Would you trade Al Horford?

[EazyRoc]

It would be pointless. I don't think adding Tim Duncan, and losing Al Horford would win a championship. We would be really good, but when Al Horford goes on to win a championship in San Antonio, then what ?

AC Law would have to make huge improvements for us to make the championship.

[crimedog]

easyroc, mrh, and georgiaboi, do any of you actually think that Al and two (mid) first rounders could ever equal the impact of even an aging Duncan? That is no slight on Al, Tim just happens to be one of the ten greatest players ever to play the game. Al, Joe, Josh... none of them have the ability to impact a game like Duncan and none of them will. Don't forget that even in his early 30s, Tim is significantly better than Al in all facets of the game and looks to be so for some time.

MrH, your argument is flawed for various reasons. For one, Duncan, Manu, and Parker have won titles (plural) together. Is last season represenative? Manu was physically a mess in that series. Second, is the fact that we aren't assured of a title a reason not to do it? If you don't think we have a good shot with Duncan, we have virtually no shot with our current group.

gboi, a young Shaq was comparable to, if not better than and old Hakeem. Al was 10 and 10 whereas Duncan was 20 11 3 2...

Easy, what makes you think Sananto competes for a title with Al? The think that makes the team special is having Duncan, a legit 20 ppg post player who can carve up the opponent when they throw the double/triple and can be an absolute force on D. Al can rebound well but you can't build an offense or defense around him which you can do with Tim... since the day he came into the league in fact.

I don't get it, half this board was itching to move Smith for the less talented Kaman (older with less upside too) all for the sake of "fit" because they thought they needed a "true" center to "win a title" but if they had the opportunity to trade Al for one of the best centers in the game (ever), a guy who has been the cornerstone of 4 title teams, its a relatively easy no. It seems like some people lose objectivity about what certain players are going to bring.

Edited August 27, 2008 by crimedog

[mrhonline]

MrH, your argument is flawed for various reasons. For one, Duncan, Manu, and Parker have won titles (plural) together. Is last season represenative? Manu was physically a mess in that series. Second, is the fact that we aren't assured of a title a reason not to do it? If you don't think we have a good shot with Duncan, we have virtually no shot with our current group.

Argh...the lack of creativity here is killing me.

Think about Diesel's argument here. What he's suggesting is that the Spurs, after seeing that they can't win with their current group (of three All-Star caliber players), want to rebuild. Why would they do that? Obviously because their star is aging.

The better question is, "When would they do that?"

And the answer, if you think this through, is only after Duncan shows evidence of no longer being able to lead his team to a championship as the first option, in which case he'd be of no use to the Hawks are currently constructed.

This isn't about me undervaluing Duncan - he's my favorite NBA player, and has been since David Robinson retired. (Closet Spurs' fan). This is about thinking this through from the Spurs' perspective.

Edited August 27, 2008 by ifthenwouldi

[High5]

I don't think Duncan would be enough to make the move worth it. He's older, his ability is fading (of course he's still a great player), the injury concerns are growing. Duncan definitely wouldn't like the move. He's used to being able to coast in the regular season.

So no.

[AHF]

I'm projecting this into the future. What I'm saying is that if Duncan + Manu + Parker can't win, I don't think Duncan + JJ + Smith could either...

Duncan, Manu, and Parker have won multiple titles already and definitely can win next year. For the last decade they have won about every other year. No shock that they didn't win last season, IMO, and no reason to count them out for 2009.

Personally, I would strongly consider this deal and I love Al. Duncan is still a dominant stud on both ends of the floor and I don't think Horford will ever be as good as an energized Duncan would be next season. Very hard and interesting decision. Good topic. If I had to make the call right now, I would probably do it....but not without some buyer's remorse when watching Al. I do think the trade would make the Hawks elite title contenders and reduce San Antonio to an also-ran for the foreseeable future.

[bonethugz]

al, no. what about anybody on the team but al? i would love to get tim to mentor al just like tim did with david robinson.

Edited August 27, 2008 by bonethugz

[crimedog]

Argh...the lack of creativity here is killing me.

Think about Diesel's argument here. What he's suggesting is that the Spurs, after seeing that they can't win with their current group (of three All-Star caliber players), want to rebuild. Why would they do that? Obviously because their star is aging.

The better question is, "When would they do that?"

And the answer, if you think this through, is only after Duncan shows evidence of no longer being able to lead his team to a championship as the first option, in which case he'd be of no use to the Hawks are currently constructed.

