Salim & other thoughts about the guard rotation.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

The Hawks Starting line-up at the

end

of the season will be.

JJ

Chillz

MWill

Smoove

Curry

---

And they won't be very good.

(BTW, how did you get Harrington to come off the bench? The Pacers would be impressed?)

[Inside_Man]

Quote:

---

how did you get Harrington to come off the bench?

---

He's gone in a sign and trade for Curry

[parvezf]

By the way, Childress turned pro after his junior year at Stanford. But even if he had turned pro after his senior year, we musn't fall into the trap of deeming such players as "older" or "fully developed." Even before the high school invasion, it was commmon knowledge in NBA circles that the most dramatic improvement occurs by the 3rd year, especially between the 2nd and 3rd years. And with his work ethic, Chillz is FAR FROM a finished product.

I agree that he, at this time, holds the least superstar potential of the Hawks' major pieces, and he's definitely not untouchable in a trade, but why trade him prematurely, especially when there are a number of permutations that will likely allow us to acquire JJ and/or a young big man without trading an undervalued Childress. I take it you feel that Harrington is much closer to untradable, but isn't he 25 and much closer to reaching his full potential? And he's surely no superstar nor likely to become one!

Why not wait a minimum of just one more year to see just how valuable a chip we have in Childress, rather than getting a few cents on the dollar now. Or maybe, just maybe, you keep him and watch him be our team captain for the next decade or so...

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

I appreciate your optimism toward Childress, but he will never be a superstar.

He's a four-year senior at a major college school

Childress, on the other hand, is a four-year senior who was given significant minutes his rookie season. His potential is much more known that JJ's was when Boston traded him.

---

1st of all, Childress was drafted after his Junior year. Secondly, you sound like Diesel when it comes to evauating players. Childress played better and had better stats except blocks than Josh Smith last year. But Childress is the player that should get traded because Smith won the slam dunk contest. JJ numbers were worse than Childress' number his rookie season. JJ has always had better players around him and certainly was the case this year. JJ will cost the Hawks $70 million dollar and childress

[mrhonline]

Parfait, I definitely agree that Childress has not peaked as a player. But to assume that all players develop at the same rate is not accurate. Players who have had more college experience are generally considered to be closer to their peak potential, esp. if they've played at a good institution like Stanford.

I also would not trade Childress UNLESS a good, young center could be acquired. Unfortunately, the only center the Hawks could get without trading Childress is Eddy Curry. Personally, and I know quite a few people on this board agree, Curry's offensive abilities DO NOT outweigh his other limitations. I would rather have Childress than Curry, who I believe could derail the rebuilding efforts. I don't think Curry would be happy in Atlanta and I don't think he will ever be good enough on both sides of the ball to get Atlanta to the next level.

I can't say the same, however, for Dalembert. He's a legit center who can rebound, defend, and block shots. He's also never been given consistent playing time to show just how good he can be offensively either. (Plus playing with Iverson will definitely limit your touches).

I also can't see Childress becoming a major force on a team with Joe Johnson at the 2 and Marvin Williams at the 3. Both of those players have greater upside and one of them is already better than Childress. Childress' minutes are only going to decline as those two begin to gel.

For the Hawks to develop, they're going to have to have a center. The only feasible way of doing that right now is to trade for one. Teams are going to ask for Childress, because they know they aren't getting Smith or Williams. For the right deal, I would trade Childress.

(As far as Harrington, I think he stays for now because he's the best player on the team. He will be totally expendable when a.) one of the young duo proves they can gaurd PF's as well as Al and, b.) someone takes up the scoring load. And I definitely think people undervalue him).

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Childress played better and had better stats except blocks than Josh Smith last year.

---

April numbers ->

Smith: 15.8 ppg, 9.5 rebs, 2.18 blks

Childress: 16.0 ppg, 7.5 rebs, 1.18 steals

Factor in the age difference and I would say, "You is wrong."

Quote:

---

But Childress is the player that should get traded because Smith won the slam dunk contest.

---

Hello, Mr. Scarecrow. Welcome to the farm.

Quote:

---

JJ numbers were worse than Childress' number his rookie season.

---

I'm not sure what JJ has to do with things, but just to humor you:

Johnson put up 20/5/5 after the All-Star break at the age of 22. Will Childress do that this year?

Quote:

---

JJ will cost the Hawks $70 million dollar and childress

---

Joe Johnson is an impact player, Childress is not as of yet. Come and get me to argue this when he becomes one.

Quote:

---

I don't know what center you plan on trading Childress for but if you are thinking of the incomplete projects that are rfa this year

---

It would be a S&T (rendering the RFA status irrelevant). And, perchance, who would you put at center?

Quote:

---

I am glad that you are not the Hawk's GM.

---

That sentiment is mutual.

