Drew’s the man, but what’s the plan?

Well, here we are. As reported by Hawks beat writer Michael Cunningham, Larry Drew has apparently been tabbed as head coach.

Shall there be weeping, lamentation, and gnashing of teeth? How about dancing in the streets and parading down the avenues? Maybe an extreme reaction either way is neither optimal or appropriate. But how do you define extreme, and besides – this is what blogging is about. You know, overreacting as you please, with no penalty other than a faux jab from another blogger (or fifty, depending on how big the frenzy is). Like it or not, the wheel of this ship has been taken by the first mate of the former captain. And no, it was not a mutiny (that we know of).

You Think You Know…

 What should we expect from Larry Drew? Expectations are fluid and tricky. Expect too much, and you will almost certainly be disappoined. Expect too much too soon, and the effect will be similar. Is there a penalty for expecting too little? What will the players expect out of him? What does he expect of himself? All this and more will be learned as time moves on. What’s funny is that idea that perhaps what we think we know may actually be more of an unknown than we suppose. Larry Drew has been an assistant coach on this team for the past six seasons, but do we really know him? My hunch is that we really don’t know this guy. I won’t heap another coal on the head of former coach Mike Woodson, but the simple fact is that it was his voice we’ve always heard, and his philosophy. Drew has chimed in here and there, but only to more or less echo what his boss has to say. Such has been the case with all of Woodson’s assistants, with halftime thirty or forty-five second interviews being the only evidence to the general public that the guys can even talk. And you know what? That’s the case most of the time, on most teams. It’s not an anomaly. In the end, I think we will get to know Larry Drew in ways we could not possibly have, before.

Even the players will. Oh sure, the guys on the roster know him, but do they know what he would do in any given situation? Do they know what he expects of them? I seriously doubt he has taken scenarios that Mike Woodson has experienced, and said “Hey guys, I wouldn’t have done it this way, I would have done it that way.” That sort of attitude never really helps anyone, as it tends to be a breeding ground for more disruption, confusion, and division. Perhaps Drew has, however, taken a player aside and explained why his head coach made a certain decision or did things a certain way. Agreeing with your boss may not be something that happens naturally or even often, but buying into and supporting the edicts you’ve been given do help promote continuity of the team. If this is the approach Drew has taken to his job, his new job will go that much better for him and all that are involved. Sometimes the best way to lead is through influence and persuasion. Again, if Drew realizes this, he is already a step ahead. Or maybe I’m wrong and a more Machiavellian approach is what it takes. Perhaps, perhaps not. We shall see soon enough.

In the meantime, we’ll get to know Larry Drew, the head coach.

 

What’s In a Name?

Coining the old Shakespeare quote, I have to wonder why people get so attached to the names of coaching candidates. When is the last time YOU heard anybody say they had to get tickets for this Saturday night because the Jazz and Jerry Sloan would be in town? How about the Magic and Stan Van Gundy? Will people soon be hyped about going to watch the Cavs and (insert Tim Izzo or whoever takes the job once he says no)? If not, then why be worried about a “brand name” coach? Perception is the only answer I can think of. It’s the reason we separate the winners from the losers, based on our opinions and several skewed statistics. Actually, statistics aren’t skewed. They are just math and numbers. How we use and interpret them is another matter altogether. When a guy wins in one place, it doesn’t guarantee that he won’t lose somewhere else, and vice versa. If this is true nowhere else in the NBA, it’s true on the sideline: production beats flash every time. There’s more opinion out there on the subject as the AJC’s Jeff Schultz feels we might need to look past the lack of style and see the substance. Also, think about this: every guy available for a job has most likely failed somewhere else or never really gotten a chance. That’s the nature of the job in the League. That’s the law of experience cutting both ways. What does that mean? Like all assistants, Larry Drew has neither failed nor succeeded yet. So whether or not the glass is half empty or half full is a tale yet to be told.

Dare To Believe

As a fan base, can we get behind this decision, or will we stay hung up in the details surrounding it? In the case of management, the “why” does matter. In the case of the coach, the only thing that matters is “what.” Translation – Yes, we should be concerned with why management made a decision to go with Larry Drew. However, where Drew himself is concerned, all that matters is what he does now that he is in the position. We can only hope that he and this team do well enough to make us stop thinking so much about why management does what it does.

