THE "OFFICIAL" February 21, 2013 Trade Deadline Thread...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Nobody's saying "end of the world". I just don't understand why you're harping on this when CLEARLY trading Wes for a rental is a downgrade. You turned this into a "Wes is overrated" argument, rather than the original argument of "trading Wes for Smoove is a good idea".
I'm not against trading Wes, but it better be for someone that's going to improve the team, not bolt in a couple months.
 
Why does everyone assume that Smith would leave? Who else is out there with money and a better situation?
 
Natebishop3 said:
Positions are just words on paper. It doesn't matter what two letter acronym you put next to his name. Aldridge plays center for us at times, but he doesn't like the "C" next to his name so he's a "PF".
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Certain skills are necessary from certain positions. And while the SF position is deeper than SG, it's still a little shallow. What SF are you wanting to get that'll push Nic to the SG spot?
 
blue9 said:
Nobody's saying "end of the world". I just don't understand why you're harping on this when CLEARLY trading Wes for a rental is a downgrade. You turned this into a "Wes is overrated" argument, rather than the original argument of "trading Wes for Smoove is a good idea".
I'm not against trading Wes, but it better be for someone that's going to improve the team, not bolt in a couple months.
Click to expand...

Would him bolting and giving us an additional 6 million in cap space be worse than Wes?
 
blue9 said:
Yes and no. Certain skills are necessary from certain positions. And while the SF position is deeper than SG, it's still a little shallow. What SF are you wanting to get that'll push Nic to the SG spot?
Click to expand...

We're talking about Josh Smith. Starting a lineup of Lillard, Batum, Smith, Aldridge, and Leonard.
 
blue9 said:
Nobody's saying "end of the world". I just don't understand why you're harping on this when CLEARLY trading Wes for a rental is a downgrade. You turned this into a "Wes is overrated" argument, rather than the original argument of "trading Wes for Smoove is a good idea".
I'm not against trading Wes, but it better be for someone that's going to improve the team, not bolt in a couple months.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually a good position. For one, we hold the bird rights for Smith; so we could make moves and then resign him being over cap. Second, if he does just bolt; we would have an additional 8 million in cap space; removing Hickson's cap hold and Matthew's actual contract.

3rdly, I actually think Batum will dominate the SG position. I think he wouldn't be out of position, since he's actually more efficient at 2 than 3. His PER at 2 is actually 19.5; which his PER AT 3 is 16.6.

http://www.82games.com/1213/12POR8.HTM

WHAT's even more appealing is the differential Batum has per position. His opponents have a 13.6 PER (+6 PER) at SG; while they get a 12.4 PER (+4) at SF.
 
blue9 said:
Yes and no. Certain skills are necessary from certain positions. And while the SF position is deeper than SG, it's still a little shallow. What SF are you wanting to get that'll push Nic to the SG spot?
Click to expand...

Smith could do it.
 
What do you guys think...I know the Raptors might want a little more but would you do this 3 way trade...it works on the ESPN trade machine...Portland gets Terrence Ross and Rip Hamilton Chicago gets Andrea Bargnani and Wes Mathews Toronto gets Carlos Boozer Nolan Smith and a 2nd round pick from Portland.
 
Some things concern me about Smith.

At SF his rebound numbers will go down and his turnovers will likely go up. He is not a good outside shooter and this year he is only shooting 50% from the line.

Not saying I wouldn't take him but he is more a star on name then actual game.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
Some things concern me about Smith.

At SF his rebound numbers will go down and his turnovers will likely go up. He is not a good outside shooter and this year he is only shooting 50% from the line.

Not saying I wouldn't take him but he is more a star on name then actual game.
Click to expand...

Actually, he averaged the same amount of rebounds per game when he played SF in Atlanta.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/josh_smith/career_stats.html

04-09; he was a SF
 
Looks like slightly less to me but lets just call it even.

So 1 out of my 4 worries was addressed. As I said, if you get a chance at him you take him. But only depending on the cost and he isn't a true star like his name suggests.
 