[parvezf]

Unfortunately I think that this whole issue of trading Childress is a moot point at this time. Dalembert and Chandler appear to be locks to re-sign with their respective teams. And, it is unlikely that Philly would have pursued Childress in a sign-and-trade anyway with Iguodala entrenched at the SG position. So, we're back to the prospects of Curry. It sounds like neither of us would trade Childress to get Curry. I would definitely be open to the idea of trading Harrington to get him, but I'm not in love with the idea. I'm not even in love with Curry, but I feel like we have to roll the dice on a young center at some point and there don't appear to be any more available on the horizon. I'd much rather sign Curry outright to a sub-max contract and avoid a sign-and-trade altogether.

[hotboyj]

He played in the low post for the most part in college.

Most players don't come in the league with even a shot as good as Chillz.

Dominique came in the league with a worse shot than Smoove, and by the time he left he was a premier shooter.

Just give the guy some time, according to everyone in Utah who watched Chilz in Summer Legue says he has a good shot, something we couldn't say last year.

quote from a jazz fan

"Childress is a stud, and doesnt even need to be here... ..I have never liked him, but as a player that kid is very good and makes everyone else there look bad...."

Chillz can be a superstar, the biggest knock on him is that he is laid-back, if he played with more intensity everyone would think he is a great player.

[Traceman]

Dalembert has basically averaged 8pts, 7 rebs and 2 bpg for the last 2 seasons. He's 24. Why is it a forgone conclusion that he will do better than that for us? Even if he gives us 12/10/2 (which I think is more than he will get next year), is that worth a max contract AND the #6 pick in last year's draft? Childress put up 13 pts, 7 rebs and 2 apg as a ROOKIE starter last year while Dalembert put up 9 pts, 8 rebs and 2 bpg as a 3rd year player. No way in heck would I trade Chillz for Dalembert. As for Curry, I think he will get at least 17/7/1 next year and I wouldn't be surprised to see him get 20/8/1. He'll likely do that while making less money than Dalembert.

[mrhonline]

Well, let's compare.

Curry will cost either:

a.) A buttload of money (to avoid being matched)

b.) Harrington + draft pick

Daly will cost either:

a.) A buttload of money (and still might be matched)

b.) Childress + draft pick

As far as Dalembert, he's the most "raw" of any of the RFA centers. He's not actually been playing basketball that long and hasn't been allowed to play starter's minutes. It wasn't so much that he didn't earn them, he wasn't given them. His job, and the job of most centers, is to be a defensive presence and grab rebounds.

The way I see it is:

Door#1: Childress + Curry = 35/14/1, poor interior defense, and worries about Curry's work ethic and health.

vs.

Door#2: Harrington + Daly = 31/17/2, improved interior defense and more minutes/touches for Marvin & Boris.

For me, I would take door#2.

[hotboyj]

Not to mention Korver giving Daly more room to work with.

Plus after Daly who was the next best big man?

Marc Jackson

We can't expect role players to come in and ask them to become leaders. That is why I don't want Chandler. We need people that can lead this team.

Does anyone think Dalembert has much more of a low post game than Smoove?

No seriously Dalembert can dunk, block, and well play hard

Harrington had enough trouble coming from a role player to a starter, and everyone thought AL would become the next hs to pro all-star.

Until we have a true pg we don't need to bring in people who need a good pg to get all of their buckets.

As far as interior defense Daly is a bean pole who would be eaten alive by Shaq and Curry.

We need a big guy who can defend along with be an interior presence.

That is not Dalembert. Not at all.

Curry is a guy who you can throw the ball down low and expect two points or a foul. That is about all the pg's here can do.

All Curry needs to do is lose about 10lbs, which would help with his heart, his agility, but still be big enough to muscle most centers in the league.

Daly needs to bulk up, learn to shoot free throws, and refine his low post game.

Curry isn't as big of a gamble as most of you think.

[cyman3]

"Curry needs to do is lose about 10lbs"

- 10 lbs is hard to lose when ur not motivated/dedicated to losing weight. ask Shaq!

as for Dally, so wat if hes just a role player? Ben Wallace is a role player, would u want him here?

we cant have legit allstars at every position. Portland tried that and it failed. The kings tried that, and it failed. role players are not that bad to have. guys like bruce bowen.

---------------------------------------------

The Pistons have Rasheed Wallace as their richest player. but is he their BEST PLAYER?

i think not.

we need a TEAM, not bunch of talented individuals. i'm confident that Knight would do a decent job building this team.

[hotboyj]

Dalembert doesn't have the pontential Curry has to be a superstar, and Curry is cheaper.

When we have a team full of players that have enough problems finding their own shots, why bring in another guy with the same problem?

Especially when he is going to need like 15 mil per year to even sign our offer sheet.

Ben Wallace is on a team full of great offensive players. He can afford to play tough defense and rebound.

The Hawks don't have a Rasheed Wallace, a Rip Hamilton, a Chauncey Billups, and we barely have a Tayshaun Prince. We need all the points we can get.

Detroit is a team full of talented individuals. Billups and Sheed are great individual players, and Rip is for the most part except he needs someone to pass to him for the easy j.

Role players are great when you have a superstar, but when you don't even have an all-star what good are they?