Maybe Larry Drew’s six years of absolute insider experience with the Hawks will help bridge the gap of those zero years of experience as a head coach in the NBA. Instead of getting to know the guys on this team, perhaps he can focus more on getting them to buy into his own system. And outsider might be more interesting, but last I looked, “interesting” didn’t win games. I have no doubts that Drew will be a “different voice.” In a way, that is a smoke screen. This team doesn’t need “different” as much as it needs “consistently effective.” There has to be something there, that’s worth having after the so-called honeymoon. Will there be an adjustment period of sorts? I would expect so. But it should also be shorter and less profound. Will there still be obstacles and challenges? Yes, but they are likely already identified, if not the reasons behind them. As much as we don’t know about Drew, we do know that he knows enough (far more than we do) about the team. Maybe that can stoke some confidence in the fan base. It certainly should do so for the team.

 

Odds and Ends

- Will this have an effect on whether or not Joe Johnson leaves or stays? I still think it’s all about money and opportunity for Joe Johnson. Aside from the few positive comments Johnson has made in Mike Woodson’s direction, we have no idea how he really felt about Woodson, or how he feels about Drew. There is little reason beyond that of the speculative, to think that Johnson’s decision will be heavily affected by Drew’s promotion to head coach. Then again, you can never count a factor like this out completely. Johnson has to know that some things would change under Drew, from the way they were under Woodson. At the same time, if Johnson has issues with this team, it’s going to be with his teammates as much or more as it could be with who the head coach is. While I don’t think it will ultimately sway his decision, whether or not Johnson believes Larry Drew will hold guys accountable (as in moreso than Woodson) might be a factor. The question is how much of one.

- The inevitable watch on Jeff Teague will commence from the time he goes to summer league, and Larry Drew will not be able to escape this spotlight in the slightest. Known as a point guard coach, Drew’s work with Teague will be compared, perhaps unfairly, to that of Mike Woodson and every young point guard he has dealt with the entire six years he was here. If Teague flops or struggles mightily, it will get very noisy, very fast. Drew will come under fire from both the fan base, and from his bosses (let’s not forget, this is Sund’s draft pick, and Michael Gearon has made public comments about Teague’s playing time). If Teague does well, this bodes well for Drew. Fair or not, right or wrong, this will be watched….maybe even moreso than how Drew handles Josh Smith. Well, okay, we may have a tie on that one. Another guy to watch? Marvin Williams. Do we expect Drew to turn these guys into something they aren’t, haven’t been, or otherwise? Should we? Will we?

- We have absolutely no insight into what defensive or offensive philosophy Larry Drew holds. Again, it may not be fair, but he will be judged against everything Mike Woodson did. If he does anything that Woodson used to do, he’ll hear it from the masses (until it proves to be successful on a consistent basis). But first, he will have to get the players to buy into what he wants to do. That is where the true challenge lies. I don’t know about you, but I’m a tad anxious to see what Drew does with this team.

- How much input will Larry Drew have in the draft and free agency decisions? Will Sund make a public statement on this issue? Will it matter? And though we’ll likely never find out (but you never know what will be said in the formal announcement), what WAS it that made Larry Drew’s interview presentation so impressive?

One issue decided on Hawks Fans. The Summer of Sund continues.

202 comments Add your comment

Big Ray

June 14th, 2010
2:19 pm

Vava ,

I’d like that, but I’m wondering just what it is that Drew can do to make that happen? What can Drew do to make Marvin play good defense all the time? Hit the open shot? Stop hesitating with the ball in his hands, and be aggressive/assertive in driving? Rebound the ball more? Finish at the basket or draw the foul, instead of flailing, flopping, and getting blocked?

Scratch that. What will Marvin’s contribution be to all of this?