Oh, so you guys actually want to throw a MAX contract to retain Smith? I suppose if that's your perspective then the trade makes sense. I just don't think paying Smith MAX makes a lick of sense. Our issue isn't SG/SF, it's C and bench. It makes little sense to spend MAX money upgrading an area that's quite solid.
I'm also of the opinion that cap space (the extra $8M from Wes) does very little for us. It's only useful as a trade tool. And given this crop of UFAs, we certainly don't need even more cap space than we already have.
Trading Wes for Smith is just rearranging the deck chairs and does nothing to address our team's current problems, and instead creates new problems that don't currently exist.
 
This is how I can see us become significantly better adding Josh Smith. He is definitely a versitile forward. In fact, he can even play center in certain situations. He is a defensive minded, get to the foul line, slashing forward.

That versitility is a perfect compliment for Stotts's advanced stat coaching style. There would be times Aldridge is playing 5; while Smith is 4 and Batum is 3; then there are other times, you put smith at 3 and have a huge line-up.

Regardless, the best thing about Smith is his toughness and defense. Something we suck badly at in the paint. I actually think his blocks would even go up, since Aldridge can help as well.
 
blue9 said:
Oh, so you guys actually want to throw a MAX contract to retain Smith? I suppose if that's your perspective then the trade makes sense. I just don't think paying Smith MAX makes a lick of sense. Our issue isn't SG/SF, it's C and bench. It makes little sense to spend MAX money upgrading an area that's quite solid.
I'm also of the opinion that cap space (the extra $8M from Wes) does very little for us. It's only useful as a trade tool. And given this crop of UFAs, we certainly don't need even more cap space than we already have.
Trading Wes for Smith is just rearranging the deck chairs and does nothing to address our team's current problems, and instead creates new problems that don't currently exist.
Click to expand...

I think MM was saying we could use Smith as a piece in a sign and trade for a max player.
 
BigGameDamian said:
You would have to trade Mathews to get Smith just sayin.
Click to expand...

Would have to trade more than that. Smith is an All-Star (even if I don't consider him a star-star)

Edit: and Smith for Wes and Hickson was already mentioned. Read a few pages back.
 
That's a big gamble. Much bigger gamble than trying to do a S&T with Hickson this summer. In MM's gamble, if you lose you're down a starting SG, in the Hickson gamble you're out nothing.
I get the feeling that there aren't going to be many S&T partners for a guy asking for a MAX contract when he certainly doesn't warrant one. There'll be a team or two that'll probably be foolish enough to give it to him, but who's to say those are teams that would have anybody we'd want to take back?
 
KeepOnRollin said:
Would have to trade more than that. Smith is an All-Star (even if I don't consider him a star-star)
Click to expand...

Matthews is the value. Hickson is the kicker. The cap space is the real goal. They would have their answer at SG; while they can make a run for Howard and another marquee star. Also, if they get Howard; Horford is a better compliment to Howard, IMO.
 
blue9 said:
That's a big gamble. Much bigger gamble than trying to do a S&T with Hickson this summer. In MM's gamble, if you lose you're down a starting SG, in the Hickson gamble you're out nothing.
I get the feeling that there aren't going to be many S&T partners for a guy asking for a MAX contract when he certainly doesn't warrant one. There'll be a team or two that'll probably be foolish enough to give it to him, but who's to say those are teams that would have anybody we'd want to take back?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that Smith will get max.
 
Smith is highly unlikely for the Blazers IMO, think smaller along a Hickson for decent asset or pick

and IMO is really does not seem like a good "chemistry" guy
 
Doubt they could get Howard (even though he grew up in ATL) but if they did then the Hawks could play their players in their true NBA position. Smith should be at SF, Horford should be at PF and then they would have Howard at Center.
 
I was watching ESPN last night and they were saying it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that Smith is gone.
 
If you're DHO, why would you go to Atlanta? That makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top