vdunkndunk

Josh Smith for Thomas Robinson, Chandler Parsons, and Francisco Garcia works under ESPN's Trade Machine. The Rockets have no expiring contracts at all as far as I can tell, but Garcia only has a year left after this one, and we'd still be getting back about $3 million less in salary than we're sending out. Personally, I wouldn't really mind a deal like this given our lack of leverage, although I'm not sure Robinson will ever produce close to the level at which he was drafted.

Houston's website looks pretty perfunctory about the Sacto trade in its aftermath. Matter-of-fact press release gives the impression of "hey, don't get too comfortable with these new guys!"

Also, are the Rox seriously going to settle for Patrick Beverley as the backup point guard? Whether or not it's a Smoove deal, something else is going on in Clutch City.

~lw3

I was sort of thinking the same thing. Maybe Thomas Robinson ends up here as part of a Smoove trade?

I regarded him as a 2nd round type of player when we drafted him, but I'd never seen him play or anything like that. After watching the first game I'm really impressed; his release is so quick and he does seem pretty crafty. Went head to head with and held his own against the number 2 overall pick in the draft, so you can't ask for much more out of his first game (although it was just one game).

Danny Ferry is the kind of GM I always wished we had - the kind who thinks ahead and makes actual moves that make actual sense.

Danny Ferry is clearly a genius. I've never seen a GM come onto the seen and go this big and this smart in less than two weeks. Congratulations!

For the 48th pick in a weak draft, I'm fine with Benson. 17 ppg, 10 rpg, and 3 bpg are pretty good college numbers, although Hollinger's draft rater didn't like him much - probably in large part because he was a 7-footer and a 4-year player who didn't start to put up numbers until his junior and senior years - most real 7-foot prospects don't have to stay in school for 4 years. But with that said, he has very good height and very good wingspan, and since he isn't particularly strong and won't dominate on the inside offensively, I like the fact that he's apparently skilled from the perimeter and shoots it well. He's a project, but maybe he'll be able to help us down the road one day.

Josh Smith for No. 2 pick + Michael Beasley, Luke Ridnour & Martell Webster works on the ESPN trade machine. I think I'd be very much in favor of that, assuming Kantor proves worthy of a top 5 pick:

PG: Jeff Teague / Luke Ridnour

SG: Joe Johnson / Kirk Hinrich

SF: Michael Beasley / Martell Webster

PF: Al Horford / Marvin Williams

CR: Enes Kantor / Zaza Pachulia

I thought I'd combine rumors of Andre Miller & the 21st pick for Josh, combined with rumors about Josh and Orlando, combined with rumors of a three way trade with Atlanta, Portland, and Orlando, and here's the best I could come up with that works on ESPN's trade machine (not sure I like it though):

Atlanta: trades Josh Smith & Marvin Williams - gets Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson, Andre Miller & 21st pick

Orlando: trades Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson & Daniel Orton - gets Josh Smith

Portland: trades Andre Miller & 21st pick - gets Marvin Williams & Daniel Orton

Hawks Lineup (probably results in better cap flexibilty and worse defense - still no inside presence):

1. Jameer Nelson / Jeff Teague

2. Kirk Hinrich / Andre Miller

3. Joe Johnson / 21st pick

4. Ryan Anderson / Zaza Pachulia

5. Al Horford / Zaza Pachula

Josh Smith and Marvin Williams for Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins worked on the ESPN trade machine.

I might like that trade, except in looking at Biedrins's stats, his production is way down for the last two years - not sure why. His PER was around 19 for several years in a row, but the last two years it's been around 12. Anyone know why he's playing so much worse?

Anyway, assuming Biedins could get back on track, that would give us a lineup something like this:

PG: Jeff Teague / Kirk Hinrich

SG: Monta Ellis / Hinrich or Crawford

SF: Joe Johnson / Crawford or Wilkins

PF: Al Horford / Zaza

C: Andris Biedrins / Zaza

We'd have more quickness in the backcourt than we've had in a while, but less length; and we'd have more length in the frontcourt, but less quickness.

(Edit: Just looked at Ellis's stats a little closer and I don't think I'm a fan.)

I remember a long time ago Howard said he literally prayed that the Hawks would be able to draft him, and I remember CP3 also wanted the Hawks to draft him, and I'm sure they'd love to play together in Atlanta if it were possible . . . I just don't see how it's possible.

Getting even one of them probably isn't realistic, but if I could choose one I'd rather have Howard. If we could pair him with either Josh or Al at power forward, we'd have the most athletic 4-5 combo in the league by far. Al would be especially good because he has such a great jump shot and we would dominate the boards, but Josh would also be great - no one would want to come in the lane.

I don't see Crawford as a future superstar, but he's got a lot of potential and I don't understad why we traded him. It seems that Bibby and a pick should have been enough to get Hinrich; and if it wasn't, we shouldn't have done the trade. I would have liked to see Crawford play more when we had him, too.