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
2:23 pm

OB,

I don’t like your Hornets trade b/c I think both player (Collison/Okafor) are duplicates of current Hawks players (Teague/Horfod). Collison is a good defender with speed and quickness to get to the rim on offense but lacks a consistent jumper. I think we will see Teague with a similar game next season when giving the mins. Oakfor maybe an inch bigger/thicker than AL but his offensive skills are limited or even inferior to Al’s. I’m not sure I would pay Oakfor that huge contract when his game does not compliment Al’s all that well. I would look for a cheaper big man that could replace ZaZa and could play alongside Al and Josh. Also, the league is moving towards having guys who can be a stretch PF rather than a traditional back to the basket PF so I think keeping Josh is even more important b/c he could cover those mobile PF’s and add (unmatched) athleticism to Hawks line up…

Astro Joe

June 14th, 2010
2:54 pm

OB, I think that you will enjoy reading the comments about the Marvin/Bibby contracts in this blog about Drew’s hiring.

http://www.hoopinionblog.com/2010/06/atlanta-hawks-to-hire-larry-drew-as.html

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
4:01 pm

Good link AJ.

the hawks resigned bibby and Marvin for continuity. And when it was suggested to bench Marvin, there were concerns about team chemistry. Come to find out that the chemistry was not what it seemed.

I know that’s one of your concerns about drew. Is the ASG looking for continuity? That being said, I think rick and Larry need to shake things up.

Melvin,

I’m not really a fan of the okafor trade either. Not with his contract.
If Tyson Chandler does not opt out, is there a deal we could swing for him?

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
4:42 pm

OB,

I’m not sure we have what the Bobcats want especially since they would be trading an expiring contract. I think they are looking for another shooter, low-post scorer and/or more dynamic PG. I think our only hope would be to take one of their bad contracts like Diop along with Chandler but we would problem have to give up Crawford in a package. As much as I like Tyson, I would not trade Crawford for him.

Astro Joe

June 14th, 2010
7:02 pm

After reading Bradley’s column, I’m reminded of too many draft nights where there is so much anticipation and excitement, promise and hope… we’re tracking who is left as we approach our selection… we get excited about the possibility that 1-2 of our personal favorites are still available… we watch Stern walk to the podium awaiting to hear the name of our perceived savior… and he utters…. “(oh ehack, fill in the name of virtually any pick in the past 20 years here)”.

That’s how i feel anbout Drew. Maybe he will grow on me like some other draft picks in the past… I certainly hope so.

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
7:03 pm

From ajc.com;

Said Drew, speaking Monday at his inaugural media briefing: “That’s a tough question. Assistant coaches give the head coach as much information as they can. His job is to decide what to use. As a coaching staff, we did our job. Mike made a decision to use what he wanted to use.”

Is that Woody under the bus? Can’t blame Coach Drew though, because he has to separate himself from Woody wherever possible.

And looking at the ajc picture, a lot of players were there. Even Jason Collins and RandMo (who are not under contract for next year, and who received very litte, if any PT) showed up at Larry Drew’s press conference. To me, that shows how much the players like him (although I dont know if thats a good thing).

Thats interesting however, because only one or two guys (including Randolph Morris) showed up for Crawford’s sixth man of the year presentation.

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
7:47 pm

Oh my, Dennis Scott just said on NBATV that economics had a lot to do with the Hawks hiring Drew b/c they didn’t want to pay alot for a coach. SMH… I’m sure the ASG is not cheap, they prefer to spend the money on the players…;-)

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
7:52 pm

They are interviewing Sekou Smith on TV. Not only he said Woody had problems with Josh Smith but Anthony Johnson, Josh Childress, ZaZa and Mo Evans.. Also he said that many times it was Drew who came between Josh and Woody. And Drew and Josh has a great relationship….

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
7:57 pm

Melvin,

If that’s true, maybe that’s Why drew did not enter the picture until later.

ASG wanted Johnson, Casey or Jackson, but once they found out their asking prices, they had to find somebody cheaper. Enter Larry drew.

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
8:04 pm

OB,

Now Woody knows who put the knife in his back…lol

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
9:21 pm

Coach Drew is talking a good game. Re-signing impending free agent Joe Johnson was a priority, as was getting Johnson to share the ball on offense. Forward Josh Smith will be positioned near the basket and not on the perimeter.

I hope he does what he can to back it up. 2 other parts jump out at me from MC’s article;

By the end of Drew’s news conference, every player on Atlanta’s 2009-10 roster except for Johnson and Joe Smith had filed in to show support. So far, it seems like all the players like him a lot.

