Hawks fans: The view on Coach Drew

Well, after 41 games played, the Hawks sit with a record of 26 wins and 15 losses at the literal halfway point in the season. Is this where we should expect them to be? Are they further along than last season, or behind it? On pace to win 52 games if they can match the results of the first half, the Hawks would seem to have not lost much ground. However, two major factors could stand in Atlanta’s way of once again winning a top 3 or top 4 seed to the playoffs: a tougher second half schedule, and the Chicago Bulls.

In the meantime, how is Head Coach Larry Drew looking? At the suggestion of Hawks fan and blogger Astro Joe, we’ll review some major topics involving the “new” sideline prowler. I would post Astro Joe’s thoughts on the situation at the time of his excellent suggestion (which was weeks ago), but he may have taken a different view on some subjects by now. At any rate, here is some of what he (and I’m sure many of us) thought we should review on Larry Drew:

1) The offense. Clearly, things are different for the team from this aspect. Well, that is to say that they have the potential to be different. Two things have been constant for  Atlanta the last couple of years. One, they knew they could win by sharing the ball, and often win big. Two, they have relied on the work of two go-to scorers in the backcourt when other things weren’t working, or when things got tough. In other words, the ball movement of Drew’s offense makes this team better when they choose to execute it consistently. Truthfully, the ball and player movement is better. But neither is as consistent as it should be. Is this an issue with the guys wearing the jerseys, as it was last season? Does it fit a team that boasts two of the most talented offensive backcourt players? Has Drew truly improved the offense, or does more credit go to the growth of guys like Al Horford? How has this new offense fared in the tougher, tighter games? Last season, the Hawks scored 101.7 ppg on 46.8% shooting. This season? 98.1 ppg on 46.9% shooting.

2) The defense. Larry Drew said he would hold everybody accountable on defense, and he’s more or less been true to his word. That is to say, Drew has the Hawks playing man-to-man defense, rather than switching all the time. What of the results? The Hawks are allowing 95.3 ppg and 45.3% on field goals for opponents. Last season, the Hawks allowed 97 ppg on 46% shooting. However, it seems more like the Hawks are trying to outscore opponents more than they are trying to stop them. But, as some of you have already noted, this may be the best path for a team that isn’t built for great team defense. Also, the Hawks are rebounding slightly less than last season. Is Drew truly holding the Hawks accountable on defense? The last game (a loss to the Rockets) demonstrated some unfavorable defensive results, as well as more of the same observations. How about what Coach Drew thought about it? Well, it’s a bit interesting. At the same time, we’ve seen better defensive efforts out of Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford than we’ve ever seen out of them in a Hawks uniform. Is it enough? What about team defense overall?

3) Developing the youngsters. Where does second year guard Jeff Teague truly stand? In the beginning, Larry Drew proclaimed that he wanted Jeff Teague to compete for the starting job. Teague didn’t even look the part, to be honest. After probably 30 games, it seemed that the kid finally came out of his shell, showing himself to be more aggressive on both ends of the court in most games where he got any real playing time. However, he still isn’t even a part of the rotation. Is he simply not good enough? I’d argue that the answer is “yes” in the beginning of the season. But now? Well, it seems that Drew is seeing things precisely the way his predecessor saw them: it’s more productive from an offensive standpoint to bring Crawford off the bench as THE backup guard. Is Drew still committed to Teague’s development, or is the young point man simply caught up in a situation where Crawford’s recent offensive output is just too much to ignore?

What about Jordan Crawford? With Joe Johnson back in his groove, and Crawford playing like he’ll get the Sixth Man award a second straight year, the rookie shooting guard doesn’t look to have much of a chance at playing more than 2-3 mpg. Maybe Drew can’t be blamed here, seeing as how the Hawks have trouble finishing a game off early these days. But back to Teague – is it situational, or is the head coach simply not keeping his word?

4) Josh will play more in the paint, Horford more at the 4. This is sort of like the promises a presidential candidate makes during his/her campaign. Drew said he would get Josh off the perimeter, and more into the paint. He also said he would play Al Horford more at the power forward position. The latter? Check. The former? Well, um…..

The situation with Josh Smith continues to be a bit of a roller coaster. From a positive perspective, Smith has finally developed an actual jump shot, and is shooting respectably from three point range. From a negative perspective, his field goal percentage is down from last season’s 50.5% to 46.6%. What about all the shots in between the paint and the three point arc? This is where much of the trouble is, as Smith doesn’t hit enough of those to justify his shot selection. If you want more details into this one specific aspect of Hawks basketball, read the blog after every game and look for Hawks fan/blogger Niremetal’s “Josh’s jumpers update.” Yes, we do some interesting things around here.

