crimedog

Quote: I don't anticipate the lineup of Biedrins, Horford, and Childress being our primary lineup so I would expect that Marvin would be settling in his mid-range comfort zone with Bibby and JJ deeper. I'd like to think that if we had better perimeter shooting Smoove would stay inside more but I'm not convinced of that. I think he really wants to be known as a guy that can shoot the 3 and will keep doing it regardless of who else we have on the team. In addition to our rebounding improving, I think our defense will also improve because we won't be caught out of position and trying to help quite so much. I love Smoove and his blocks but when he lets the guy get past him and tries to block it from behind that forces Horford to react and help and even if it's only for an instant that gives Horfords man an advantage. ... that doesn't happen nearly as much as people make it seem. Horford rarely helps on those anyway... most of Smith's blocks come because Marv/Chil/Bibby/Al get beat. Don't make it seem like Biedrins would improve our defense, that is ridiculous. On offense, you might be right but that's purely speculation right now. What isn't speculation is that Smith is put into a role of "shot creator" in the half-court and swapping him out with a guy who is purely an around the net finisher would require a completely different offense. Similarly, whether or not Smith wants to be known as a deadeye shooter (or just a shooter) is up for debate, whether he is obviously designated as a kickout guy when Chil is on the floor isn't up for debate - you might want him to exhibit better judgement from that position but I don't think we should have a guy that only hits 30% of his jumpers as the kickout guy on the wing (I don't blame Woody for this necessarilly, you can only make do with what you have). I would wonder what might happen if Smith got to GSW and was played in a role similar to Biedrins. They'd love what he brought to the interior defense and he would be able to finish in transition and move around in all the space created by the GS shooters.

Quote: The Horford/Biedrins combo would most certainly match (or be damn close to) the combo of Horford/Smith but the big difference is that we would be a lot more balance because Biedrins would stay in the paint where he belongs. No worries about him moving out to jack up 3's. Sure we won't have as many "exciting" plays but we will be a lot more fundamentally sound. I think that there are definitely positives to having Biedrins here, even at the expense of Smith. The prospect of Biedrins "staying in the paint where he belongs" isn't necessarilly one of them. We play at much slower pace than the Warriors, they take more possessions early in the shot clock than we do. Biedrins gets about half of his shots early in the clock and if its after that, he is getting assisted almost 19 times out of 20. Smith doesn't get nearly as may shots early in the clock and he doesn't get assisted nearly as much later. We don't have the luxury of letting Smith play under the basket full time because Childress doesn't play on perimeter at all and Al doesn't play aggressive when he is facing up. If we did have that luxury, I'd imagine we would play him under the basket because he is a lot more accurate around there. Imagine the offense with Biedrins, Horford, and Chil all under the basket waiting for one of their guys to double Joe, it would probably be less efficient than it is now... Biedrins is a better rebounder though, on both sides of the ball. I see that being the point of primary advantage.

Quote: I don't think he gets enough credit. He's the only person in the league that's not a consistent 18ppg scorer, despite averaging close to 18ppg. He's the only person in league that needs to learn to shoot, learn to post, learn to play post D, learn to guard SFs, learn to handle the ball, learn to get the ball to play makers, learn to be tougher and be only a weak side defender, yet command 11mil a year. I don't get it.

Quote: Damn, it's close. Does anyone have any explanations to why they chose whatever position they chose? I personally think he's a PF since he's not strong enough down low to go head to head with most of the centers in the league. A lot of centers are pretty scrawny. Biedrins and Dalembert come to mind. Regardless, its not like Solo can guard either position straight up at this point. He's probably best used standing near the hoop on both ends, either going for oboards and oops or trying to swat a shot. Sounds more like a C to me.