According to to people with knowledge of the team’s evaluations, management concerns involved Woodson’s entire program.

So maybe it was a house of cards after all.

Astro Joe

June 14th, 2010
9:34 pm

I don’t understand how you have a problem with the predecessor’s entire program and then hire his lead assistant and potenitally bring back another member of his staff (Ty Hill). They had a chance to break a complete and undeniable break from the previous regime and they opted not to do so.

Let’s hope that the established relationships can be maintained during the transition fom one chair to another. And let’s hope that Drew doesn’t take for granted that it may not be the same this week as it was last week.

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
9:37 pm

Astro,

Follow the money… Just follow the money dude….

vava74

June 14th, 2010
9:48 pm

Astro,

Long time assistant with his “window of opportunity” clearly shutting down fast (or completely shut in the eyes of the public): that qualifies as “american dream material” in my book.

A fan being given an opportunity to coach an NBA team qualifies as comic relief. By the way, I enjoyed “Eddie” as I always enjoy Whoopie’s work. Adding bball to W was a double wammy for me.

Ray,

As for Marvin? Maybe a more fast paced game with Marvin filling the lanes will make him loosen up his game.

One thing I know: he may be clumsy, but Marvin is definitively not the stationary spot shooter type.

Marvin only gets “hot” when the game is more fast paced and he gets the ball within sequences in which he is cutting or has the ability to quickly cut/move and get the shot off or the foul (or both) from mid range.

His long ball is a mere complement, so trying to make him shoot while being sitting on a corner stone cold was catering to his worst characteristic and not understanding this or understanding and not making any adjustments during the year (including benching him and playing JJ at the SF slot and starting Mo at the SG slot) is a testament on how limited is Woody.

Astro Joe

June 14th, 2010
9:51 pm

Melvin, true ‘dat (again). But it’s just so frustrating. Imagine that you dated a girl for 6 years and then had a horrible break-up. You decide that you want to put the whole relationship behind you. So you start dating her best friend. It’s freakin’ retarded.

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
9:54 pm

AJ,

More and more, this is starting to look like a (lack of) money hire. But I hope we are wrong. I hope he impressed them during his interview process and won them over.

And to all the doubters (I keep flip flopping), I hope Drew shows us that regardless of the reason, he was the right choice after all.

Melvin,

Are you saying the ASG is cheap?

I know nire has a bum shoulder, but I am surprised he has not shown up to defend the ASG and their spending habits….

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
9:58 pm

And for those Alvin Gentry fans, Drew was an assistant under Alvin Gentry when Gentry coached the Pistons.

Big Ray

June 14th, 2010
10:07 pm

In other news, it looks like Larry Drew’s hiring was a cheap move….ooops, has that been said already?

Astro Joe

June 14th, 2010
10:12 pm

So I went to the Hawks website to try to find the press conference and I happened upon a clip of David Aldridge discussing the process of the Hawkschoosing their coach. And Aldridge mentions that it will likely come down to Drew because of money. I can’t believe that someone employed by the Hawks would put that specific video clip on their website.

Even if you don’t believe that money factored into the decision, they (the ASG) just continue to find ways to have their most loyal fans question if the know what the F they are doing.

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
10:15 pm

Big Ray, showing up in gray, dare I say, a new blog is on the way?

O'Brien

June 14th, 2010
10:35 pm

AJ,

If you havent seen the press conference, there is a link to it from foxsports.com on Page 3 on MC’s blog posted by “OK”.

Jeff Schultz also has a good article up talking about Drew’s comments.

vava74

June 14th, 2010
10:43 pm

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2010/06/14/20100614_gt_hawks_coach.nba/

how can someone not feel good about this guy? stop thinking about money!

spending more money does not guarantee more success. stop being like that, for goodness sakes.

this guy EARNED his job with a remarkable interview process, showing that he is a resourceful man and someone who had the guts to go for it when he was AGAIN being run over by a guy who has proven ZERO in his previous tenure as an HC (Casey) and by a guy who’s resume as an bball coach is as as long as mine.