Either way, Josh hasn’t gotten into the paint more than usual. Perhaps the most likely indication is his free throw attempts. Smith is on pace to have fewer of those this season than he did last season. Suffice it to say that he doesn’t get fouled much on jumpshot attempts. Is this typical stubborn Josh, or is it a result of Drew’s offense? Either way, the promise isn’t being delivered on.

5) Lineups and use of the bench. Larry Drew has made his mark with the way he uses this roster, if nothing else. Marvin Williams’ absence due to injury is possibly all that keeps Drew from revealing whether or not he’ll go with a different starting lineup from here on out, than in year’s past. Interstingly enough, it may be Marvin Williams who finds himself a starter no longer, and a super sub (we hope, if that be the case) instead. Drew helped motivate Jason Collins into better physical condition, then rewarded his hard work and savvy with 14 game starts, mostly against teams with bigger centers. The results have largely been favorable, as that Hawks lineup has proven statistically to be the most effective lineup overall in many situations. Oddly enough, most guys are playing the same minutes they played last season, with some notable exceptions. Joe Johnson is down to a more manageable 36 mpg, while Mike Bibby is up to 31 mpg (27.4 last season). The difference? More guys playing double figure minutes when they do get into games. Last season, 9 guys played double figure minutes, with a tenth averaging just under 10 mpg. This season, there are 11 Hawks playing in double figure minutes, with a twelfth averaging just under 10 mpg. The rotation itself is largely the same.

Yet, another major difference is where guys are playing. While Al Horford enjoys more time at his more natural position of power forward (don’t argue with me, he says it and the coach says it), Joe Johnson has played more small forward, and Mo Evans has played more shooting guard.

 

So there you have it. How would you grade Head Coach Larry Drew so far this season? You can grade him according to the above categories, but don’t stop there. Come up with your own categories and grades as well.

HAWKS VS. KINGS

Last Meeting: The Hawks needed a heavy dose of Joe Johnson and Jamal Crawford to close out a somewhat tight win over the Kings. The frontcourt struggled all night. But that was in Sacramento. Will the frontcourt guys get their act together and supplement the red hot Johnson and Crawford back home in the Highlight Factory?

195 comments Add your comment

O'Brien

January 21st, 2011
12:56 pm

Someone on the other blog was talking about attendance, so I looked at the numbers. So far, the Hawks are averaging 14,138 fans per game, which is about 2,400 less than last season. I did not realize it was such a big drop off.

AJ,

Don’t count on seeing JC2 tonight (except for a cameo, or in case of a blowout). We still have JJ, Mo Evans, Damien and Jamal (although Jamal plays backup PG too).

If anything, I think those guys will play extended minutes (including ZaZa).

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
1:13 pm

O’B,

Most of the big “drawing card” home games are still to come. We have yet to play Mia (#1 in road attendance), LAL (#3), Chi (#4), or OKC (#8) at home, and still have a home game each left to play against Bos (#2) and Orl (#9). I expect our end-of-year attendance stats to be slightly better than they look now. How much, I don’t know.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
2:11 pm

http://www.ajc.com/sports/lawsuit-thrashers-owners-have-811606.html

So the owners are now suing the law firm who they say botched the contract that led to the years of issues. After saying several times that they couldn’t or wouldn’t sell the Thrashers, the lawsuit claims that the botched contract forced them into years of owning an unprofitable hockey team.

I’d love for someone to ask the ASG just one question, “were you lying before or are you lying now?”

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
2:14 pm

nire, so which side are you taking on this one, the incompetent law firm or the incompetent owners? I’ll hang up and listen. :lol:

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
2:41 pm

This is absolutely hilarious to me.

The Spirit filed a $200 million malpractice lawsuit against King & Spalding Friday, saying the law firm’s negligence cost them millions of dollars and made them “unable to sell or otherwise dispose of the Atlanta Thrashers.” King & Spalding’s contract caused the buyout process to “quickly break down into chaos,” costing seven of the partners $14.5 million in legal fees and forcing them to shovel more than $130 million into the Thrashers to keep the franchise afloat, the lawsuit says.