Quote: And I don't guess they can sell the Thrashers to have more capital until this mess is straigntened out? Is there a buyer? I'd like to see how much the Hawks made this season, we had a 9% spike in regular season attendance after going through a pretty steady annual 3% increase in the BK era, plus we had playoff revenue. From what I've heard, the ASG isn't super-leveraged even with the court case going on and I'm pretty sure that the team has been making money (before legal expenses) which contrasts with teams like Indy... I would think that they would be able to come up with the cash if they wanted to. I'm sure the attendence boost is sustainable if they can keep from regressing, and I'm sure attendence will recede if we do regress.

Quote: 2. Josh Smith, Hawks: On talent and potential, Smith should be on top of this list. He's a freakish athlete who can score, rebound and block shots. What holds him back is a questionable attitude. Nonetheless it appears the Hawks have to re-sign him. Given the Hawks' ownership woes, Smith is one of the few restricted free agents a team with cap space may try to pluck away -- the same way the Hawks did with Joe Johnson a few years ago. I could see the Sixers making a run at him. 8. Josh Childress, Hawks: Childress doesn't get nearly the respect or hype of many of his teammates in Atlanta, but he's been a devastatingly effective sixth man and who might still be expendable given all of Atlanta's wing talent. He probably can't get more than a midlevel deal on this market, but he'd be a bargain at that price It appears the Sixers will be a thorn in our side... From Chad Ford's November article on this summer's FAs: 5. Josh Smith, Hawks -- On talent and potential, Smith should be near the top of the list. He's a freakish athlete who can score, rebound and block shots. What holds him back is a questionable attitude. It's not clear that the Hawks want to give him a long-term lucrative deal. In fact, it's not clear whether the Hawks can give him one with their current ownership dispute. Smith is one of the few restricted free agents a team with cap space may try to pluck away -- the same way the Hawks did with Joe Johnson a few years ago. 7. Josh Childress, Hawks -- Childress doesn't get nearly the respect or hype of many of his teammates in Atlanta, but he's been a devastatingly effective sixth man and seems expendable given all of Atlanta's wing talent. He probably can't get more than a midlevel deal on this market, but he'd be a bargain at that price. Thanks for the new material Chad!

Quote: Quote: Quote: His game is more balanced than you imply. He takes a lot of jumpshots, that's not all he does. Even then, he shoots jumpshots better than J. Smith by a long shot. Smith is not more of a post option than Aldridge. Aldridge takes most of his shots around the basket, almost half of his shots. Aldridge has a more balanced offensive game, and is a better offensive player despite the 2 FT, and 1.5 assist advantage Smith may have on him. Besides, who says you have to be a back to the basket player to be a center ? You don't have to be a back to the basket player to be a post option either. No one says that you do, but if someone wanted to get a center to let Al "shine" at the power forward position, I'd imagine they were implying a bruising center... otherwise Al is going to be guarded by centers still. Aldridge doesn't take most of his shots around the basket. He takes 65% jump shots. That, by my estimation, is most of his shots. Smith takes slightly below 50% of his shots as jumpers. The fact that he has a "better offensive game" doesn't mean he is more effective. I can understand if you like him but you haven't given a reason as to why he fits better other than to say that he is a post option (which he's not), and has potential (like Smith), and can score and rebound (as well or worse than Smith)... so why would we trade for him other than the fact that you like him better stylistically? Because he's 6'11" with a 7'5" wingspan ? Also, offensively, he is more effective. He shoots a higher FG%, FT %, pulls down more off. rebounds, and his TO/Asst ratio is about equal to J. Smith's. Even if he takes 65% jump shots, he still shoots them at a much higher position than J. Smith. I honestly think that number is closer to 55% or 60%. Well, it is 65%. You can check the stats. I guess we have different definitions of "effective". I think Smith's ability to score inside more often and at a higher rate (and get to the line) makes him more effective, not to mention the assists. You don't, thats fair. I also know that Smith is a more effective defender, although you may like Aldridge's potential there. I guess we will just leave it at a disagreement. I like Smith more because he is more effective now and is a better defender. You like Aldridge more because he is taller, has a longer wingspan, and takes/hits a lot more jumpers.

