The Free Agent Clearinghouse Post

At SBNation, Tom Ziller provides a list of all 2012 NBA free agents, restricted and unrestricted.

At Baskerball-Reference.com, Neil Paine lists all the guys who are playing overseas but do not have an opt-out clause. (In related news, the 2010-11 Season Review: Josh Powell is on deck.)

Keeping in mind the salary cap limitations (barring an unexpected leap into the realm of NBA luxury tax payers) the Hawks have created for themselves means they might need to include a a rookie free agent or two in their December acquisitions, speculate away.

Some Atlanta Hawks Thoughts Inspired By the 48th Pick

1) It's not flippant to say the Hawks should draft the best player, regardless of position, with the 48th pick of the 2011 NBA Draft. That's really all a team can do in that position. (Ignoring, for the moment, how a team got itself in that position.)

Looking at the most recent mock draft at DraftExpress, there are some potentially useful (potentially useful being defined, for the purposes of the 48th pick, as a likely bet to make the roster and a non-zero chance of becoming a rotation player within two seasons) players available with the 48th pick: David Lighty, Isaiah Thomas, Cory Joseph, and Andrew Goudelock.

2) The Hawks should consider buying the 32nd or 34th pick from Cleveland or Washington. There's relatively little chance the Hawks will get an immediate rotation player at that spot in the draft but it's still preferable to wasting roster spots on older, non-rotation players like Josh Powell or Etan Thomas, and, given the team's cap situation, they're not likely to have any really good options when it comes to filling out the bench.

3) All of my off-season speculation about the Hawks assumes the existence of a 2011-12 NBA season and that the Hawks bring back (or, at least make a serious attempt to being back) Jason Collins as a defensive specialist in the post, at least one of Damien Wilkins or Pape Sy as a defensive specialist on the wing, and give Magnum Rolle a chance to make the roster as an emergency backup in the frontcourt.

4) Though I assume the Hawks will explore the trade market for both Marvin Williams and Kirk Hinrich and would listen if, say, Cleveland or New Orleans inquired about making an immediate upgrade at the 2-guard, let's say the Hawks don't make any trades. What kind of players would they need to acquire to fill out a balanced roster?

In order of importance...

• A backup two-guard who can either defend or spread the floor, preferably both
• A legitimate backup power forward to fill the fourth spot in the post rotation
• A third-string point guard

5) Barring a significant trade that fundamentally reshapes the roster, the Hawks should not consider, at any price, re-signing Jamal Crawford as he duplicates many of Joe Johnson's strengths and weaknesses while being less good than Johnson, takes possessions away from Josh Smith and Al Horford, of whom more must be demanded* if the Hawks are going to improve, and takes minutes away from Jeff Teague (younger, possibly better) and Kirk Hinrich (a better complement to Teague, to Johnson, and to Smith and Horford should the Hawks choose to start playing through them in the post more often).

The Hawks got all they could have expected, if not more, from Crawford over the past two seasons but it's time to move on.

*And, if more is demanded and Smith or Horford is found wanting, the Hawks must then explore trading one or both as means to make the team better.

Larry Drew Coming to Terms With His Job

When it was announced that the Atlanta Hawks would hire Larry Drew to be their head coach, I wrote the following:

Whatever the long-term success of hiring Larry Drew, it's an uninspiring decision in the short term and one that only reinforces the perception that the organization fears change more than it desires a championship.

On the occasion of his introduction as the team's new head coach, I wrote:

Hiring Larry Drew doesn't come close to solving this team's myriad weaknesses but, if he can convince the team's young talent to play differently (whether Joe Johnson returns or not) than they've grown accustomed, then the chances of him making a successful head coaching debut increase. The players got what they wanted but, in gaining a new head coach, they lost a scapegoat. Mike Woodson took the bulk of the blame for the team's (relatively) poor playoff performance. If the returning Hawks fail to give Drew a consistent, committed effort as he learns on the job (as he assuredly will) they'll find there's plenty of blame to go around when changes don't lead to improvement.

In the final installment of my season preview posts, I wrote about Larry Drew:

Larry Drew has been given a difficult task: use the same materials as his dismissed predecessor to improve on success. Nor is there a particular skill on which Drew can rely. He must bring along young players (Marvin Williams and Jeff Teague immediately, Jordan Crawford and possibly Pape Sy eventually), consolidate the development of the franchise's cornerstone talent (Josh Smith and Al Horford), minimize the effects of decline from two of the primary returning ball-handlers (Jamal Crawford and Mike Bibby), postpone the decline of the franchise's greatest investment (Joe Johnson), and overcome a worrying lack of frontcourt depth and talented defenders.