“(The) Plaintiffs inability to buy out Belkin’s interest in a timely manner and the resulting cloud on their title created by the Maryland litigation interfered with operation of the franchises and specifically prevented Plaintiffs from selling the Atlanta Thrashers,” the filing says.

So now they are saying that the litigation interfered with the operations of the franchises after saying for years that the nonsense had no bearing on the two teams.

So again, someone needs to ask, were you lying before or are you lying now?

And raise your hand if you are beginning to believe that Gearon, Levenson and others are addicted to lawsuits, courtrooms and contention.

And without cheating, raise your hand if you think that the Trashers blog is about 80%+ on the side of “please sell the Thrashers”.

This 5-6 year saga could easily be a Harvard Business Review Study on how not to manage a sports business… or a skkit on Mad TV.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
2:45 pm

AJ,

From a legal perspective, the contract was poorly written to a mind-boggling degree. Whether it amounts to legal malpractice, well that’s a tough sell. Juries are really unpredictable in legal malpractice suits.

Law firms generally try to settle these types of suits quickly, though, if there’s any chance that a jury would find against them. There are few things more humiliating to a law firm than losing a high-profile legal malpractice suit. The only thing worse that I can think of off the top of my head is having a lawyer who bribed half of Congress while on your payroll.

The good news is that the firm they hired for the case – DSCK – is a contingent fee firm, which is the route most companies go when they file a legal malpractice suit (after all, if you’ve just been burned by crappy lawyers, you won’t be in a hurry to pay $600/hr to a whole new set of lawyers). Contingent fees mean that ASG won’t have to pay the lawyers anything unless they win or get money in a settlement. So this shouldn’t affect ASG’s cash-on-hand or book value.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
2:52 pm

OK, one more (I’m loving this). Here’s my hope, that this new lawsuit takes about 1-2 years, with the judge ultimately saying…

“King & Spaulding did not willfully produce a sub-standard product on behalf of the plaintiffs. In addition, the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to review the contract and ensure that all loopholes and gaps were cared for prior to the document being final. Lastly, the plaintiffs signed the contract (presumably under no duress), suggesting that they read the agreement and concurred with the details of the document. Therefore, I am ruling in favor of King & Spaulding and rule that the ASG must pay King & Spaulding’s associated legal expenses related to this trial. This ruling is based solely on the fact that these are a bunch of dumba$$es who have spent far too much time in our judicial system”.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
2:54 pm

Certainly, the Belkin lawsuit affected their ability to sell the teams or attract new investors. But yeah, “operation of the franchises” implies more than that. Methinks the DSCK associate who drafted the complaint didn’t check with the ASG PR department on the wisdom of discussing “operation of the franchises” in the complaint. Even though the complaint is written on ASG’s behalf, the reality is that lawyers rarely run the wording of court filings by their clients before they are submitted. When your client is high-profile, it often leads to embarrassing statements like this being included in the complaint. I’d bank that a lot of discussion in the coming weeks will center on the mention of “operation of the franchises” in the complaint, even though that language was almost certainly chosen by a young lawyer at DSCK trying to make sure the complaint is phrased in a way that maximizes potential damages, not by someone within ASG thinking about the ways in which the Belkin lawsuit affected ASG.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
2:57 pm

AJ,

Erm…

1) Malpractice implies negligence, not “willfully” bad legal work.
2) Ordering the payment of attorney’s fees is rare, and only occurs when the complaint is frivolous. And I will bet you $100,000 that the complaint is not dismissed as frivolous.
3) Gee, why don’t you tell us what you really think of ASG?

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
2:58 pm

nire, thanks. I think I saw a commercial for DSCK the other day, something about “we don’t get paid unless you get paid”. It may have been while I was watching the Basketball Wives reality show.

Sorry, I thik this whole thing is very, very laughable. It doesn’t “prove” anything related to some of our fears and concerns about financial viability, focus and motives… but it certainly adds to the mountian of circumstantial evidence. And it certainly raises doubt about some of the past statements offered by Mike & Bruce previously.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
3:06 pm

nire, at some point, don’t these guys have to read what their hired lawyers write? When will they learn that lesson? Come on… this is laughable. They are suing because they signed a bad contract (that they paid for) and now they have a lawsuit filed on their behalf that contradicts previous statements they made to the media and customers? I mean, DAMN!

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
3:14 pm

nire, maybe Mike & Bruce can hire you for their lawsuit against the young DSCK lawyer who botched the lawsuit filing against King & Spaulding who botched the appraisal process contract with Belkin who tried to turn the NBA Governor position into a dictatorship. OK, I’m dizzy.