Quote: Quote: I believe Sund has stated tha AL is a 5 that can play some 4. That means Smoove is our PF of the future. Smoove is the perfect PF compliment for AL. Smith is not a perfect compliment for Al, in my opinion. Al Horford would play better next to a back to the basket player or atleast a player with ability to score around the basket. Someone with height so that our team won't consistently get taken advantage of. I think Josh Smith would play better with player if he didn't have to play the 4. Despite what many people might think, I believe Josh Smith could play the 3 in a year or so. He could play the position now defensively, although he isn't the best perimeter defender. You swap AK-47 out for J. Smith and Utah'll probably make it to the Finals next year. But thats my point, Aldridge takes fewer shots around that basket than Smith and is less accurate at taking them! He actually takes significantly fewer shots around there and is much less accurate at non-dunk shots from close. That is a fact.

Quote: His game is more balanced than you imply. He takes a lot of jumpshots, that's not all he does. Even then, he shoots jumpshots better than J. Smith by a long shot. Smith is not more of a post option than Aldridge. Aldridge takes most of his shots around the basket, almost half of his shots. Aldridge has a more balanced offensive game, and is a better offensive player despite the 2 FT, and 1.5 assist advantage Smith may have on him. Besides, who says you have to be a back to the basket player to be a center ? You don't have to be a back to the basket player to be a post option either. No one says that you do, but if someone wanted to get a center to let Al "shine" at the power forward position, I'd imagine they were implying a bruising center... otherwise Al is going to be guarded by centers still. Aldridge doesn't take most of his shots around the basket. He takes 65% jump shots. That, by my estimation, is most of his shots. Smith takes slightly below 50% of his shots as jumpers. The fact that he has a "better offensive game" doesn't mean he is more effective. I can understand if you like him but you haven't given a reason as to why he fits better other than to say that he is a post option (which he's not), and has potential (like Smith), and can score and rebound (as well or worse than Smith)... so why would we trade for him other than the fact that you like him better stylistically?

Quote: Quote: Quote: LaMarcus Aldridge is still a young player and has made drastic improvements in every category except FG% and BPG. He's an offensive big that can score that is a decent rebounder. I think his defense and rebounding will improve, and so will his offense. I can easily see him averaging 18-20 ppg with 7-9 rpg. He's a long player (see 7'5" wingspan), athletic, and young. This is all true. The question is, why would we trade Josh for him? He is a better shooter, yes, but he isn't a better offensive player (same ppg, same efficiency, fewer TOs fewer assists). He isn't a terrible rebounder but he is naturallly a worse rebounder than Josh, especially on D, and Smith could be a better offensive rebounder of we didn't design our halfcourt set to have Chil act as a post player. Aldridge has defensive potential, but his potential doesn't match up to what Smith offers right now. He's athletic, Smith is more athletic. He's young but he's half a year older than Smith. My point is this. Aldridge is a nice player. He is the perfect power forward on that team because he can score without getting in Roy or Oden's way. He isn't better than Smith though, and if the whole point of trading Smith for a center is to get a traditional low post banger, why would we trade Smith for a guy who is a worse inside player, worse rebounder, and worse defender? Aldridge scores more efficiently in the paint. The purpose in trading Josh Smith is to bring in a good, young big. He averaged 17 and 7 in his second year in the league, man. He's going to get bigger, and his defense will improve. Josh Smith might be better than Aldridge, but Aldridge brings size, scoring, and solid rebounding with potential to get better. It's not an equal trade, but I would do it. Aldridge will be a good player in this league and we can finaly fill our C position with a young, athletic player. We'd have a solid combo with LaMarcus Aldridge and Al Horford, and our offense would be much better with the addition of a post option. This will eliminate the "problem" we have at the 4 spot. Horford is more of a center than Aldridge. Smith is more of a center than Aldridge. 65% of Aldridge's shots are jump shots, if you think he's a post option you obviously haven't watched him. Also, he's not actually a more efficient scorer than Smith. His FG% is 2% higher but he gets significantly fewer free throws which is a way to increase the amount of points you have per possessions. Again, Smith is more of a post option than Aldridge. Aldridge isn't younger than Smith and doesn't have more potential. I would understand if he was a true center who played with his back to the basket but he is primarily a jump shooter out of the high post. Why trade your power forward for a "center" who isn't as good at any center duties?

