Source: Hawks name Larry Drew head coach

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/06/11/hawks.drew/index.html

Honestly,i was expecting something bigger from them. Never was a fan of signing assistant coaches to the Head Coaches.

Never was a fan of signing assistant coaches to the Head Coaches.

In all fairness, it's worked out alright in the past. Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan are good examples of it being a successful move. More recently, elevating Scott Brooks to the head coaching position has worked out pretty well so far.

Good examples,though i still think its better not to risk.
There are some good coaches on the market,why not try to bring someone experienced in.
Anyway,the guy can prove me that i'm wrong.

Why do you think assistant coaches have no experience?

And why do you think basically every single head coach in the NBA wasn't at one point an assistant?

Phil Jackson, Stan Van Gundy, Gregg Popovich, Mike Brown, Pat Riley, Avery Johnson, Byron Scott, Flip Saunders, Mike D'Antoni, Rick Carlisle. All coaches who have been to the Finals or won 60 games in a season over the last seven years. All of them assistant coaches at one point.

If all you do is hire head coaches, eventually you'll run out. (Or they'll go senile like Don Nelson.)

I Meant they don't have experience at exactly running a team,being an assistant is alot different.
Alot of current coaches were assistans,and that's nothing bad,but i just don't see a reason to risk,they fired Woodson because they couldn't go past the second round,so they're pretty much in some win-now mode,so why make you're assistant the head coach,do they think he's better and Can get them past that round,i really doubt it,they could've certainly aimed for something bigger.
Time will show,though.

They aren't in a win-now mode, they're in a slow path to complete irrelevance after a few years as first round fodder mode.

And Woodson needed to be fired after he fouled an opposing player. (In reality, he was fired because the players were tired of him after five years.)

so why make you're assistant the head coach,do they think he's better and Can get them past that round,i really doubt it,they could've certainly aimed for something bigger.

But why? Why spend millions on a name-brand head coach when it won't do anything to get them deeper into the playoffs either?

I Meant they don't have experience at exactly running a team,being an assistant is alot different.

Yeah, often they do all the actual work.

but i just don't see a reason to risk

What's the risk?

I take it you never would have taken the risk on Phil Jackson and Pat Riley. They had no experience at running a team! Keep recycling Westhead and Motta until they're dead!

Did they do something spectacular in the first seasons?

Jackson took the Bulls to the Eastern Conference Finals, and then in the following three seasons won NBA Championships.

All Riley did was win a NBA Championship in his first season and then in the following three seasons go to the NBA Finals. (Winning another title once.)

well,i could be wrong.
though i still think Hawks will have a horrible upcoming season.

Define horrible.

For one thing they're upgrading by getting Josh Childress back in exchange for not having to give Joe Johnson 25 shots a game while paying him the max. Might add some other useful players too.

IMO,they could hardly win 30 games,if JJ won't come back.
It's not clear about Childress too.

You think Joe Johnson is worth 24+ wins?

You think the fourth most important player on this years Hawks team is the best player in league history?

I think TheDee's defense might be including 'domino effect' that star player brings to the team by leaving. Assitant being promoted to head coach doesn't sound like an attempt to upgrade the team drastically either, so I am also not too keen on the future of the Hawks if JJ leaves. Not sure it'll cost them 24 wins(probably not) but definitely not the top 4 even in the East, I am going to assume.

What's the domino effect here? Joe Johnson leaves, taking a bunch of his crappy possessions with him, everyone gets more shots, team uses cap space to actually build a worthy bench, new coach maybe installs offense not revolving around a player trying to go one-on-one every possession, team no longer has to pay superstar money to a guy who doesn't deserve it, etc.

Who cares about "top four" when you're parsecs away from the "top three's" level? They're still right there with Charlotte and Milwaukee as was expected this season. A 43-47 win team that serves as first or second round fodder for the actual contenders. Their regular season win total was inflated by the fact the East has so many shitty teams. They're closer to Memphis than they are Orlando. Have been and still are. They'd be in the same place with or without Mike Woodson and with or without Joe Johnson.

What's the domino effect here? Joe Johnson leaves, taking a bunch of his crappy possessions with him,

Domino effect as in other good players might be wanting to also leave due to less exciting season they'll have. Thus, returning to rebuilding status rather than competing in the playoffs.

But I agree that it's their only option as I don't think JJ definitely isn't worth the max as I am also hoping he doesn't come to Miami.

Who cares about "top four" when you're parsecs away from the "top three's" level?

I agree with you on your point. Though if the Grizzlies were still in Vancouver, I'd have loved to see them in the playoffs regardless of chances to win it all. It was like nothing more would be exciting than seeing my team in the playoffs. If that ever happened only to expect them to go back to rebuilding status very next season, I'd have been so so devastated.

I just think the loss of Joe Johnson will look at lot more like the loss of Jerry Stackhouse by the Pistons than the loss of Michael Jordan by the Bulls.

Actually, a better way to put it would be that it's going to look a lot more like the loss of Joe Johnson by the Suns.