Further complicating matters, Drew is a different but not a new voice in the locker room. Can a familiar man in a new position enact fundamental change within an organization that prizes stability if not outright stasis? Will players accede to change if rewards are not immediate? If the players resist, will the organization give Drew greater support than his contract suggests?

For ESPN.com, I addressed the doubts over the hire of Drew:

It's easy to understand skepticism over the Hawks' hiring of Larry Drew as their new head coach. As with any first-time head coach, Drew carries a certain burden of proof. But a larger share of the doubt appears to be cast upon (and reasonably so) those who made the decision and the degree to which they've presented Drew an opportunity to succeed.

The above is not intended as self-congratulatory. It is intended to underscore the obviousness* of the realization with which Larry Drew appears to be grappling: It's damn hard to get the exact same players to improve on their success.

Larry Drew:

"We have, in my opinion, fallen into a bit of a comfort zone with everything. It may be time to do something just to rattle the cage a little bit.

I am not one to react on emotions but I have had this feeling for a little while. I have been in situations where it has been like this, where a team has had to do something just to shake the cage a little bit. It’s something I’ve been thinking about. Will I do it? I have a couple days to practice and make a decision.

I don’t think at this stage . . . at least I don’t feel comfortable, totally comfortable with where we are after 52 games. We have had some bad losses here at home. That may be a sign, I don’t know. I never want to throw out the possibility of making our team better.

At the end of the day, regardless of what happens [with trades], we still are going to have to go out there and improve our club. After last night’s loss, I do believe we do have to look at our situation very seriously and possibly look at a lineup change, possibly doing something that will jolt this team. Because I don’t want this team to get into a comfort zone. The minute we get into a comfort zone, what happened last night, that is the end result."

Other than Al Horford never, ever missing another game, or the possibility that "comfort zone" is code for "allowing Josh Smith to take horrible shots in great quantity on a nightly basis," it's hard to see how an internal lineup change will make any substantive difference. Maybe if Drew does a better job of mixing and matching the disparate skills of Mike Bibby and Jeff Teague, he could improve the team but that wish has as much to do with Bibby's poor play and/or Teague's inexperience as any extant evidence of untapped resources.

And even if such a change helps the team, doesn't the ability to get the most out of two below-average point guards seem an undernourished example of good coaching? Drew's done a good job of spotting Jason Collins this season and has used Damien Wilkins reasonably well to compensate for Maurice Evans's struggles to defend bigger wings off the bench but, again, the existence of such circumstances acts a bigger indictment of the roster's lack of quality depth than an example of how Drew can succeed as a head coach.

It's that same lack of depth, as well as the cost that's gone into putting together such a shallow roster, that makes a trade that seriously improves the team so implausible.

And all of this could have been predicted by anyone paying attention.

*I'm sure Michael Cunningham or Jason Walker or Kris Willis could compile their own versions of this post.

A Narrow Defense Of Doing Nothing Right Now

First, the latest rumor...

Marc Stein reports that the Hawks are:

[T]he only team with a confirmed "live" interest in O’Neal. There are limitations to that interest.

Stein, again:

Shaq, at last report, still wants assurances of a healthy slice of playing time as well as a salary that starts above the $5.8 million mid-level exception, which can be achieved through a sign-and-trade with Cleveland. No team out there, including Atlanta, is known to be willing to pay Shaq more than $2 million for next season.

Shaq for $2 million next season makes far more sense than spending the MLE for X number of years on Shaq. Not that it's any more realistic than Joe Johnson agreeing to a 4-year, $60 million extension last Summer, but, hey, it's worth a shot. Presumably, were this highly unlikely agreement to come to pass, the Hawks would increase their collection of valuable trade chits from 0 to 1 (Zaza Pachulia) were they willing to risk using Jason Collins or similar dreck the 20-odd nights Shaq doesn't dress.

It shouldn't be a surprise that retaining Jason Collins is the sum total of reported free agent activity by the Hawks following the signing of Joe Johnson to a max contract. Even someone with a terrible record for prognostication could see it coming:

Signing Joe Johnson to a max deal will necessitate making future decisions based on finances rather than basketball...

The upshot, of course, is that the Hawks probably don't need Shaq or any other famous, aged center. And not just in the "they need a backup* for Marvin Williams, a point guard** in whom we can be confident, and a capable perimeter defender*** more" sense. The up-post Zaza Pachulia reference is likely one of the few**** you'll have noticed this Summer. Odd considering the number of centers who have been speculated about. So I offer this reminder from Zaza's season review:

[T]he Hawks [are] +5.3 per 100 possessions (Off Eff: 104.7 Def Eff: 99.4) over the last two seasons (totaling 963 offensive and 960 defensive possessions) with Horford and Pachulia playing alongside each other.