Listen to Sund’s words. He does not sound – at all – a guy who had to give back flips to hire Drew:

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2010/06/14/20100614_gt_hawks_coach.nba/

Melvin

June 14th, 2010
11:24 pm

OB,

I’m not saying that this hire had to do with the ASG being cheap, it was Dennis Scott who said, and David Aldridge, Mark Stein, Chad Ford and couple other writers who cover the NBA…

All F* it, yeah I’m them cheap too….

doc

June 15th, 2010
12:33 am

i think by now we all ought to understand everything that woody used was drew’sidea and what didnt was woody’s ideas. that is what the insiders have to know. now you know!

aj ;-)

niremetal

June 15th, 2010
1:10 am

O’Brien/Melvin/etc,

I know this is going to sound very condescending, but I’ve given up trying to explain the intricacies of sports business to people that don’t know and don’t even seem to care enough to learn jack-sh!t about sports business. News flash: that includes most of the talking heads and ESPN writers. Hell, it includes almost all of them. They are writers who cover the game, not accountants, MBAs, attorneys who develop and analyze the business of the game. They know nothing about limited liability, operating agreements, and rules governing capital investments. Hell, most of them have a tough time just remembering all the salary cap rules.

But here’s my last 3-paragraph attempt to break down for you why ASG is not cheap. It boils down to this: They have absolutely no reason to be cheap. They gain nothing by spending less than the team can afford. The team’s finances are completely and totally separate from their own. Under every operating agreement that an NBA team has with the league, that is a requirement. When ASG spends money on the Hawks or Thrashers, it does not come out of the owners’ pockets because ASG, the Hawks, and the Thrashers are all separate entities – both from each other and from the individual owners.

The only – and I do mean the only – time that owners gain or lose money on the team is when the team is sold. Teams that underutilize their available revenues are worth less, and thus sell for less. Thus, even in the one case where the team’s spending does actually have an effect on the owners’ finances, the owners reap absolutely no benefit by being “cheap.” The reality is that the Hawks spend as much as they believe they will be able to “earn back” through revenues such as ticket sales, TV contracts, and merchandise. That’s it. The owners’ budget is based on that, and nothing else. And David Stern makes damned sure of that, because he can’t afford to have teams that drastically reduce spending based on the personal finances or caprices of their owners (many of which face severe personal financial distress at some point in their lives). That has held doubly true since the implementation of the luxury tax, which many believe was implemented in part because some teams’ owners stood to gain more by “overspending” on their teams by investing more of their own money (knowing that they’d lose that money) in order to reduce their tax liabilities in other businesses.

This is the last time I’ll say all this. Seriously. If it makes you feel any better to rail about ASG’s spending, fine. But given the realities of pro sports business, they have zero merit.

vava74

June 15th, 2010
4:21 am

Nire,

maybe I’m going to force you to talk about this subject again.

I am under the impression that the ASG is losing money operating the two franchises since their operations result into a yearly deficit: income has been less than expenditure.

I am also under the impression that due to this they had a cash call – under the operating agreement in place – which implied that Belkin either had to put more money or see his participation diminish.

If the above is reasonable accurate, the size of the pockets of the ASG’s members does matter since the level of losses and of the subsequent and consequent cash calls to keep the group afloat will vary according to the level of spending.

Yes, their liability as members is limited, however a franshise is worth very little if it folds and ceases operations, so the members have to inject more cash on a yearly basis depending on how well the franchises operate as a business.

As you say, you only make money on re-sale since a sports franchise is seldom anything more than a very very expensive toy and not really a profitable business due to the restrictions imposed by the leagues: you need to present year in, year out a product with a minimum of quality, regardless of your actual finantial return.