Quote: Quote: Not having picked Chris Paul, Deron Williams or Rudy Gay may actually work out in our favor. We have a starting five, plus Law and Childress that are all young and above average in talent. On any given night at least two of these players can carry the team to victory as long as the rest of the team plays within themselves and we don't have to many turnovers. We just need competent veterans and young spark plugs coming off the bench to put this team over the top! As much heat as we get for not taking Chris Paul/Deron Williams if we had one of those guys we wouldn't have Al Horford. The key to this team as much as Marvin gets bashed, is IMO Acie Law. If Acie Law can be our legit starting PG, then we potentially have that balanced starting 5 where everyone can score, defend, pass, and run. We'd be a more athletic version of the Pistons. It's just unfortunate that Bibby and Mike Woodson are going to stunt Acie's growth. I hate getting our faces rubbed in it too but Chris Paul is probably one of the top 5 players in the league right now and Deron isn't too far behind. Lets not kid ourselves into thinking we "lucked out" by not taking the most dynamic point since Stockton.

Quote: LaMarcus Aldridge is still a young player and has made drastic improvements in every category except FG% and BPG. He's an offensive big that can score that is a decent rebounder. I think his defense and rebounding will improve, and so will his offense. I can easily see him averaging 18-20 ppg with 7-9 rpg. He's a long player (see 7'5" wingspan), athletic, and young. This is all true. The question is, why would we trade Josh for him? He is a better shooter, yes, but he isn't a better offensive player (same ppg, same efficiency, fewer TOs fewer assists). He isn't a terrible rebounder but he is naturallly a worse rebounder than Josh, especially on D, and Smith could be a better offensive rebounder of we didn't design our halfcourt set to have Chil act as a post player. Aldridge has defensive potential, but his potential doesn't match up to what Smith offers right now. He's athletic, Smith is more athletic. He's young but he's half a year older than Smith. My point is this. Aldridge is a nice player. He is the perfect power forward on that team because he can score without getting in Roy or Oden's way. He isn't better than Smith though, and if the whole point of trading Smith for a center is to get a traditional low post banger, why would we trade Smith for a guy who is a worse inside player, worse rebounder, and worse defender?

Quote: Quote: Quote: Sooner or later we have to face the fact that we have 2 power forwards in Smoove and Al. We desperately need a real center who can play tough D and move AL to the #4. I love Smoove and all, but we have 2 PF's and we only need one. Why not trade Smoove for a real center? Until we do, we will always have this problem. If we could get LaMarcus Aldridge or Okafor (maybe) I might be on board, but until everybody in the league has a dominant C, I don't think it's mandatory. I think a Center that's average to above average will do. I liked how Boston used Perkins. He didn't have to play all the time and some times, they went to smaller lineups. I mean Powe is a monster. I think we can be the same way... However, we do need a part time C who can give us good minutes. That guy might be Solo if he can bulk up. I would love to get LaMarcus Aldridge for Josh Smith. Okafor wouldn't be bad either, but he doesn't have the offensive game that Aldridge has. I definitely wouldn't be against trading Smith for a young big, but they'd have to be pretty good. You do realize that for all the bitching about Smith's shooting efficiency and rebounding, he scores at a comparable rate to Aldridge (2% lower but 2 more FTs than Aldridge), rebounds at a higher rate (lower offensively but MUCH higher defensively - 1.6 more Drebds), and on top of that is a far superior defender and shot-creator, right? I think Hawks' fans obssession with Aldridge sort of shows the "grass is greener" phenomenon regarding Smith. Beyond that, if the goal of getting a 5 is to move Horford to 4, we should probably get one who isn't softer than the Huggies Bear. Horford would still get guarded by centers because Aldridge doesn't like to bang, and Horford would still have to guard centers because, well, Aldridge doesn't like to bang. Centers I would definitely be willing to let go of Josh for are: Dwight Yao Duncan Oden Centers I would consider fair value but wouldn't necessarilly want a trade for are: Bynum Jefferson Bosh (although he won't have to play C much longer) Amare Centers I'd need some BIG incentive to pull the trigger for: Biedrins (limited on offense, weak on D) Okafor (little show of improvement, injury prone) Kaman (makes Smith seem like a cerebral player, not particularly efficient for a low post C, never had a particularly special season until Brand went out) Aldridge (Robert Parrish without the defense, rebounding, or toughness)

