niremetal

Not for more than the mid-level, assuming we want to bring him back at all. As much as some people delude themselves into thinking Crawford could somehow replace JJ, Crawford won't draw anything close to the attention JJ will get on the free agent market. He is a 6'5 volume-scoring shooting guard who will be not at his peak, as JJ is now (JJ turns 29 this summer), but a year or two past his peak (he turns 31 next spring). Remember that even guys like Artest have a tough time getting more than the mid-level these days. I have a tough time seeing Crawford getting more than that. So if he stays, it'll be for ~$4M less than he is making this year. Assuming we re-sign JJ for the max or a little under, keep Smoove/Marvin/Bibby/Zaza/Teague, extend Horford for something starting around $10M, and re-sign Crawford at the mid-level, our cap number for 2011-2012 would still be a manageable ~$63M, which would leave us at least $6M under the tax threshold (probably more, assuming the economy recovers - the threshold is $69.9M this year) to round out the roster.

Actually, once Crawford expires, we can.

But you said All-Star numbers were the important thing. Whatever happened to that? On the numbers, Walker bested Pierce and Jamison. That's true regardless of whether you factor defensive stats in or not. So what makes Horford versus Lopez different? Obviously, it's something OTHER THAN THE STATS that makes you say that Walker didn't deserve an All-Star spot over Jamison and Pierce. My argument is: There were factors beyond the stats that made Pierce and Jamison more deserving as All-Stars than Walker. Just as I think there are factors beyond the stats that make Horford more deserving than Lopez. You're just too proud to admit that you overstated your case when you harped about "All-Star numbers." Just admit that your statement I initially quoted was an overstatement - admit that the stats aren't decisive by themselves. Admit that, and I'll shut up. But my guess is you won't admit that, because if you admit that you have to look beyond the stats to decide who deserves to be an All-Star, that'll undercut your reasoning for why Lopez should be picked over Horford.

Yup. Now tell me how factoring in defensive stats alters my analysis of Antoine Walker versus Jamison/Pierce in 2005 or Lopez versus Horford this year. Because I can't see any defensive stat other than blocks per game that indicates Lopez has anything on Horford. And even factoring in defensive stats, Walker still put up better numbers than Pierce and Jamison. So as I said, I'll wait. Or maybe you're willing to qualify your initial statement about the importance of "All-Star numbers." But my guess is you're too proud to back down from what was clearly a hyperbolic statement.

So your basis of Lopez's All-Star numbers is based solely on Lopez's blocks? No wonder you think he's a better defender than Horford. Please, pray tell how factoring in defensive stats alters any of the above analyses. I'll wait.

Look at the part of your post that I quoted - the part where you said that the team's record "shouldn't have anything to do with it" as long as a player has "put up All-Star numbers." That is ridiculous. An example of why that is ridiculous is that if you use the same logic, then Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star in 2005. That year, he clearly put up All-Star numbers (21 and 9.5 at the time the reserves were selected). According to your quoted criteria - which you never qualified by saying "generally" or "unless the player is a poor defender" or "unless the player's last name is something other than Lopez" - Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star despite the fact that his stats came for a historically bad team. Admit that the quoted language was an overstatement or qualify it appropriately, and we're golden. Leave it as it stands, and it's ridiculous. Lopez is two inches taller, but Al can jump 5 inches higher, is significantly stronger, does a far better job of maintaining position on the block, and shows better anticipation on help defense. Also, Lopez doesn't move his feet quickly enough to guard most 4s and doesn't have the mass to keep from getting backed down by most 5s. I won't assume that you haven't watched many Nets games, but you should go check out some Nets fan blogs. Their assessment of Lopez's defense is not kind. He actually is not a very good defensive player yet, although he has improved over last year and has the potential to be a very good defensive player in the future.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I suppose Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star in 2005. After all, his stats were better than Jamison's and Pierce's that year at the time the teams were selected (not to mention Ben Wallace - or are you really so up on Lopez or down on Al that you don't recognize that Horford is a much better all-around defender than Lopez right now?).

I must rush to point out that I never said JJ was as good as Wade. He isn't. But if we traded everyone who wasn't at least as good as Wade, we would have been been fielding a 0-player team ever since Nique tore his achilles tendon. That's why it's a mistake to say "JJ is not as good as Wade. Therefore we should trade him."

If you look at per 36 minute stats, the only areas in which Lopez leads Horford are in points (18.3 to 14.2), blocks (1.9 to 1.4), and free throw percentage (.835 to .764). Horford does better in rebounds (10.4 to 9.4), field goal percentage (.527 to .514), turnovers and (1.5 to 2.5), and fouls committed (2.9 to 3.3). I think Horford easily matches Lopez's scoring and block output and extends his lead in rebounding if they switch teams, though I think Lopez would end up winning the FG% battle in that case. Oh, and did I mention that the Nets are 3-34? People also tend to forget that being surrounded with bad players actually helps you in all non-efficiency stat categories. If you're surrounded by bad rebounders, you'll get more rebounds individually. If you're surrounded by poor help defenders, you'll get more blocks individually. Lopez's stats are questionable in every stat category simply because it's tough to see how much of his stats are simply a product of the fact that no one else is there to do those things and because he gets more minutes (1st in the East and 2nd in the NBA among centers) for want of a decent backup. I'm not saying that Horford is definitely better than Lopez, and certainly am not judging who will be better 3 years from now (the latter of which is irrelevant in All-Star selection). But it sure as hell wouldn't be a travesty if Brook Lopez didn't make the All-Star team.