This is why Cuban and Prokhorov make such good owners, they can continue to make cash calls without being really bothered with losing 5 or 10 million more per annum.

doc

June 15th, 2010
7:13 am

ok nire the hawks owners are not cheap, they have cash flow problems or maybe they are some that prefer to not spend money if it doesnt get an immediate payback on the investment. some in the group have already seen that they cant keep pace due to their own financial restraints and have taken lesser percentages of ownership than originally designed. i can say these guys dont have deep pockets cant i? isnt there enough evidence of that?

nire, some owners are cheap plain and simple just like people on this world with the same resources at their disposal. maybe not these guys, as it is your opinion but some owners are not spending as much as others for whatever reason. some organizations continue to keep costs down while others spend. is buss cheap? no. is his counterpart, sterling, in the same town cheap? uh, probably as he has the same town to draw upon as it has always been his choice to spend the least amount possible. btw, i am not equating spending, with spending smart either.

when our guys have a choice they keep the costs down and have since the inception of their group. that is well documented in comments and direct quotes from them during their divorce proceedings in court. do i think it was smart in a selection of a coach? time will tell and is what we are all waiting to see answered.

many weeks ago i said coaching was the last place you want to spend less on to protect your assets and product for many reasons, which you echoed a few days ago. it seems the asg have spent about as little on their selection and still not be the bottom guys. if drew turns out well then it was well spent, if not, we can call them cheap or spendthrift, stupid or all of the above.

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
7:32 am

Put me down in the “under-funded” category. Or, to be kind, extremely risk averse category.

doc

June 15th, 2010
8:49 am

nire:

“When ASG spends money on the Hawks or Thrashers, it does not come out of the owners’ pockets because ASG, the Hawks, and the Thrashers are all separate entities – both from each other and from the individual owners.”

didnt slidell feel it was coming out of his pocket and reduce his position, nire? cash flow is cash flow and except for the government, most cant make it up out of thin air without some major consequences. neither can governments, though they think they can, i might add, i.e. portugal, greece, etc. hope i didnt touch any nerve there vava.

vava, i guess the lawyer in you doesnt know what is going on either, eh?

vava:

“Yes, their liability as members is limited, however a franshise is worth very little if it folds and ceases operations, so the members have to inject more cash on a yearly basis depending on how well the franchises operate as a business.”

my, what a novel concept, vava.

again, slidell found cash calls prohibitive early on, in spite of the “limited liability”. broke people and broke franchises dont get the best market price so it limits what they can spend if they have to protect their asset, no? maybe not cheap but as astro says risk adverse. that is my guess from time to time they have protected their assets, acted responsibly to the company and their families and held to a budget that they all have to agree on that allows them to further their investment and only appear cheap.

for whatever reason our guys spend less for both basketball and hockey than most owners ranking in the bottom third for both sport. that is well documented. i am not a lawyer so hopefully i havent over stepped my boundaries. i will further add, i think cash flow is a problem and has been. frugality has been more the effort rather than free spending which we fans would like to see. “cheapness” might be a part of it though not all of it. again, all is my guess based on how their business has been conducted.

me, i am cheap though my owners want me to be free spenders. heh heh, or let me say i am the discerning buyer. they probably argue they are the same.

vava74

June 15th, 2010
9:14 am

doc,

As far as I understand from niremetal’s words: most (if not all) NBA owners only make money when they sell on the franchise to someone else, not during the year to year operations.

For instance: when they buy a franchise for 200 million, run it at a small profit, break even or at a sustainable loss like apparently the Thrashers and the Hawks are being run right now (and most of the NBA as Commish Stern claims) they subsequently have the possibility of selling the franchise after 6 or 7 years for 300 million. It is worth it if you spend during that period an extra 15 to 20 million for instance as extra capital injected in the yearly operations.

A franchise is a high spending TOY which can only remain in the red (spending more than its earnings) for either a limited period of time – if the owners are not filthy rich – or for how long that filthy rich owner is willing to fund covering the operating loss with further capital.

It is perfectly possible for someone to buy a franchise for 200 million, own it for 10 years, injecting on a yearly basis more cash to keep it running and then find a buyer for 400 million.

As I said above, sports franchises are most of the time TOYS which may work as long term investments, rather than good/secure business ventures.

So I don’t see what is difficult to grasp from on my words above. It’s perfectly logical and defensible concept:

When someone buys a NBA franchise its personal liability is limited to the capital, however, it is in his best interest to put in more cash and wait for better times to sell on his investment rather than let it go under during dire times. However, the level of extra cash comittment is something which you and I cannot criticise.

Or do you feel that Cuban owns the Mavs to achieve profit on an yearly basis?