Well if Curry isn't motivated to lose the weight we can always get plastic surgery.

Who says money can't fix problems.

Seriously though, I think Curry can lose the weight especially when it would help his heart. Dying at an early age is certainly a motivator for someone yet to have kids.

[Sage11]

Let me add my voice to the choir, I am NOT in favor of trading Chill either, premature at best.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Let me add my voice to the choir, I am NOT in favor of trading Chill either, premature at best.

---

I would be only if two things are accomplished:

1.) JJ isn't matched.

2.) A young center could be acquired by trading Childress.

Otherwise, there's no reason to trade him.

[Sage11]

Quote:

---

I would be only if two things are accomplished:

1.) JJ isn't matched.

2.) A young center could be acquired by trading Childress.

---

It is very possible that he will not be matched (JJ) from what I've been reading.

What young center do you have in mind, Curry I suppose?

If so, I think we should sign Curry without trading Chill or J. Smooth. I think to max out a deal for curry and trade chill to seal the deal is simply too much for curry.

[mrhonline]

I want no part of Curry.

I'd prefer Dalembert, who I think Childress could get in a S&T. He's young and still improving, plus he fits the "type" of player the Hawks need - a defensive presence.

None of this would happen, of course, if JJ is matched. But that just raises the pricetag of Eddy Curry, unfortunately.

[Traceman]

First of all, BK will NOT give up Big Al AND a pick for Curry. He won't have to. He'd be MUCH better off paying Curry the max and keeping both Al AND the pick. No way the Bulls match a max offer for Curry. The Bulls will be lucky to salvage something (Al) out of the deal and if they try to ask for too much, BK can call their bluff.

Second, do you think Chillz has more value than Al? I don't know that to be the case but even if it is, with Iguodala on board, why does Philly need Chillz? Wouldn't Al be a better fit backing up both Webber and Iguodala?

Third, you said:

Quote:

---

As far as Dalembert, he's the most "raw" of any of the RFA centers. He's not actually been playing basketball that long and hasn't been allowed to play starter's minutes. It wasn't so much that he didn't earn them, he wasn't given them.

---

Dalembert started 60 games for Philly last year. In those starts, he averaged roughly 9/8/2. Even if he ups that to 12/10/2, is that worth the max? I see Dalembert as Theo Ratliff at best. On the other hand, I think Curry will give 17/7 at worst amd probably closer to 20/8. Throw in the fact that Curry will likely be cheaper and I'd MUCH prefer him over Dalembert. I'd take Chandler over either of them but I think he'll provide the same things that Dalembert does while doing it in a more productive way.

Finally, you said:

Quote:

---

Door#2: Harrington + Daly = 31/17/2, improved interior defense and more minutes/touches for Marvin & Boris. For me, I would take door#2.

---

More touches for Boris?

Come on Mr H! What in the world has Boris EVER done to even warrant being a part of this discussion? I'd trade Boris for a rack of basketballs if it meant keeping Chillz, a #1 pick and acquiring Curry!

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

First of all, BK will NOT give up Big Al AND a pick for Curry.

---

Then he won't get him. It's not complicated.

Quote:

---

He'd be MUCH better off paying Curry the max and keeping both Al AND the pick. No way the Bulls match a max offer for Curry.

---

They certainly can match a max offer, if Atlanta is dumb enough to do it. They were the best team in the East at times last year, and even though they have no real financial constraints, they're just supposed to give up their starting center for a shorter version of the player they already have? Who replaces Curry? (Chandler isn't durable enough to play the 5 all season).

Quote:

---

Second, do you think Chillz has more value than Al? I don't know that to be the case but even if it is, with Iguodala on board, why does Philly need Chillz? Wouldn't Al be a better fit backing up both Webber and Iguodala?

---

Philly could use either Harrington or Childress. I would imagine they would rather have Childress, who would play alongside Iguodala.

Quote:

---

Throw in the fact that Curry will likely be cheaper and I'd MUCH prefer him over Dalembert.

---

To each his own. I'd prefer Dalembert, Chandler, and Curry in that order.

Quote:

---

Door#2: Harrington + Daly = 31/17/2, improved interior defense and more minutes/touches for Marvin & Boris. For me, I would take door#2.

---

Sorry. I meant more minutes for Boris, more touches for Marvin. And as much as I don't like Boris, he would benefit from more minutes...

[Admin]

Quote:

---

Then he won't get him. It's not complicated.

---

Maybe its not complicated to you, but outside of some overly hopeful Bulls fans, nobody is going to talk about giving up Al AND a pick. Its just not gonna happen. One, BK doesnt trade picks, two, thats just far too much compensation for a guy like Curry who for all of his talent, does have question marks.

The only reason I ever wanted to include Al was to make sure we got him, saved us some money, and opened minutes for Smoove/Marvin at the 4. Now I am seriously questioning if anyone is ready to play the 4 should Al be gone and I dont think anyone is, I dont think we need to save the money because Johnson is probably our only other big target, and I really dont think the Bulls will match a big offer to Curry.