The only player in my lifetime who has carried a team to a title without any All-Star caliber players alongside him was Duncan in 2003. Wade sure as hell isn't THAT good. He needs the right players around him to contend for a title. But I think you can also win a title with JJ as your best player if you surround him with the right people, same as with every other non-point guard who is a top 10-12 player. True, you might need slightly higher-caliber runningmates to do it, but the difference isn't as drastic as many people seem to think (especially when you consider that from the standpoint of defensive matchups, it's much better to have a 6'7 swingman at SG than a 6'3 combo guard). JJ reminds me a bit of Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett c.2007 - both were perennial All-Stars, but neither was good enough to lead a team to a title on their own (you can add "anymore" to the end of that sentence in the case of Garnett). The Wolves took the approach of "well, we might as well trade KG for a younger semi-star because he isn't a top 5 player anymore." That hasn't so much worked out for them. But the Celtics didn't give up on Pierce simply because he wasn't LeBron - even though there were plenty of Celtics fans who were screaming to trade Pierce and rebuild around Jefferson. Instead, they made moves to surround Pierce with two other players of comparable caliber. So it is with JJ. We shouldn't say "to hell with it" just because he isn't Kobe. And fortunately for us Hawks fans, Sund won't - no matter how much his haters say he should.

Uh...no. The last thing we need is ANOTHER volume scoring guard who needs shots to be happy. Especially another one who doesn't care much about defense. And oh yeah - Nets wouldn't be interested in taking on Marvin's contract either. Trade that would make sense for neither team.

Magic > Oscar > LeBron Michael > LeBron LeBron has the potential to be better than all of the above, but doesn't have the maturity to know when to take over and when to trust his teammates. Honestly, I'm not sure he ever will. Too often, he isn't all business when he's out on the floor. And as much as I disliked Michael, dude was all business all the time.

Our injury-riddled playoff appearance against Cleveland aside, we have at least played the Cavs close in a few of our recent contests with them. Also, with Marvin healthy, we have 3 different defenders that can give LeBron different looks, and J-Coll is a boon against Shaq now that Woody seems to have figured out how to use him. No one else on their team has a tendency to step up when things get rough. On the other hand, we don't have anyone who can even pretend to man up against D-12 (I think Collins would be liability against the much quicker and more athletic Howard) and simply don't defend the deep ball as well as we could (we're tied for 2nd-worst in opposing 3P%) which leaves us exposed against a team like Orlando that can hit treys in bunches. The issue against Howard is shared by every team in the league, but with the Hawks it is exacerbated by the refusal to strongly challenge perimeter shooters. Also. when Vince is healthy, Orlando also has the league's #1 Hawk killer. Dude just shreds us. Really, we just don't have any systemic matchup problems with Cleveland like we do with Orlando. I don't think we match up WELL with Cleveland. But it's much easier to visualize a gameplan that would lead to us beating them than it is with Orlando.

I don't know that people are so convinced that we can beat Cleveland. Just confident that we'd do better against them than we would against Orlando.

I love how convenient some people's memories are, too. Rest assured, they'll forget about his performance last night by 3 weeks from now, and pretend again that Joe never has good games against good teams.

Zaza and Marvin both have 3.5 years left on their contracts. Bargain though Zaza may be, I can't imagine that Washington will be interested in taking on any long-term contract if they're going to do a firesale. Portland has several players whose contracts are about to expire. We just have Joe (who ain't getting traded in the midst of a playoff chase). That's why there are trade rumors swirling about Portland and not us. Also - Josh can't, shouldn't, and won't play the 3, both because he is a poor perimeter player on both ends and, more importantly, because shifting him to the 3 would render him less of a factor on help defense (and he's probably the best help defender in the NBA, so why would we do that?). Please keep that in mind during trade season (though I know no one will). Creating more of a glut at the 4/5 doesn't really help us because we already have a stronger frontcourt than most of the NBA, much as some people around here stuck in 2006 still think otherwise.

Then in the name of all that is holy, DELETE IT.

Yup, Henry James. Here's the game: http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199701240ATL.html Ah, Lenny Wilkens. The only guy who makes Woody look like he uses a deep bench...

Yup - if I'm not mistaken, they have until the 19th to sign someone.

I don't think Sweet Lou qualifies as "lesser." He was the team's centerpiece for several years and should be in the Hall of Fame.

From recent years, my favorite was Chris Crawford, who got injured twice right when he seemed to be putting it together. Going back, I'm a fan of Randy Wittman.

Actually they changed that rule a few years back after the Nuggets got an undeserved 3 seed. The rule now is that being a division winner only guarantees you one of the top 4 seeds, not the top 3. So if we finish behind Orlando but with a better record than Cleveland and/or Boston, we can still be in the top 3.

Hey, come on. Be nice. What did tadpoles ever do to you?

Woody doesn't have the guts to pull JJ even though he's short-arming every shot on offense and disappearing on D.