Where’s David E. Kelly… I have a new idea for a TV show for him… ripped from the AJC headlines.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:18 pm

The irony is that I’m a lawyer who tends to sympathize with businessmen but despises other lawyers. I guess it’s from the fact that I’ve worked for judges rather than law firms basically ever since I entered law school (before which I had two bad experiences working for law firms).

Nine out of every 10 commercial lawsuits I’ve seen are petty grievances following this general outline: Company A did business with Company B. Company A didn’t like the way Company B conducted themselves in the transaction. Company A gets angry and goes to talk to Lawyer C (a partner in a firm that charges by the hour) to ask if they can do anything about it. Since Lawyer C earns his money by generating business from his clients, he enthusiastically tells him “Yes! Company B acted horribly and you deserve money. I’ll take care of it for you.” Two days later, the docket clerk puts a complaint against Company B (drafted by Lawyer C) on Niremetal’s chair. If there’s merit to the suit, it usually settles. If it doesn’t settle, then several dozen hours of work later (interspersed with working on dozens of other cases that fit the same pattern), a judge or jury concludes what Niremetal could have told you at the outset: No one did anything warranting a lawsuit being filed. If Lawyer C had been a halfway decent person, he would have calmed Company A down at the outset, talked him down off the ledge, and figured out a way to mediate the dispute with Company B without involving the court. As it is, however, Company A has paid Lawyer C millions of dollars in legal fees for a lawsuit that was doomed to fail from the beginning.

As a general rule, people who are high up in the corporate world are very smart. Most of them are also well-meaning. That’s why I get ticked off when people talk out of their rears about the way people run their business. Lawyers on the other hand? With corporate litigators, at least, they make money by playing on people’s emotions and convincing them to fight with one another. Absent annoyed courts and legal malpractice suits, they have no incentive whatsoever to tell their client “no, don’t file that lawsuit.” So as a general rule, I applaud when courts smack lawyers down and when clients file legal malpractice suits. Those are the only things that keep lawyers “honest” (by which I mean “less dishonest”).

What did all that have to do with ASG’s specific case? Nothing. It had a lot more to do with the antitrust case I’m working on. C’est la vie.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:19 pm

AJ,

Sorry, but it’s pretty apparent that you don’t get the ins and outs of how business transactions are negotiated and agreed to. Please, stop acting like you do.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:21 pm

And this…

They are suing because they signed a bad contract (that they paid for) and now they have a lawsuit filed on their behalf that contradicts previous statements they made to the media and customers?

…is how I know you don’t get it.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
3:33 pm

nire, you’re right, I don’t get the lies. And my guess is that all of the dummies who are supposed to be the customers of the ASG don’t get how they run their business either. I’m perfectly fine with being a dumb guy who keeps his disposable income in his pocket and cheers the team from the cheap seat in my den. Here’s something that you may want to recognize, when you’re trying to sell a product to customers, don’t lie to them, don’t cheat them and down talk down to them… that’s not a well-thought out strategy. Here’s my guess, the ASG will sell everything because they are woefully incompetent and are far too petty to sit in the same room with other owners from across the respective leagues. They are small time, small minded and an embarrassment to this city. They are wealthy sports fans who have no more business running sports teams than many of the not-so-wealthy sports fans on these blogs. And their attempt to bury this lawsuit filing on a Friday afternoon hopefully won’t be easily swept under the fraying infrastructure.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/01/21/atlanta-spirit-lied-to-us-about-thrashers-go-figure/

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:39 pm

I’ll just put it this way. Doc and I were making jokes throughout the lawsuit about how the lawyers were laughing all the way to the bank about this one. I was at the trial. It was one of the most egregious examples of lawyer filling a vacuum that I’ve ever seen – the dispute really boiled down to the meaning of one contract clause and could have been taken care of in 1 day, but the judge gave them two weeks and the lawyers somehow found a way to fill up that entire time. And the biggest irony was (as I think I said at the time) that it was the lawyers who screwed it up in the first place by drafting a contract that was so poorly written.

Yes, the parties signed the bad contract. But the reality is that in the business world, it’s the lawyers who draft and explain contracts to their clients. The clients rarely have the legal know-how to judge how a claim term will be perceived in court, and certainly won’t be able to spot legal loopholes. That’s the whole reason lawyers exist – to draft language that will have the legal effect that the client intends. Once the client explains what they want, the lawyer’s job is to draft the contract and make sure that it includes provisions that anticipate contingencies and protect their client’s interests accordingly.