Quote: Nice to see Mario getting some love. I said Smoove and JJ. JJ isn't flashy but he keeps his man in front of using his lateral quickness, and length lets him affect shots, even if he doesn't really block shots. As for Josh Smith's defense.... http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL11D.HTM Defensive efficiency when he's on the floor is 107.9, 114.9 when he's off. He's worth about 7 points per 100 possessions. The only Hawk who made nearly that large a difference to defensive efficiency was AJ (not counting Lorenzen Wright, who didn't play enough minutes for me to really count him). I think JJ's defense would be a much bigger factor is we had another primary scorer on the other end. If Smith and Al can start getting the ball in the post, Joe would be able to play off of them and have some energy left. He is definitely our best fundamental perimeter defender but too often we have to waste that because we don't want to wear him down.

I think that we should aim a little higher. Marv/Zaza for Miller. I know Minny might like Miller but Marv is younger, cheaper, and expires sooner (allowing them to decide what they want to do at the position for the future). Miller doesn't really fit that team's needs in the medium-to-long term, which is where they have to be looking in terms of talent accumulation. On our end, Miller is a better shooter, passer, and rebounder than Marv and a comparable defender at the SF position.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Al Horford and Joe Johnson No doubt. Those who argue for Josh Smith are letting the flashiness of his weakside help cloud their memory of his on ball defense. Sure, JS racks up the blocks and steals, but he also is an average on ball defender and often leaves his man with an open lane to the basket or an easy rebound when he goes for the block/steal. Let's not confuse sound defender with flashy defender. Don't let stats or empirical evidence get in the the way of your midwest-inspired common sense. By the way, Horford has the tools to be a good defender but at this point he gets lit up as much as anyone else. This board is funny, it makes me feel like a Smith-homer and Horford hater because if you came on here having not watched a Hawks game you'd think that Smith was a poor man's Solomon Jones and Horford was Tim Duncan. Both the numbers and my eyes show me that Smith is our best defender. After that it was JJ or Horford for #2. I think JJ is next for now and that Horford will be the second biggest impact defender on the team. Well said.

Quote: It's so ridiculous some of the presumptions that just never seem to register as debunked with some people... can you improve with a 2nd round pick? History says very, very rarely. Anyone with any objectivity understands that substantive improvement for the immediate future (09 and 10) to the ATL roster on this draft night was only going to come via a trade that would have let go of expiring contracts (Bibby, ZaZa) plus ideally Speedy, in return for a solid PG and C/PF in mid-to-late career without increasing payroll. An improbable and tall order to say the least. (Hysterical mob types would call that an excuse. I call it a reason.) *rolls eyes* I agree with this. Most rookies are not impact players, especially those in the second round. The Hawks need improvement but it was unlikely to come from the draft, althoug I understand that it feels like we were left out of the excitement.