Actually, my thoughts are actually closer to yours than TheDee's. I never was bought on JJ. Now that I hear he's a max player, it's only surprising. However, usually the case is if your team loses a max level quality player, you are simply fucked. We'll see how that applies to the Hawks, I guess.

All that said, I'm not a fan of the Hawks anyways, so I am hoping to see the Hawks' other good players moving to the contenders during the season at relatively cheaper cost for the teams like the Heat. Josh Smith, Mike Bibby or even Jamal would be a great fit for the Heat.

The Hawks are getting Childress back? That's big. While I doubt losing Joe Johnson won't make much of an impact from a talent stand-point, I could see it really hurting their offense, at least for the first couple months. JJ is basically their point guard, and I'm not sure if Mike Bibby is capable of being anything more than a spot-up shooter (or Teague being anything more than a bad player). In an offseason where several teams have cap space, they may not be able to acquire a real point guard via free agency.

He's been a max player for five years, the Hawks gave him a max contract in 2005.

However, usually the case is if your team loses a max level quality player, you are simply fucked. We'll see how that applies to the Hawks, I guess.

Except Joe Johnson isn't a max level QUALITY player. He's simply a player paid the max. Like Jalen Rose, Antoine Walker, the list goes on. Those are the kind that teams actually lose. Tracy McGrady is basically the only max level player to leave through free agency in the last decade and potentially harm his team. (And his old teams best season came the year he left.)

I don't count Carlos Boozer for two reasons, his injuries and the fact that the Cavs offered him less than the MLE. Grant Hill "fucked" the Pistons so much they won a title four years later anchored by the player they got in exchange for Hill. Steve Nash "fucked" the Mavericks into being the best team in the West for three years. Chauncey Billups wasn't that quality of player when he left Minnesota. Rashard Lewis has never been that quality.

I can't think of any other players of such quality that changed teams as free agents in the last decade.

so I am hoping to see the Hawks' other good players moving to the contenders during the season at relatively cheaper cost for the teams like the Heat. Josh Smith, Mike Bibby or even Jamal would be a great fit for the Heat.

And none of those players come at a "cheaper" cost as they're all overpaid except Crawford.

The Hawks are getting Childress back? That's big.

That was the rumor, he wants to come back to the U.S. this season. The Hawks hold his rights and were always interested in keeping him.

And none of those players come at a "cheaper" cost as they're all overpaid except Crawford.

Yeah, but we do have our own overpaid players in Beasley, Cook and James Jones.

I wouldn't call any of them overpaid, especially since James Jones is not going to have his option picked up. $5 million for Beasley isn't horrible (I'd much rather pay him that than pay Marvin Williams what he's got), and $2 million for Cook is peanuts. Especially since those are mandated contracts by the CBA.

Marvin Williams, Mike Bibby, and Josh Smith (if he reverts to his old ways) are a completely different ballpark. That's $23+ million (and multi-year contracts) to guys who would come off the bench on a contender. (Again, if Smith reverts to his old ways.)

Good points. I'd want more in return for Beasley, but not sure about Cook. He failed to crack the rotation in relatively weak position.

I thought Cook was fine in 2009, not great or anything, but he's just hit the age at which he'd come out of college normally. I'd send him to the D-League instead of making him sit though. Yeah, $2 million is high, he should be a minimum player, but that's what you get for drafting him in the first round. Nothing you can do about it, and why deep teams trade their first rounders. (I should note that I actually like the effect of this rule via the luxury tax. It causes those deep teams to flip the picks to other teams who have playing time for the young players increasing the chance of them making the league or proving they don't belong. It's put a kibosh on the Mark Madsens and Jason Caffey's taking up cap and roster space.)

My concerns about Beasley were mentioned in another thread. But I'm not giving up on him to the extent I have on Marcus Williams. If you're going to bomb a second pick, Beasley's better than Williams. (Especially considering Chris FUCKING Paul was on the board. AND THE HAWKS NEEDED A POINT GUARD AT THE TIME.)

I thought Cook was fine in 2009, not great or anything, but he's just hit the age at which he'd come out of college normally. I'd send him to the D-League instead of making him sit though. Yeah, $2 million is high, he should be a minimum player, but that's what you get for drafting him in the first round. Nothing you can do about it, and why deep teams trade their first rounders. (I should note that I actually like the effect of this rule via the luxury tax. It causes those deep teams to flip the picks to other teams who have playing time for the young players increasing the chance of them making the league or proving they don't belong. It's put a kibosh on the Mark Madsens and Jason Caffey's taking up cap and roster space.)

My concerns about Beasley were mentioned in another thread. But I'm not giving up on him to the extent I have on Marcus Williams. If you're going to bomb a second pick, Beasley's better than Williams. (Especially considering Chris FUCKING Paul was on the board. AND THE HAWKS NEEDED A POINT GUARD AT THE TIME.)

You are right. They need a PG like Eddie House, Marcus Thornton to help Mike Bibby. Or they can trade someone from their strengthed position like Clippers did on Zach Randolph.

You are right.

I am rethinking my position.