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
9:42 am

I assume this is one of Drew’s first radio interviews as the Hawks head coach:

http://www.790thezone.com/instantreplay/Episodes.aspx?PID=1345

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
10:00 am

There was another interview on 680 that I heard a portion of (it isn’t available on their website yet) and he talked specifically about ensuring Josh is close to the basket, Marvin finds his rhythm, the ball moves more on offense (a 5-man tag team was a memorable expression he used) and he talked more extensively about Teague. He said that he told Teague to return with a “starter’s mentality” and raved about his skill set. So it’s pretty clear that Teague will have every opportunity to get significant minutes next season. I will post it once I find it on their website.

Back to the 790 interview… if hiring Drew gets Childress back in a Hawks uniform, I will go out and get a Drew jersey. OK, well, that may be hard to find, but I will be very, very happy if afro-man returns.

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
10:16 am

doc said “it seems the asg have spent about as little on their selection and still not be the bottom guys. if drew turns out well then it was well spent, if not, we can call them cheap or spendthrift, stupid or all of the above”.

I will simply say that you get what you pay for. Here’s hoping that we get a Four Seasons experience from our Hampton Inn head coach. But it’s kind of odd that the ASG fired one head coach who was deemed ineffective and hired his lead assistant and is paying him less than his predecessor. Does any of that scream “upgrade”?

O'Brien

June 15th, 2010
10:21 am

So if more fans show up to games, will that translate into the ASG spending more money on coaching salaries?

AJ,

Another good comment that Drew made in regards to JJ, was “implementing some things that probably will take the ball out of his hands a little bit more but it will make him even more effective.”

Drew has confidence in what Teague can bring to the team, so I’m glad he’s letting Teague know that he should have the starter’s mentality. I think this puts pressure on Teague to improve his game and be ready to be a starter, which is good. Show us what you got Jeff. But I would like to see us add a third PG just in case.

I think Sund needs to bring another legitimate SF in here (Chills, Barnes etc), and let him and Marvin compete for the starting spot.

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
10:44 am

OB, I don’t think we need to worry about Joe. If Joe is willing to play with LeBron or Wade or one of those kind of guys, then he is clearly saying “I don’t need iso-Joe” to play the game. It is interesting because so far, Drew is talking about offense about as often as Woody talked about defense, which should excite most fans.

Melvin

June 15th, 2010
10:48 am

Something tells me not to be surprise if Bibby gets traded. If the Kings draft Cousins, I wouldn’t mind shipping Bibby back to Sac-town for Spencer Hawes or to the Rockets for the 14th pick then where we could probably land Whitesides or Paul George…:)

Melvin

June 15th, 2010
10:50 am

hmmm, my post in regards to the Drew hiring was eaten by the blog monster. dang it.

vava74

June 15th, 2010
11:04 am

I don’t know if anyone has realized this interesting fact:

Drew was drafted #17
Teague was drafted #17

doc

June 15th, 2010
11:35 am

vava, i dont negate the premise that these guys may not make paper profits from year to year and that there is some leveraging going on when it comes to short term and long term financial concerns. however, cash flow and what individuals are willing to take on as risk plays a part in it. i imagine there are even clubs that make money all along. we will never know as the owners dont want to share any more than they have too with us or certainly with the union.

ultimately, it is about impressions and illusions. our guys by their actions have always seemed the frugal type and played it that way. why one would argue it so vehemently otherwise when it was well documented how they stated the model they were going to use was to spend the minimum at the outset could not be interpreted as running it on the cheap. there was no desire to rebuild quickly to save money.

i also dont think stern has any control over what sterling spends outside of what he has to based on the formulas of the cba. i think that was one of nire’s comments. no, i havent read it but the guidelines are pretty apparent that there can be 100 million dollar difference in how one organization spends versus another. look at the knicks and the clips, neither model i would recommend to the masses. just arguing there is a huge disparity where stern has no control over. one is extravagant and has moxi because of outside revenues to make the pockets deeper, the other a crazy owner who has always run his team on the cheap.

Sautee

June 15th, 2010
12:22 pm

vava,

nice idea, but Teague was #19.

niremetal

June 15th, 2010
12:26 pm

So if more fans show up to games, will that translate into the ASG spending more money on coaching salaries?