Quote: Quote: No way are we going to invest the kind of money it takes to sign Jones to play SF if we are going to pay Chillz $6M+ a season to be our 6th man. The only way I see us going after Jones is if we decide we can't afford Chillz. That is fine with me. We need 3 pt shooting badly to open up the inside for Smith and Horford. Plus with Jones hanging out on the perimeter all the time maybe that will encourage Smith to look for openings inside and hit the offensive glass instead of building a house on the rim with his long jumpers. I'm not necessarilly endorsing the letting of Childress walk, but if Childress weren't on the baseline for every possession, Smith would be.

Quote: Mason? Are you talking Desmond Mason? Haha, Roger. I could see how it would be confusing to talk about Dez and "shooter" in the same sentence unless the words in between were "is not a".

Quote: He's definately a shooter to look at. He hit over 44% from 3 last season. He was scheduled to make $3.1 million next year. I'd assume he wants a raise off that. We'd probably have to invest a significant portion of the MLE. Something like 3 years/$13-15 million? I'd prefer to find a shooter (Mason, Rush, etc.) for close to the minimum and save the MLE to chase the bigs, but Jones is one player to keep an eye on. I like Jones or Mason from this spot. Jones is a little more consistent but you can probably save some money if you gamble on Mason.

Quote: Quote: Al Horford and Joe Johnson No doubt. Those who argue for Josh Smith are letting the flashiness of his weakside help cloud their memory of his on ball defense. Sure, JS racks up the blocks and steals, but he also is an average on ball defender and often leaves his man with an open lane to the basket or an easy rebound when he goes for the block/steal. Let's not confuse sound defender with flashy defender. Don't let stats or empirical evidence get in the the way of your midwest-inspired common sense. By the way, Horford has the tools to be a good defender but at this point he gets lit up as much as anyone else. This board is funny, it makes me feel like a Smith-homer and Horford hater because if you came on here having not watched a Hawks game you'd think that Smith was a poor man's Solomon Jones and Horford was Tim Duncan.

Smith is the only obvious choice. I think JJ is probably the best perimeter defender when he has to be but since coming to the Hawks he hasn't been able to show his stuff because he expends so much energy on offense. I think Marv's D is a little overated, he can be better than solid sometimes but he can also be a non-factor and I think it has to do with intensity (I'd like to see a guy with that reach, who plays some PF, block at least a shot a game). I guess I'd say Rio but he doesn't get nearly enough burn to tell, I think Horf will be a great complement to Smith in a year or so.

Quote: Marvin in college D.Rose in college(he won more) = M.Beasley in college(better individual statistics) So if all is equal and you chose Beasley when we already have Marvin, Smoove, Horford and chillz then how are you different from BK? You're not but whoever does will try and spin it to make themselves look right. Just as Billy did after he drafted Marvin and Shelden. I'm just glad that BK nor the people who would draft Beasley are the GM of this team. Some interesting math you got there, what is the name of that rule? You do realize that Rose stepped into a program that had gone to the elite eight for the prior two years whereas Beas came to a team that hadn't made the tourney in over a decade, right? Odds are kinda stacked in Rose' favor for the "team success" part when the rest of the team is better.

Quote: this is Paul over Marvin all over again. Rose all the way Point guards are harder to find then wings just ask the Hawks. Yeah, thats a good strategy to use if everything else is equal but if the power forward is a better player than the point guard, you don't take the point guard.

Quote: I would much rather Horford concentrate on finishing his degree than play in the SL. He has nothing to prove in SL. Acie on the other hand has everything to prove and rebuild his confidence. I'd like to see Al play - the fact that he was a great rookie doesn't mean he has nothing he needs to work on. Especially if he isn't doing skills training all summer like Smith. I'd love to see Al play and try to be the offensive focal point for a little bit. He needs to start asserting himself on offense. He would be one of the more skilled players in SL and that is something he didn't have a chance to do in his rookie season.