If businessmen could figure that stuff out on their own, there would be no need for lawyers. It’s the same reason intelligent laypeople generally ask lawyers to draft their freaking wills (a far, far simpler and more predictable type of document) instead of writing it themselves. Blaming a client for a poorly drafted contract is like blaming a patient when a doctor’s band handwriting leads to the pharmacy giving him the wrong prescription.

Anyway, not saying what the firm did amounts to legal malpractice. And honestly, I wish that clients DID take the time to learn at least the basics of commercial law so that there would be less need for lawyers. But in modern corporate America, that’s jut not the way things are done.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
3:45 pm

But for the sake of argument (which I tend to enjoy), what exactly am I not getting? They paid for services by K&S which they say led to financial misfortune for them… but isn’t the signee responsible for understanding what they sign? Is that not a basic tenant of any legal agreement? Sure, the fallout is quite unfortunate, but how is it lawsuit material? Don’t they share accountability for signing a flawed document? If they were looking to force a quick settlement, then they certainly executed a strategy in a very flawed manner, huh? Schultz has done a fine job of capturing the frustration of the local fan base… so was the attempt to force a settlement worth frustrating your paying customer?

Mistake after mistake after mistake is my opinion. An incompetent set of team owners who likely do a far better job of operating within their original industries but are out of their league in sports management. How many brilliant industry geniuses once tried their hands in the hotel or airline business? Many. And many failed. Just because you can run a newsletter or wireless networking business doesn’t mean your capable of running a sports franchise.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:57 pm

But for the sake of argument (which I tend to enjoy), what exactly am I not getting? They paid for services by K&S which they say led to financial misfortune for them… but isn’t the signee responsible for understanding what they sign? Is that not a basic tenant of any legal agreement? Sure, the fallout is quite unfortunate, but how is it lawsuit material? Don’t they share accountability for signing a flawed document?

Read my last post again. If you do and still don’t get it, I don’t know what to tell you. If businessmen could draft and read a contract, anticipate all contingencies, and predict its legal effect, there would be no need for lawyers.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
3:58 pm

But to answer one part of your question succintly:

isn’t the signee responsible for understanding what they sign? Is that not a basic tenant of any legal agreement?

No.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:01 pm

nire, wow! I’ll have to try that with by creditors then. “I didn’t understand the mumbo-jumbo language in the contract so that’s why I failed to…”

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:03 pm

It’s funny. I can almost hear AJ typing like “so you’re telling me that when I sign the purchase agreement for a used car, I’m not supposed to read it first?” or some other stupid question that is completely different from the sweepingly overgeneral question of whether “the signee [being] responsible for understanding what they sign” is a “basic tenant of any legal agreement.” Wait for it…

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:04 pm

Ha. He did it even before I finished typing my prediction. Boy, you are pathetic and predictable, AJ.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:05 pm

Sorry to be condescending, but you’re proving why lawyers exists. Because even people who think they are smart really don’t know jack $h!t about the law.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:07 pm

nire, yeah, like the ASG owners. Because unlike them, I have NEVER had to sue anyone becauise I didn’t understand something that I signed.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:09 pm

There are about a million distinctions flying over AJ’s pretty little head right about now. Little things like the difference between form contracts and negotiated agreements, the possibility of both being bound by a bad agreement but also being able to seek a remedy from the person who drafted that agreement, etc, etc, etc. But AJ will keep talking out of his a$$ anyway. Because that’s what AJ does.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:10 pm

I’m perfectly fine with being a dumb guy

At least you said it so I don’t have to.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:11 pm

Oh wait, did I just take something out of context and use it to make it sound like AJ said something different than what he actually said? Damn! AJ must be rubbing off on me.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:15 pm

nire, you make this sound like they were reviewing the equations associated with laying the foundation of a nuclear factory on volcanic land. Didn’t this whole thing come down to the fact that there were no provisions for how to determine the apprasisor if both parties objected to the initial appraisal? Wasn’t that essentially the reason for the Maryland trial, to ask a judge to figure out who gets to hire the appraiser since the initial contract didn’t buildin a simple “if, then” statement? And you know who found that loophole? Belkin… and he exploited it (or tried to). Didn’t he file an objection to the initial appraisal faster than he likely could have read it? Come on… cut your losses already nire. They are bad sports owners, they got played by Belkin… negotiated a settlement behind closed doors and are back in the courtroom again after allowing a lawsuit to be filed that contradicts previous statements. Time to hop out of the car with those guys, they aren’t taking you any place good.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:17 pm