Sure it would be fun if the Hawks had the financial flexibility so as to speculate about them getting involved in the fire sales of Ramon Sessions or Brandon Bass but it's also important to keep in mind what the team has. Or, to quote from my (overly pessimistic, it turned out) preview of last season:

It’s tempting, in the transactional flurry of the off-season, to assume that if a team’s not busy getting better, it’s getting worse. When all that exists is potential, reward can overshadow risk and the act of reconstituting a 47-win team fails to capture the imagination.

Locking in the core of a 53-win team in such as way as to limit its chances of someday winning a championship isn't appealing but the 8- or 10-win player the team presumably needs to compete for a top-4 seed in the East in 2010-11 doesn't appear to be available right now. Throwing more money at non-existent roster problems for PR purposes isn't going to create many future opportunities to marshal what few resources the team currently possesses in service of real improvement.

*A job which should be easily filled on the cheap.

**Could be Jeff Teague.

***Could also be Jeff Teague.

****I blame Drew's absence.

The Hawks Need Another Shooter

Everybody could use another shooter (You want to argue strenuously that Phoenix doesn't and I'll probably concede in deference to my energy-draining cold.) but, as Sekou Smith quotes the ever popular unnamed scout, another shooter would push the Hawks from playoff hopeful to playoff habitue.

Sayeth the unnamed scout:

“They’ve got to have another shooter, or two man. Everybody could use more help in the post but it’s just not happening. There aren’t enough quality big men to go around. Plus, with Josh Smith and Al Horford, they’ve got two of the better young tweeners in the league. Neither of those guys is the ideal size, but they play off of each other perfectly. But what they can get, and what they desperately need, is another quality shooter. Other than Joe Johnson, they don’t have a guy that you’re worried about spotting up and knocking down shots in transition or in the half court game. Marvin Williams is on the path, but he’s still a guy you can take away by getting underneath him with a smaller, active guy. They don’t have another guy that scares you from distance. They just don’t. And if they did, that would open up the floor for the rest of those guys to operate a little easier. Sometimes a subtle thing like that can open up a team’s offense in ways they never imagined.”

As of today, the Hawks are 25th in the NBA in eFG%. They sit ahead of just the Nets, Sonics, Knicks, Clippers, and Bulls (combined winning percentage: .342). The three teams directly ahead of the Hawks are the Timberwolves, Bobcats, and 76ers.

Josh Smith is shooting 41.5% from the field (weighed down by his 23.1% shooting from beyond the arc and 26.8% shooting on two-point attempts outside 15 feet--more touches in the post, please), Zaza Pachulia and Shelden Williams are each shooting 41.7% from the field, Acie Law IV is shooting 39.6% from the field (that should pick up should he ever get completely healthy but likely not as a result of making more jumpers so much as finishing better at the rim), Hoopinion favorite (and admitted defenwsive liability) Salim Stoudamire is shooting 39.8% from the field.

That's effectively half the roster that hasn't been able to make the shots they're taking so far this year. It's not like Joe Johnson (46.3%), Anthony Johnson (47.4%), or Tyronn Lue (46.9%) are bettering the league average themselves. Despite this, the Hawks are 12-12 because they've been a top ten offense in terms of offensive rebounding and free throw rate. (That and they've been an outstanding defensive team for the last month. Allowing Damien Wilkins to score 41 points in Philips Arena seems to have delivered something of a wake up call.) If they could figure out a way to become even an almost-average shooting team, they'd be battling the Raptors for the fourth seed rather than participating in the scrum for the last couple playoff spots.

As I wrote earlier today, I think that the Hawks have another shooter on the roster and his name is Joe Johnson. More touches for Al Horford and Josh Smith (good passers both) in the post means more open jump shots for Johnson and Marvin Williams. Continuing to give most of the touches in the post to Johnson means more open jump shots for Smith and Anthony Johnson. I know which I would prefer were I Mike Woodson.

Also, were I Billy Knight (shudder) I'd be hard-pressed to turn any of the dreck on the back end of this roster into another shooter. I think someone on this list would be worth bringing in for the new year. Billy Thomas can shoot and guard people (At least I assume he can still manage the latter; ain't none of us getting younger.) but though I'm sentimental (Moneyrock!) I'm also open-minded enough to consider fairly any alternatives.