On ESPN's trade machine I tried trading Teague, Etan Thomas, and Josh Powell for Ramon Sessions and it worked under the cap - and according to Holliner's analysis, the trade would add 11 wins over the course of the season.

That number is of course wildly inflated for some reason (not sure how he calculates it, but it probably has to do with the fact that Sessions has an career high PER of 19 right now, which is probably not likely to last - usually he's more like a 12-16 PER guy).

Personally, though, I think the Sessions trade could be very good for the Hawks - not flashly, but helpful.

I did get to watch a couple of his games....he looked good and a very willing passer

As for being a pg ... I don't think so. His handles need a lot of work.... the way he dribbles I can see the ball getting stolen a lot....he dribbles with the ball far from his body.

He is a scorer and has a scorer's mentality. His future is at sg

Remember this is summer league which is essentially play ground basketball.

I agree that Crawford has a scorer's mentality, but there's plenty of room for scoring PGs in the NBA. I also think his handles are fine; he's deceptive and aggressive, and he's a threat to hit the jumpshot, which gives him a big advantage over Teague right now in my mind. It also seems like the team performs better and more cohesively with Crawford at the point than with Teague, and I haven't noticed Crawford turning it over all that much (whereas Teague, for some reason, seems to be turning it over left and right). I'd just like to see what he can do in NBA games at point--if he could play at that position he would become much more valuable, and I think he can do it (at least as a solid backup down the road, maybe even as a starter in a few years.)

After watching the summer leage games, is anyone else as impressed with Jordan Crawford as I am?

I see a lot of potential for him at PG; and if he could pull it off, he'd go from being an undersized SG to a fairly big PG. In fact, I personally believe that Crawford is a better PG prospect than Teague: I think Crawford has a better feel for the game and is more aggressive, plus he's a better shooter, is nearly as quick, and handles the ball and passes as well or better than Teague. I think Teague is the better defender, but I'm already wishing that they'd give Crawford Teague's minutes this year.

Anyone else feel the same?

I posted this last week and got a 50/50 response. Some folks had some bad things to say about Cousins when I asked about him. Most detractors said we didnt have the window to wait for him to develope. IMO though his size and skill set are worth the risk. If he turns into the kind of player he has the P word to be he will be much more valuable to a team in the nba than Josh Smiths roller coaster ride is. Its a risk but especially if JJ bolts we may have to take a step back to jump forward in a couple years. Having Cousins at C and Horford at F is a great start. Im not talking about full scale rebuild because I think Cousins can contribute right away even if all he does at 1st is man the paint, play d and rebound.

I missed the earlier post, so sorry to post it again, but I'm glad to see that others would consider it--trading Josh Smith will always be controversial and hard to do, since when he's on he's a great player and exciting to watch, but in a case like this I think it's worth the risk.

Chad Ford's most recent mock draft has Cousins dropping to the Warriors, and I remember there were a lot of rumors that the Warriors liked Josh Smith for their small ball, running style of play. So what about putting together a package where we trade Smoove for Cousins? (Not sure how to work that out from a salary perspective, but for now I'm assuming they could find a way to get it done if both sides were agreeable.)

Here's my argument for why we'd want to do this: Cousins measured in at 6'11 with a huge wingspan and a 9'5 standing reach, which, according to Ford, is basically the same as Dwight Howard, Greg Oden, and Brook Lopez. Hollinger's computer system also ranks Cousins as the number 1 prospect in this draft (and it seems to me from following the draft the last few years that Hollinger's system is pretty good--not perfect, but probably a little better than the actual draft order in terms of predicting future performance). So in Cousins we have a legit center who is huge, long, fairly athletic, strong, and young, with a ton of upside.

To me, this may be our best and only legitimate shot at landing a real big young talented center anytime soon. And I'd love to see Horford at PF with Cousins at C--I think then we'd have an athleticism AND size advantage almost every night at both positions, instead of just a quickness and athleticism advantage. Josh Smith is a great player, and this would be a risky move, but right now the best teams in the league have a considerable size advantage over us inside, I'd like to see Horford move to PF, and I can't see Josh Smith as an effective SF because that would emphasize his weaknesses and take him away from his strengths.

Thoughts?

To me, Josh Smith has always been the most exciting Hawk to watch because of his athleticism, but even so there have been plenty of times over the last two or three years when I really, really wanted the Hawks to trade him because it seemed like he would always take bad shots, make bad decisions, and shoot a low percentage for his entire career. Now I'm extremely glad the Hawks had more patience than me, because if he keeps playing like this he HAS to be an all-star. I used to worry that the combo of Smith and Horford didn't give us enough post scoring to have an elite offense, but those guys are holding it down lately in every way possible these days.

His ball handling and court vision are better than i expected. But his jumper....ugh. And he needs to learn how to finish better inside which i believe he will. But that jumper is a major problem.