Never mind, stay in the car. It’s a car full of arrogant folk who think they are too smart for the common folk. Meanwhile, the common folk are simply shaking their head in sad amazement. nire, my friend, you deserve a front seat in that car. Enjoy the ride.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:20 pm

The funny thing is that filing this suit (especially the way they did) was certain to be a PR catastrophe by ASG. And one way or another, it reveals dishonesty on ASG’s part, because one of the following two things must be true:

1) They were lying before when they said the Thrashers weren’t for sale; or
2) ASG actually never did try to sell the Thrashers…in which the complaint is dishonest.

My guess is that it’s option #2: They will try to square the complaint with their past statements by saying something like “the uncertainty from the lawsuit kept us from even trying to sell the team because we knew we wouldn’t be able to get a good price or there would be concerns about our right to dispose of the team.” But the complaint certainly implies that they were actively trying to sell the team, which would be dishonest if they never were.

But AJ couldn’t resist simply hitting the ASG for being dishonest or being terrible at PR (again). Nope. He had to veer off into talking about whether clients in complex commercial transactions are expected to understand the legal implications of their agreements – a question far more complicated than AJ is equipped to handle, and which is not directly relevant to legal malpractice suits anyway! Oh, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:29 pm

Yeah, guilty nire. Heaven knows, you never commit a simimlar mistake… of discussing subjects that are (let’s say miles) away from your working knowledge.

I’m sure I’m the only guy who thought that a signature conveyed understanding of the document. Now I know differently. If you can convince a judge that the subject matter was such that legal counsel was needed to draft the agreement and that said legal counsel was incompetent, then I guess you can file a lawsuit that provides evidence for public consumption that you are a lying organization. OK. That works for me. Viable lawsuit, idiotic decision, embarrassment to the city, incompetent owners. But again, viable lawsuit.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
4:34 pm

AJ,

Didn’t this whole thing come down to the fact that there were no provisions for how to determine the apprasisor if both parties objected to the initial appraisal?

No.

Wasn’t that essentially the reason for the Maryland trial, to ask a judge to figure out who gets to hire the appraiser since the initial contract didn’t buildin a simple “if, then” statement?

No.

And you know who found that loophole? Belkin… and he exploited it (or tried to).

No. First off, it was Belkin’s lawyers who found it, not Belkin (yes, I know that for sure). Further proving my point that the ultimate outcome of this was more about the quality of the lawyers. The owners on both sides, like most businessmen, only discussed the general outline of the agreement they wanted, and left the haggling over specific terms and preparing for contingencies to the lawyers. Second, Belkin tried to exploit it, but he ultimately FAILED. The contract was so poorly drafted that it was ultimately thrown out completely.

I just showed this discussion to one of my friends who works in corporate transactional law. He agreed that you just don’t get it. You really don’t, AJ. You have absolutely, positively no idea how the world of corporate transactions works. It’s just sad that you actually think that a complex, negotiated commercial transaction like the buy-out is somehow analogous to your credit agreements (which surely were written using form language, the language of which is mostly dictated by statutes protecting consumers and small businessmen), much less that the issue of whether the agreement is binding is determinative of whether the lawyers who drafted and reviewed it on the client’s behalf are liable for doing a terrible job protecting their client’s interests.

Never mind, stay in the car. It’s a car full of arrogant folk who think they are too smart for the common folk.

Yeah, AJ. Because there is nothing arrogant at all in calling people who run a business you know nothing about “incompetent” and “out of their league.”

To you, it’s arrogant for me to take you down a peg for arrogantly talking out of your a$$ in the first place? Well, ok then. Enjoy the back of the car. Just don’t be surprised if people back there get tired of the smell produced from constantly talking out of your butt.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
4:44 pm

nire, you have no idea how okay I am that I don’t understand the role of lawyers in these negotiations. Because it is absolutely inconsequential to the point that the ASG have screwed up. The lawsuit filing has let the genie out of the box that they are liars. One way or the other. They either lied about the Belkin lawsuit not affecting franchise operations or they are lying now to extort money from K&S. Either way, that is not an ownership group that I would choose to defend nor support. The role of the lawyers is so much less important than the role of the ASG in the Atlanta community. That is what makes this laughable (and sad). You are right, congratulations, I am out of my knowledge base when it comes to corporate law. Have an office party regarding my ignorance and my friends and I will share a laugh about your inability to see “the big picture”. But my reputation as a corporate giant on the blog isn’t nearly as important as the ASG’s reputation as honorable business owners deserving the patronage of this community. That is the true point. My reputation on this blog can be tattered from here to eternity… but as a fan of the Hawks, I have to question a lot about the owners based on today’s information. Are you smart enough to get that? It ain’t about me (and honestly, it ain’t about you)… it’s about the integrity of the owners of this sports team.