This isn't about me undervaluing Duncan - he's my favorite NBA player, and has been since David Robinson retired. (Closet Spurs' fan). This is about thinking this through from the Spurs' perspective.

I agree that they would only do that if Duncan had faded to the point that he couldn't lead a team any more. He hasn't. His numbers have declined slightly but its more that he's only being played 34 mpg in the regular season. He was better last season than Garnett was in his final season in Min, he just played 5.4 fewer mpg.

The Spurs lost a deceptively close WCF with a very banged up team. They are still competitive. How much of a hit to his abilities are you just assuming for the sake of assuming here? I'm saying that the Spurs wouldn't trade the current version of Tim Duncan (1st All-D, 2nd All-NBA) for Al Horford. You are saying that they would trade an imaginary Tim Duncan who wasn't as good for Al Horford. You are getting a little too creative here.

From our end, there were a lot of Boston fans that didn't want to do the Jefferson trade last season. They said, "but Al Jefferson could be as good as KG next season anyway" and "we are going to have a sick core in the future with Al and Perk and Gerald Green" and they said "KG and a washed up Ray Allen aren't big enough additions to push us over the top". That package they gave was far better than Al plus 2 first rounders that are almost certain to be bad unless Duncan has a season long injury (which he's never had). Today, they don't regret it.

[Diesel]

I knew that the board would be homers.

Here's how I see it.

Horford is a great personality and a born winner BUT... what part of his game can you say compares to Duncan?? ON a bad day, where he can't hit a free throw, Duncan is still Ten times better than Horford on his best day 4 years from now. The real question is Duncan's durability. However, if you sit Duncan in the middle and have him paired with Smoove as his Front court mate.... Or if you pass it in to Duncan and he can pass it out to JJ or Bibby?? DAYUUUM..

Horford doesn't have a good low post offense (or any) nor can he pass out of a double team anywhere close to what Duncan has mastered.

If you said yes, then you have passed this Diesel test.

If you said No, then you are :lighter: a homer.

[atlien]

If you said yes, then you have passed this Diesel test.

If you said No, then you are :lighter: a homer.

Ah, so it was a test!

I agree with MrH that the deal couldnt be beneficial to us -- they would only trade Duncan IF he had showed a significant decline. Otherwise, they're not trading the guy who has brought them so many championships and is adored by the fan base (and can still bring them more championships).

So, while I say yes to the trade if we were to get the elite Duncan for at least 2-3 more years, I say no to it if we were to get a broken-down, on-the-decline Duncan. Because we'd only be getting the latter (Spurs wouldnt trade him otherwise), it's a No.

Edited August 27, 2008 by atlien

[Hatertots]

Diesel-

Personally, I don't think the trade with San Antonio makes sense, for either team, so I couldn't see making the deal. However, a deal for a younger player might be something I'd go for since the window would be longer, Detroit and Boston would see their squads get weaker with age, and we as fans could hopefully get more than 2-3 years of playoff basketball. Some people mentioned Dwight Howard, but we all know he isn't leaving Orlando any time soon.

But would you trade Al Horford for Andrew Bynum?

I think Andrew is easily the better player of the two, but he's coming off an injury that was thought to be minor at the time, but that was in January and the timetable for his return kept getting pushed back and now it's not certain how much the injury will affect his game. Normally, a guy like Bynum would be unavailable, but in situations like this, it's possible a team would be willing to deal a guy they normally wouldn't.

IMO, that's a pretty intriguing swap for both teams. For the Hawks, this trade would net them a very young player (just like the rest of the squad) who, if healthy, makes them a much better team. He's made huge strides in his time in the league, and while some have knocked his work ethic or his desire to get better, the fact that he has improved so much makes those comments seem pretty baseless. The real risk is that the guy might never fully recover or that he might be injury prone throughout his career. But the reward is that he could also end up being just as good as Dwight in a few years.

On the other side, L.A. already has a championship caliber team, with or without Bynum. Adding Horford to the Lakers gives them a young big with leadership skills beyond his years who rebounds, scores efficiently and is a likable, handsome fella. In other words, he's a perfect fit for Los Angeles (the team and the city) and I think he puts them over the top in their quest for another title. Plus, since Horford isn't a threat to go 23 and 11 Shaqtastic, no one's gonna say the title wasn't all Kobe's doing.

It's a risk, but in the best case scenario, we get a young big who shows legit superstar potential to build a contender around in the East and L.A. wins another championship. Doesn't get much better than that.

So, would you trade Horford for Bynum?

[crimedog]

hatertots, you didn't say why D's initial trade didn't make sense for both sides.

