they might've ended up with Rudy Gay instead of Shelden Williams in 2006, and Thaddeus Young/Al Thorton instead of Al Horford in 2007... tough to say).
Just a reminder: if the Hawks pick wasn't in the top-3 last year, it would have been sent to Phoenix to complete the Joe Johnson trade.
The Williams pick never made a lot of sense. Everyone knew they needed a point guard first, and a big man second. Instead, they went with yet another swingman. Adding CP3 or Deron Williams to that team would have been huge. Instead, they went with "tremendous upside potential", and got burned.
(Williams isn't a bad player, and is still only 21 years old. He's never going to be on the same level as Chris Paul, though, and it's hard to believe that anybody ever thought he could be.)
That trade part is true, thanks Roy, I knew there was some quirk about one of their picks. Anyways, I agree with all that. It really confuses me... I just don't see any possible reason that justifies that pick. Yes, maybe Marvin Williams had incredible potential. But if I'm the GM of a team with almost 0 assets worth holding (like the Hawks in 2003) my goal is to fear out a cohesive starting team with as much talent and as quickly as possible. In 2004 they took a SF that was good in college (Childress) and a SF of almost the same body type, but with a ton of potential, in the same round (Smith). That alone is questionable, neither had the skill set to be a shooting guard or the size to be a 4. They were both small forwards, why take them in the same draft? Next draft, same story. There are two clear franchise point guards for the taking.... and you take another SF??? Yeah, he had major upside and could
maybe even play the 4 if he filled out, but his skills set was still pretty similar to both guys you took the year before.
Okay... I'm done venting....