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
5:04 pm

nire, I’m glad that I have entertained you and your office today. You continue to miss the issue in your zeal to debate. The issue is not my insufficient knoweldge of corporate law or the role of lawyers in these types of negotiations. The issue is the intergity of the ASG. I am perfectly fine, in ways that you could probably never understand, with not having all knowledge of everything. But what I do know is that if you own a business that relies on the disposable income of people, then you need to conduct yourself with integrity. Today’s lawsuit filing has lifted the veil off this ownership group. That is the issue. They either lied before or are lying now. This isn’t about my knowledge (or even your all-knowing abilities), it’s about an ownership group that operates in my city, runs my team and has surfaced as a bunch of first-rate liars. Somehow, I think that you missed that. My corporate law knowledge is lacking and so is the integrity of the ASG. Gee, one makes me feel so much worse than the other.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
5:31 pm

AJ,

I already conceded that the complaint reveals, in one way or another, dishonesty on ASG’s part. Like I said, if you had simply left it at that, this whole discussion would have been 3 posts long. But nope. Instead, you hit them for filing the lawsuit at all and made a number of statements that revealed your unique mix of arrogance and ignorance.

You brought up way, way more issues than their integrity. You’re lying if you’re implying otherwise.

Here’s my hope, that this new lawsuit takes about 1-2 years, with the judge ultimately saying…

“King & Spaulding did not willfully produce a sub-standard product on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(Nevermind that willfulness is not the standard for legal malpractice)

In addition, the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to review the contract and ensure that all loopholes and gaps were cared for prior to the document being final. Lastly, the plaintiffs signed the contract (presumably under no duress), suggesting that they read the agreement and concurred with the details of the document.

(Nevermind that that’s none of that is the issue in legal malpractice suits)

This ruling is based solely on the fact that these are a bunch of dumba$$es who have spent far too much time in our judicial system”.

(Yeah, ok)

That entire post was the start of me having a problem with you. You started to pass legal judgments using assumptions and logic that any lawyer worth a cent would be able to tell is painfully wrong. Then, instead of saying “yeah, ok, I admit that I don’t know anything about the way complex business transactions are negotiated, structured, or interpreted, and I don’t know anything about contract law or legal malpractice law generally” and stopping, you compounded the error by going on talking out of your ass (which must have chronic pain at this point from the workout you give it).

nire, at some point, don’t these guys have to read what their hired lawyers write? When will they learn that lesson? Come on… this is laughable. They are suing because they signed a bad contract (that they paid for) and now they have a lawsuit filed on their behalf that contradicts previous statements they made to the media and customers?

(Already addressed how that’s bull$hite)

Here’s my guess, the ASG will sell everything because they are woefully incompetent and are far too petty to sit in the same room with other owners from across the respective leagues. They are small time, small minded and an embarrassment to this city. They are wealthy sports fans who have no more business running sports teams than many of the not-so-wealthy sports fans on these blogs.

*Yeah, no arrogance there. You can’t say with a straight face that you’re attacking their integrity here. You’re questioning their competence. Since you don’t know jack $h!t about their business, much less anything about the specific conditions in which they have to work, that’s quite arrogant. Yet another example of you talking out of your a$$ and arrogantly passing judgment on things you know nothing about.

And their attempt to bury this lawsuit filing on a Friday afternoon hopefully won’t be easily swept under the fraying infrastructure.

Trust me. The ASG PR people were not involved with the timing of filing this complaint. First off, they aren’t that competent. Second, again, that’s just not how firms and businesses determine when a complaint is filed. In any case, again this is you talking out of your a$$.

They paid for services by K&S which they say led to financial misfortune for them… but isn’t the signee responsible for understanding what they sign? Is that not a basic tenant of any legal agreement? Sure, the fallout is quite unfortunate, but how is it lawsuit material? Don’t they share accountability for signing a flawed document?

Already addressed how this is BS too. Again, talking out of your a$$.