I totally agree with this. Teague has great athleticism, can get in the lane seemingly whenever he wants, and he's done a great job of breaking down the defense and coming up with kickouts and assists, and he's been good in transition (either finishing or creating a shot for others). He's also had a lot of drives to the basket where he put it up off the backboard and didn't get a bounce, but it looks like he will straighten that out before long. But if he can't hit jumpshots, it might get a lot harder for him to use his quickness - and his form isn't all that good. He shot pretty well from 3-point range at Wake Forest, but I'm not sure what kind of a jumpshooter he'll be in the NBA.

Three points:

First, great defense often makes a great offense look average or worse. For instance, Oklahoma scored 60+ points in 5 straight games in the Big 12, then scored 14 against Florida. It was the same way when Ohio State was scoring 40 points a game in the Big 10, then scored only 14 points in the BCS championship. Both schools had Heisman winning quarterbacks who looked average at best against a top-flight SEC defense. (Ole Miss did the same thing to Texas Tech last year).

Second, I think the SEC generally plays offense more conservatively than other leagues, because SEC teams trust in their defenses more and play for field position and ball control and grind it out a bit more.

Third, the SEC's style (conservative offense and great defense) generally has worked very well. The SEC is not invicible and obviously won't win every single non-conference game like some people seem to think, but looking at the SEC's bowl record for the last few years, the amount of teams they put into the bowls every year, and their success in BCS games, I'd say it's hard to argue that any other conference is consistently as good or as deep at the top. USC is a great program, for instance, but would have no chance at winning the SEC 7 straight years like its done in the PAC-10--every year the SEC will have one or two legit national title contenders, plus one or two other legit top 10 teams. Flordia, LSU, and Tenessee have all won one or two national championships in the last ten or so years, plus Georgia has finished second (to another SEC team) Auburn went undefeated, and Alabama spent half of last season ranked number 1. No other league has that many different teams that can achieve that level of success consistently.

If there were such a thing as a healthy Sean May, I think he'd definitely be worth a look. I'm not sure that he'll ever play a full season though.

I don't agree with Childress that basketball is just a business, although I acknowledge that he has every right to treat it as such. To me, while there is a large business element to it, it's also about competition and building a career for yourself that you can look back on and be proud of. I don't know how much Chills is enjoying it out there, or what it's like to be an NBA-caliber athlete, or how much difference a million dollars a year makes in terms of lifestyle and security when you've already made tens of millions of dollars and have tens of millions more coming to you, but I naively believe I'd be willing to accept a million or two less to play against the best of the world in my home country (maybe not to play for the Bucks, though). I like Chills pretty well, but he's far from a difference maker for this team, we have plenty of depth at SF, and I actually think Mo Evans is a better fit for us off the bench because of his three-point shooting, quickness, defense, and experience - not to mention Jamal Crawford is also here now. I would have loved to get something back for Chills, and I hope he enjoys it in Greece and finds it rewarding, but I think we'll be just fine without him. Maybe next year we can work out some kind of trade.

I would trade Smoove for Amare in about half a second, as long as we had assurances from our medical staff that Amare is healthy.

Amare would give us the kind of post offense we need - he's a dominant offensive player and would also make JJ much, much more effective. JJ destroys single coverage but has a lot of trouble when the entire defense is focused on him; with Amare the defensive focus would be on Amare, and JJ could make teams pay.

In terms of signing and trading for an unrestricted free agent, I don't know if that's possible, but it seems to me like unrestricted free agents still sometimes do sign-and-trades with their former team because they get some kind of benefit in terms of additional money or years. I don't think we'd want to pay Wilcox additional money and years, but I'd somehow love to turn Childress into a solid backup PF.

Personally, I like resigning Flip and Zaza, letting Bibby walk, and signing-and-trading Childress for Chris Wilcox, who's a free agent this summer I believe:

PG: Flip Murray Jeff Teague

SG: Joe Johnson Jamal Crawford

SF: Marvin Williams Mo Evans

PF: Josh Smith Chris Wilcox

CR: Al Horford Zaza Pachulia

Flip is a better defender and had about the same PER as Bibby, and he'll be a lot cheaper. Wilcox would give us a productive and athletic backup PF who could also play C.

What happened to Smooves high fly act? He doesnt seem to get enough lift to block shots anymore and we dont see many great drives to the rim and dunks like we used to get. He is playing like a guy who used to be athletic but got older. Thing is Smoove isnt even close to being old. Maybe its the weight and muscle he put on? Maybe his ankle still isnt 100%? I wouldnt care so much if he was fundamentally sound but he is not. Without the high fly act getting the crowd into the game and pumping up the team with either a great dunk or great block or sometimes both in the same play, Smoove really isnt an impact player.

This is why I want to trade Smoove and wasn't in favor of a huge extension....I'm afraid if he gets hurt or simply loses his freaky edge in terms of athleticism as he grows older (which is likely to happen at some point) he won't have a lot of game to fall back on.

I remember Steve Smith saying that after he hurt his knee, he knew he could still play in the league because he had size and he could shoot. Smoove has got size, but his jump shot is terrible, he can't dribble, and his postgame, while it's getting better, is still mostly dependent on quickness and athleticism.