Yes. And if they don’t, I’ll eat my words. The strongest correlation with payroll in the NBA with home attendance, not with wins and losses.

Vava/Doc,

Really not going to get back into it, especially with doc after his “it was well documented how they stated the model they were going to use was to spend the minimum at the outset” BS. Their strategy was to clear cap space. That’s what you do when you rebuild. Calling the Hawks cheap for clearing cap space for JJ makes no more sense than calling the Knicks cheap for clearing cap space for this summer – because it’s a given that next year, they will have one of the league’s lowest payrolls. It’s BS. Doc doesn’t want to hear it. Fine. I’m done trying to argue with Doc about something he made up his mind about 5 years ago.

As for your arguments regarding cash infusions, I am not aware of any owner who has made those extra cash infusions to their team since the advent of the luxury tax, beyond the required capital investments that the league requires of all owners. I know Paul Allen used to do that with the Blazers, but he closed his wallet in a hurry once the luxury tax came along. To the extent that there are capital investments, I’d imagine it’s to deal with non-basketball operations things like marketing rather than personnel management stuff. The CBA and the league’s revenue structure just doesn’t provide any incentive for teams to spend beyond or below their means, which is how it should be (otherwise, owners could arbitrarily invest and remove money from the team as the owners’ personal finances allowed, like Huizenga did with the Marlins back in ‘98).

The best-run sports league is the NFL, which gives owners virtually no discretion in spending, in large part because so much of revenue comes from the league’s TV contracts. NFL owners are on so short a leash with regard to spending that it’s ridiculous. The MLB has the least control over it’s owners, which is why you see supermassive disparities in between big and small markets in terms of spending. The NBA is in between – enough revenue is shared that there is a “floor” for spending, but there also is enough independent revenues generated by the teams that teams like NYK, BOS, CHI, and LAL are at a distinct advantage (and teams that are the “only show in town” like POR/SAS/UTA do better and spend more than comparably-sized cities with other teams like MIL/CHA/NOH that have to compete with other pro sports teams).

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine a multibillionaire owner so rich that he can afford to throw tens of millions of dollars down the drain (and it would take that much, since contracts for good players are nearly always long-term deals), and is a devoted enough fan to his team that he’s willing to do it. I suppose a richer version of Monty Brewster could do the same thing as well. They could just pour the capital in, and not worry about the likelihood that they’ll never get anything close to an even return on their investment (especially since the NBA does not allow owners to take back money from their teams). But those owners don’t exist in the modern NBA; hell, I don’t even think they exist in baseball anymore. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.

vava74

June 15th, 2010
12:48 pm

dang! i thought he was #17 :-)

maybe he was the 7th PG selected…

richbrave

June 15th, 2010
12:54 pm

CHIP JONES discussing potential retirement with BRAVES officials as I type this.

O'Brien

June 15th, 2010
1:03 pm

Chipper Jones needs to retire. Not only has he been injured, but he has not produced enough on the field when he does play. Combined with the fact that he is making $14 mil, I think he needs to hang it up, rather than come back only to struggle next year again. Plus this is the second year in a row he is struggling.

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
1:33 pm

I’m guessing the potntial HOF class could include Chipper, Cox, Glavine, Smoltz and Griffey, Jr. Pretty good I’d say, even by HOF standards.

O'Brien

June 15th, 2010
1:45 pm

AJ,

That’s a great class. With 4 braves no less. It sucks we only have 1 WS though.

Hoopshype is reporting that Denver is looking to trade ty lawson for the #10 pick. Is his value that high?

Meanwhile, bird and the Pacers might be interested. Last year, They passed on ty Lawson, jrue holiday, teague and Eric maynor.

Instead, they took Tyler hansboro.

When will Larry bird and Joe dumars be on the hot seat?

doc

June 15th, 2010
1:49 pm

richie those talks cancelled. a meeting to cancel a meeting?

Astro Joe

June 15th, 2010
1:50 pm

OB, I think both of those guys have no more than 2 seasons left with their respective clubs.

From my patented “you heard it hear first file”…. Nate McMillan will be the next coach of our Atlanta Hawks.

richbrave

June 15th, 2010
2:47 pm

DOOP!!! Must have reconsidered. 28+ mill is a lot to leave on the table.