The ideal situation, obviously, would be for a young cornerstone like the trade you proposed. Unfortunately, no team is going to trade one young player for a young player with less ability and potential. The reason this question has any intrigue is that you could get a career of Horford, who is a nice peice but not a championship cornerstone, or a few years of Duncan.

Edited August 27, 2008 by crimedog

[mrhonline]

If you said yes, then you have passed this Diesel test.

If you said No, then you are :lighter: a homer.

We all knew this was a "homer" test. That's why we spinned it back at you...

[Hatertots]

hatertots, you didn't say why D's initial trade didn't make sense for both sides.

The ideal situation, obviously, would be for a young cornerstone like the trade you proposed. Unfortunately, no team is going to trade one young player for a young player with less ability and potential. The reason this question has any intrigue is that you could get a career of Horford, who is a nice peice but not a championship cornerstone, or a few years of Duncan.

The trade with S.A. doesn't make sense to me because I think we'd be grabbing an aging vet and going into win now mode without the horses to win an NBA title. We're kinda like the Mavericks after that trade, a 50 win team that has next to no chance at winning it all. Boston and L.A. and New Orleans would all still be ahead of us, IMO. And I can't see the Spurs pulling the plug on their All-Star trio because that is a step back over the next few years, which is all that team has. To me, the trade proposal seems disjointed from the standpoint of both rosters.

[crimedog]

The trade with S.A. doesn't make sense to me because I think we'd be grabbing an aging vet and going into win now mode without the horses to win an NBA title. We're kinda like the Mavericks after that trade, a 50 win team that has next to no chance at winning it all. Boston and L.A. and New Orleans would all still be ahead of us, IMO. And I can't see the Spurs pulling the plug on their All-Star trio because that is a step back over the next few years, which is all that team has. To me, the trade proposal seems disjointed from the standpoint of both rosters.

I guess the difference is that I see it as a move that CAN make us contenders. I mean, Duncan is a HUGE upgrade over Al. Coupled with Smith we'd have the strongest interior defense in the league - a second shot-blocker would allow Smith to focus on rebounding and creating turnovers even more.

On offense, he's a legit back to the basket player who can draw a double or triple team on almost every possession and he could have the same sort of effect on Joe that he's had on Manu and Parker.

I just look at KG-Pierce-Ray and I don't necessarilly see that as a significantly better core than Duncan-Smith-Johnson; especially considering that Smith is still getting better and Duncan's game doesn't rely on athleticism as much as Garnett's allowing him to play at an All-NBA level for a long time (Duncan is strong candidate for a Malone/Kareem/Hakeem sort of longevity).

[HawkItus]

I said yes, but my yes has an *. When is Duncan's contract up;?

[Diesel]

Diesel-

Personally, I don't think the trade with San Antonio makes sense, for either team, so I couldn't see making the deal. However, a deal for a younger player might be something I'd go for since the window would be longer, Detroit and Boston would see their squads get weaker with age, and we as fans could hopefully get more than 2-3 years of playoff basketball. Some people mentioned Dwight Howard, but we all know he isn't leaving Orlando any time soon.

But would you trade Al Horford for Andrew Bynum?

I think Andrew is easily the better player of the two, but he's coming off an injury that was thought to be minor at the time, but that was in January and the timetable for his return kept getting pushed back and now it's not certain how much the injury will affect his game. Normally, a guy like Bynum would be unavailable, but in situations like this, it's possible a team would be willing to deal a guy they normally wouldn't.

IMO, that's a pretty intriguing swap for both teams. For the Hawks, this trade would net them a very young player (just like the rest of the squad) who, if healthy, makes them a much better team. He's made huge strides in his time in the league, and while some have knocked his work ethic or his desire to get better, the fact that he has improved so much makes those comments seem pretty baseless. The real risk is that the guy might never fully recover or that he might be injury prone throughout his career. But the reward is that he could also end up being just as good as Dwight in a few years.

On the other side, L.A. already has a championship caliber team, with or without Bynum. Adding Horford to the Lakers gives them a young big with leadership skills beyond his years who rebounds, scores efficiently and is a likable, handsome fella. In other words, he's a perfect fit for Los Angeles (the team and the city) and I think he puts them over the top in their quest for another title. Plus, since Horford isn't a threat to go 23 and 11 Shaqtastic, no one's gonna say the title wasn't all Kobe's doing.

It's a risk, but in the best case scenario, we get a young big who shows legit superstar potential to build a contender around in the East and L.A. wins another championship. Doesn't get much better than that.

So, would you trade Horford for Bynum?

