Hawks considering trading Josh Smith

[tdunk21]

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=nba&id=1057


The Hawks have been exploring the possibility of trading Josh Smith as part of their summertime makeover, according to sources around the league.
This makes sense in the context of the story on Fanhouse.com, which describes the Hawks offering a two-year contract to Shaquille O'Neal. It's not clear what the Hawks want in return, but they could try to package Mike Bibby or Marvin Williams with Smoove to bring back a top-notch PG.


Contract Info:

2009/10: $10.8 million,
2010/11: $11.6 million,
2011/12: $12.4 million,
2012/13: $13.2 million

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why in hell would they trade Smith? He is a cornerstone for them and their second banana.

[NicolasBatum]

The next big thing on ST
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=2bhoqyb

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol pay pay tickets to see smith, not that turd JJ who is going to be laughin all the way to the bank

[024]

don't really know how adding smith and subtracting parker would help the spurs. would give them a more versatile frontline like the lakers i guess but smith, overall, is a slightly worse player than parker.

[Obstructed_View]

Why in hell would they trade Smith? He is a cornerstone for them and their second banana.

Because he's their first banana and they just gave Johnson max money. The first thing I thought when I heard about the JJ deal was that they'd just punched Smith's ticket out of town.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Because he's their first banana and they just gave Johnson max money. The first thing I thought when I heard about the JJ deal was that they'd just punched Smith's ticket out of town.

I don't get you on this one - JJ is their closer and highest scorer, so he's their no. 1, Smith gets it done around the rim and with hustle plays, call him their 1A. They've got Smith on a great contract, just paid to keep JJ, and they'll go to the playoffs again. Again, why would they give Smith away after he finally figured out how to play (to concentrate on his strengths)?

[Obstructed_View]

I don't get you on this one - JJ is their closer and highest scorer, so he's their no. 1, Smith gets it done around the rim and with hustle plays, call him their 1A. They've got Smith on a great contract, just paid to keep JJ, and they'll go to the playoffs again. Again, why would they give Smith away after he finally figured out how to play (to concentrate on his strengths)?

It's possible that you're correct, of course, but here's my reasoning: Are they going to be able to pay Josh Smith max money? If not, then I think they have a problem. And it doesn't matter if you or I believe Smith is better than Johnson, the question is do we think Smith believes he's better than Johnson? The problem when you overpay for one guy is that other guys think they should be equally overpaid. JJ just became the Chris Dudley of the Hawks.

[tuncaboylu]

It's possible that you're correct, of course, but here's my reasoning: Are they going to be able to pay Josh Smith max money? If not, then I think they have a problem. And it doesn't matter if you or I believe Smith is better than Johnson, the question is do we think Smith believes he's better than Johnson? The problem when you overpay for one guy is that other guys think they should be equally overpaid. JJ just became the Chris Dudley of the Hawks.

I don't think so. Maybe JJ is a little overpaid but he's a really perfect fit for their system. They did well by keeping him, even if it cost too much money for them.

[EricB]

Saying Joe Johnson is over paid is like saying the the gulf oil spill is a tad bit of a problem...

[L.I.T]

I'm not quite getting the logic of them trading Josh Smith personnel wise. Financially I can see the argument that with the addition of a max contract in JJ. If I remember they have also been shopping around Marvin Williams.

Could be that with Josh Smith they are looking at it as a seller's market; possibly able to get some solid pieces + cap space + draft picks.

[Chieflion]

If they are going to trade Josh Smith just because they offered Shaq a 2-year MLE deal, the Hawks are dumber than I thought.

[kobyz]

Josh Smith would be great fit to Duncan, do you trade Splitter for him?

[Muser]

Josh Smith would be freat fit to Duncan, do you trade Splitter for him?

Yes.

[Danny.Zhu]

Do it, Buford.

Everybody could be the trade bait except the Big 3.

[TDMVPDPOY]

this is what i dont get

the teams with capspace could only offer JJ around 80-100m/5yrs right? so why did the hawks jump 120/6, they could just match the offer the other team gives him...fkn dumb hawks

[Spurious]

Smith remains a bit of a head case at times. He never clicked with Mike Woodson but overcame quite a bit of that to improve noticeably. He can't shoot FTs in the clutch (what else is new?), and he's in love with launching the occasional ill-advised trey, but if you can keep him within 15 feet of the rim and focused on D, he can bring a lot of positives.

[buttsR4rebounding]

this is what i dont get

the teams with capspace could only offer JJ around 80-100m/5yrs right? so why did the hawks jump 120/6, they could just match the offer the other team gives him...fkn dumb hawks

Because if they don't beat the other teams then he just walks. He wasn't a restricted free agent. The Hawks may have been able to get it done for a little less, but not signifcantly if they wanted to keep him. Once they made the decision that they needed him (and they are not a playoff team without him) then this is what they had to do. They were going to get screwed either way. They couldn't realistically make the arguement that he should take less for the chance at a ring a la Dirk or Pierce, so it was put up or shut up.

[montgod]

Add me to being one who wouldn't be opposed to adding Josh Smith/Teague for Tony Parker. I do want to point out that no one seems to have mentioned is that Josh Smith's contract has a trade kicker of $6 million. That's a pretty big kicker to consider and makes you understand why he has been a bit difficult to trade for thus far.

