the need of spending a draft pick on PG. If Acie Law doesn't project to becoming a starting PG ultimately then we need to get a prospect in. It doesn't have to be this draft, but if you see a good value option when you pick (which may be likely) it is a reasonable option.

Rick Sund had a history of a different type of draft mistake in Seattle. He routinely swung for the home run on raw big men. If any of them panned out they would have been great value, but they didn't. What happens though if you swing and miss multiple times is the franchise suffers (sometimes a lot). BJ Mullens looks to me to be the big man reach. I'd still work him out and try to honestly gauge how far he is from contributing and how good he can be. Our coaching staff history on developing big men isn't very impressive. Unless there is a wise investment in coaching him up I think he would become a flop of a pick for us. Even with the coaching I wouldn't expect him to seriously contribute until his 3rd season. Although as a raw rookie, he probably could merit as much PT as Solomon Jones is getting now just off his height.

What I hope is that the team doesn't go cheap and spends the money to evaluate all potential players in that range regardless of position. If someone like Sam Young or Terrence Williams blows their socks off they shouldn't ignore them because they are SGs. Thinking longer term what if Joe leaves via free agency, then SG becomes a big need just a year down the road. Similarly, Mullens needs checked as well as the various PGs and bigs. Interview each possibility as well. Do the due diligence like the franchises who routinely find late draft contributors like Detroit and San Antonio.

I think the best value will be a PG like Maynor, Flynn, Teague or possibly Curry. I wouldn't take one just to take one unless I felt after the evaluation process that the guy could realistically become a good starting caliber NBA PG before the end of their rookie deal. If the guy projects to just be a solid backup PG (how I see Collison) then I look for better value or impact. My criteria if we draft a big is a little different. There are 96 minutes a game filled by PF and C. I am happy with Josh and Al providing 60-66 minutes of that. Zaza or another veteran big should be good for 18-20 minutes. If we draft any big at that spot he has to be able to step in and provide 10-18 minutes a game right away. I'm not as concerned with them becoming a home run unless the evaluations reveal a steal of uncommon potential (that is highly unlikely that late). After that I go to a swingman next, but only if the guy evaluates out to be starter level talent. If only a bench contributor, I look for better value. Next I turn back to the bigs and evaluate the player in terms of future starter level. This is more of insurance. Finally if I still don't have a prospect I like, I go back to the PGs again and look for a solid NBA level backup who can give some minutes right away. Really if I've gotten this far down in my choices, then I settle on just taking a flyer on someone.

Summary in order:
1. PG if future starter is available
2. Big (PF/C) if can immediately contributor is available
3. Swingman (SG/SF) if future starter is available
4. Big if future starter is available
5. PG if solid pro backup is available who can contribute right away with minutes.

note: future to me means before end of rookie deal.

In the 2nd round, I think you look for need-based contribution with a emphasis on being able to contribute by end of year 1 and for high reward potential steals that dropped for an identifiable reason (Monta Ellis because of injury, Deandre Jordan because of coming out too early, Paul Millsap because of height). I got my eye on Jeff Adrien (PF, too short), Jon Brockman (PF, too short), Danny Green (SF, underrated utility man), Josh Heytvelt (PF, some baggage), Toney Douglas (G, tweener), Ben Woodside (PG, small school, questionable athleticism), and Chris Johnson (PF/C, slender project big) for various reasons. Each candidate could fill a role and give minutes on the cheap.
The other thing to do in the second is to evaluate players by what they are, not making them something they aren't. Toney Douglas is an undersized shooting guard, don't delude yourself that you can make him a PG if that is what you need. That would be the like drafting Royal Ivey over Chris Duhon when the spot you needed to fill minutes at was PG. If you need a backup PG, you are better off drafting a Ben Woodside or Tyrese Rice even if Douglas has more basketball talent overall. Adrien and Brockman are wide-bodied PFs regardless of their height. They aren't guys you will likely develop into stars, but they are ready to contribute now off the bench. Heytvelt is a shooting PF, just because he's 6'11" doesn't mean he can play C or be a banging space-eater at PF. The honest rational GM can really help his team cheaply in the 2nd round.