Mistake after mistake after mistake is my opinion. An incompetent set of team owners who likely do a far better job of operating within their original industries but are out of their league in sports management.

See * above.

I’ll have to try that with by creditors then. “I didn’t understand the mumbo-jumbo language in the contract so that’s why I failed to…”

I’m still laughing that I predicted your pathetic, BS, predictable response on this. I knew you’d equate some form contract that you signed with a complex, negotiated commercial contract. @$$ talking at its best.

Didn’t this whole thing come down to the fact that there were no provisions for how to determine the apprasisor if both parties objected to the initial appraisal? Wasn’t that essentially the reason for the Maryland trial, to ask a judge to figure out who gets to hire the appraiser since the initial contract didn’t buildin a simple “if, then” statement? And you know who found that loophole? Belkin… and he exploited it (or tried to). Didn’t he file an objection to the initial appraisal faster than he likely could have read it?

Already addressed that BS too.

They are bad sports owners, they got played by Belkin

Considering that Belkin didn’t win the suit and we don’t know the terms of the settlement, I don’t see how on earth you can draw that conclusion. Oh yeah, that’s right. Because you were talking out of your a$$. Again. And again. And again.

**********************************
So tell me, AJ, if:

The issue is the intergity of the ASG.

…then why did you talk out of your rear end so much about things that had absolutely nothing to do with their integrity? Why did you try to pass judgment on their competence, the merits of their lawsuits, etc?

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
5:33 pm

First off, they aren’t that competent.

Sarcasm there, in case you couldn’t tell

Astro Joe

January 21st, 2011
9:24 pm

nire, you defend these guys like your last name is Levenson.

I didn’t like the idea of suing the lawfirm for something thst I thought they shared responsibility for, a flawed contract. You explained to me in your special way how the lawsuit is indeed viable. I think that essentially sums it up my “extra comments”.

You seem to have far more passion for correcting other bloggers than most. My passion is more pointed to those who have far greater influence over my experience with the Hawks. I’m a passionate fan, you come across as a passionate blogger. I want owners who conduct business the right way, you seem far more concerned with bloggers who conduct business the right way. It creates for sometimes interesting and mostly long debates. You take pride in exposing the lack of knowledge of other bloggers, while most other bloggers tend to “aim” at owners, GMs, coaches and players. We can’t change those that we aim at and guess what, you’re not changing the bloggers.

You can count on my continued pattern of blogging and I’m confident that you won’t change your style. I’ll be wrong, you’ll be right and the ASG will be lying. I won’t lose any sleep on my end, but will stay concerned with a lousy group of owners.

Melvin

January 21st, 2011
9:29 pm

I’m glad I didn’t waste my money by going to this game. Heck, I may bypass attending the Hornets game tomorrow night after watching this heartless effort…

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
9:43 pm

Yeah, AJ. I call them liars and that’s what you say.

You seem to have far more passion for correcting other bloggers than most.

Yes, I do. I love exposing the flaws in people’s arguments and popping the arrogant assumptions that people make.

We can’t change those that we aim at and guess what, you’re not changing the bloggers.

No. But I can expose arrogant fools who talk out of their a$$ for exactly what they are. I don’t expect it to change you. I get satisfaction in seeing how you react when I call you out for talking out of your a$$.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
9:44 pm

Meanwhile, I’m glad the Aussie Open is on. Because the basketball tonight was not worth watching.

O'Brien

January 21st, 2011
9:44 pm

Hawks have 54 points with 90 seconds left. In the game.

And we are down by 40+ points. At home. After beating Miami in Miami?

Typical hawks. Lose to Detroit by 23, and win in Utah by 23. So up and down. SMH

O'Brien

January 21st, 2011
9:56 pm

For a minute there, I thought this was the 2010 playoffs, and we were playing Orlando…

O'Brien

January 21st, 2011
10:06 pm

I wonder if David McDavid is still interested in buying the Hawks (although I’m sure the ASG does not have the Hawks up for sale either).

As for the ASG, I know nothing about business dealings, contracts, law etc. But the ASG suck at marketing, and they suck at PR.

niremetal

January 21st, 2011
10:16 pm

O’B,

Yup. Unlike the stuff that goes on in boardrooms and back rooms, the PR and marketing is for public consumption (indeed it’s aimed at the general public). We might not have enough information to say what the right type of marketing and PR is, but I think it’s pretty unanimous that what they’ve been doing so far ain’t resonating with the fan base (ie us).