It indeed was a test, but the test wasn't would you make the trade. The question is are you ready to win a championship now. HT, I think your post exemplifies what it is about Squawkers that is "Welfare minded" as I have called it previously. Us getting Duncan in the east would guarantee that we go to the Finals. However, instead of looking at us getting to the finals... right now this year, you're more concerned about what will happen in 4 to 5 years... and actually, you think it's better to lounge in mediocrity or something close until Horf and others come around instead of winning now. What they didn't tell you at the meeting is winning now (championship) solves most problems. How many Championship teams waited for the development of several drafted players without making a major trade? The answer is none but San Antonio. A trade of Horf for Duncan is just like Jefferson for KG. I think it would have the same results.

[Diesel]

We all knew this was a "homer" test. That's why we spinned it back at you...

Actually, it wasn't a homer test, it was a are you ready to win test.

And you didn't spin it back, you proved that you were homers.

[Diesel]

The trade with S.A. doesn't make sense to me because I think we'd be grabbing an aging vet and going into win now mode without the horses to win an NBA title. We're kinda like the Mavericks after that trade, a 50 win team that has next to no chance at winning it all. Boston and L.A. and New Orleans would all still be ahead of us, IMO. And I can't see the Spurs pulling the plug on their All-Star trio because that is a step back over the next few years, which is all that team has. To me, the trade proposal seems disjointed from the standpoint of both rosters.

So what you're saying is that JJ, Smoove, Marvin, and Bibby < Manu, Parker, and Bowen?

And...

We are talking about playing in the East!!!

So the team that took Boston to 7 games with Horford at C could not beat Boston with Duncan replacing Horford?

WOW. :sad:

[Plainview1981]

Before you have a heart attack, my reference is the KG trade from last year.

Here's the rest.

IF San Antonio said that they wanted to get some young talent for their aging talent, and they offered us Tim Duncan for Horford and 2 First round picks...

Would you do it??

I really want some discussion here.

Do you think it's better that we wait on potential and forgo trading for any talent?

or

Should we make a move like Boston did and see what we can do right now?

Has Horf shown you enough that you're totally sold on him being the future?

No trading Al unless something great comes along.

[Hatertots]

It indeed was a test, but the test wasn't would you make the trade. The question is are you ready to win a championship now. HT, I think your post exemplifies what it is about Squawkers that is "Welfare minded" as I have called it previously. Us getting Duncan in the east would guarantee that we go to the Finals. However, instead of looking at us getting to the finals... right now this year, you're more concerned about what will happen in 4 to 5 years... and actually, you think it's better to lounge in mediocrity or something close until Horf and others come around instead of winning now. What they didn't tell you at the meeting is winning now (championship) solves most problems. How many Championship teams waited for the development of several drafted players without making a major trade? The answer is none but San Antonio. A trade of Horf for Duncan is just like Jefferson for KG. I think it would have the same results.

So what you're saying is that JJ, Smoove, Marvin, and Bibby < Manu, Parker, and Bowen?

And...

We are talking about playing in the East!!!

So the team that took Boston to 7 games with Horford at C could not beat Boston with Duncan replacing Horford?

WOW. sad.gif

Diesel-

1. If I thought trading Al Horford would net the Hawks just the one championship next year, without hesitation, he's gone. I'll help him pack his bags. Let me be clear, I love Al Horford, but I love titles more. I just don't think this trade makes the Hawks a clear favorite to win the title.

2. Didn't I propose another trade, with the Lakers for Bynum, that I felt did give us the chance to contend for a title? How is trading for a kid with superstar potential when healthy somehow an acceptance of mediocrity?

3. I'm saying next year, adding Tim Duncan and subtracting Al Horford makes us the third or fourth best team in the league. That's the basis for not making the trade. We'd be much better, but not good enough. And that's the worst place to end up after making one of these trades.

4. The Hawks team that took Boston to seven games got its collective anus blown out in every road game. That team also lost its best bench player this offseason. Sure, Tim makes it a more competitive series, he's a much better player than Al. But is he 25 or 30 more points than Horford on the road against one of the top defenses in the league better? After all, the Spurs lost to L.A., who in turn got killed by Boston.

But if you're going to ignore, ya know, what actually happened in the playoffs and just declare that putting Duncan next to JJ (who actually isn't as good as Manu) and Bibby (worse than Tony Parker) makes the Hawks the de facto favorites to win the title and that Boston or L.A. or New Orleans or even Detroit won't have anything to say about it, then man, do us all a solid and not call anyone else a homer ever again.