[Seventyniner]

Add me to being one who wouldn't be opposed to adding Josh Smith/Teague for Tony Parker. I do want to point out that no one seems to have mentioned is that Josh Smith's contract has a trade kicker of $6 million. That's a pretty big kicker to consider and makes you understand why he has been a bit difficult to trade for thus far.

I just skimmed the CBA FAQ, and found that a trade kicker can't be more than 15% of the remaining value of the contract, which at this point comes out to $5.58M. Is that considered part of a player's salary when doing trades, and if so, is it all added to the current year of the contract or split among the remaining years evenly?

[tdunk21]

RJ+unguaranteed contracts sign and trade for josh smith?

[ChuckD]

Why in hell would they trade Smith? He is a cornerstone for them and their second banana.

He's a bigger ass than Amare. He also can't create for himself or anyone else, or shoot. Other than that, I can't think of a thing.

[TDMVPDPOY]

without JJ the hawks could still be a playoff team, if either 2 of these cavs, heat, raptors loses its top players....

who are the teams in the easts fightin for a playoff spot anyway next season?

[Chieflion]

He's a bigger ass than Amare. He also can't create for himself or anyone else, or shoot. Other than that, I can't think of a thing.

False statement. Led PFs in assists per game this season. And terrific help defender.

[jiggy_55]

He's a bigger ass than Amare. He also can't create for himself or anyone else, or shoot. Other than that, I can't think of a thing.

Are you fucking kidding me? :lmao

The guy shot 50% from the field. Averaged almost 16 pts, 9rebs and 4+ assists. Our starting point guard Parker averaged only 1.5 assists more last year. Yet he "can't create for himself or others".
He's a beast, athletic, can block shots and steal. He's one of the most talented in the NBA since he pretty much fills up a stat sheet every night. And he's a good defender.

[RiverwalkParade]

No brainer here, if you can do it, do it.

[yavozerb]

definition of a freak athlete: 6'8, 7 ft wingspan, 39 inch vertical...And is only 24 years old. Contract is a little high for my taste but the guy has undeniable talent. The only problem I see with his game is that it just doesn't get better season after season. I figured his jump shot would be much better by now and he seems to make quite a few "bonehead plays" per game. Hard to say his game would not improve the spurs though.

[benefactor]

15% trade kicker = not a chance.

[montgod]

I just skimmed the CBA FAQ, and found that a trade kicker can't be more than 15% of the remaining value of the contract, which at this point comes out to $5.58M. Is that considered part of a player's salary when doing trades, and if so, is it all added to the current year of the contract or split among the remaining years evenly?

Good question. From my understanding, it's an automatic payout in full once the trade is complete.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My guess is they know they can get Childress back over here for 5-6 million per year, and are willing to move Smith out to get the 'discount' on their starting SF.

[SpurCharger]

Josh smith is the type of Player that the spurs need....id like to see him in Silver and black!

[Brazil]

Josh smith is the type of Player that the spurs need....id like to see him in Silver and black!

me too but it's just a dream we need to wake up quickly

[SpurCharger]

me too but it's just a dream we need to wake up quickly
Yeah very true... it is very early here on the west coast! Lol, maybe I just did wake up...

[Brazil]

Yeah very true... it is very early here on the west coast! Lol, maybe I just did wake up...

:lol good morning, josh smith is not coming, I repeat JS is not coming....... but RMJ is back !

[ducks]

My guess is they know they can get Childress back over here for 5-6 million per year, and are willing to move Smith out to get the 'discount' on their starting SF.

bingo and hawks have the right to match childress

[Seventyniner]

It's not like the Hawks aren't willing to spend (lol Joe Johnson), so why would they want to ship out Josh Smith? His contract is pretty fair for his talent level, age, and good track record, IMO.

[ohmwrecker]

Actually a Parker trade I would do.

If you do Teague instead of Bibby, you don't have to give up McDyess.

[montgod]

Actually a Parker trade I would do.

I like this trade better.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=25t6l5o

[Spurs808]

I dont think we need josh smith since we have too many PFs in td, blair, and mcdyess. if we could get a third team involved like ny or something then maybe a trade could work.
i know this might be retarded, but i also think a trade like this would be kinda cool (just cuz i have a boner for wallace lol):
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=29ynoan
(http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine)

[Blackjack]

Why in hell would they trade Smith? He is a cornerstone for them and their second banana.

Simple, really. With the signing of Johnson they've pretty much locked themselves into a roster that's probably plateaued -- a team that isn't championship-caliber whose ceiling is probably ECF.

Now, why they'd put themselves into that position by overpaying Johnson is another matter, but they've got their reasons -- he's their best and most indispensable player and he's theirs. He's become a 'Hawk' and probably the best they can get.

So maybe them signing Johnson was something they did fully aware of what the next step would be if their intention was to vie for a championship. I have my doubts but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

What would make sense for them? What kind of player could justify them paying Johnson and dispensing of Smith. I've got to think a certain championship-caliber point guard would definitely fit the bill, but would the Spurs be a willing partner? I have my doubts but I guess it's possible.

Smith's 15% trade-kicker is definitely brutal and I've got to think they'd have to view Smith as almost solely a 4 for them. But with the possibility of the Spurs also being in a similar position as the Hawks -- a team that's plateaued below championship-caliber -- I guess it's something they'd strongly have to consider -- especially if they believe it to be likely that Parker bolts next year without compensation (which I'm not sold on).

It could just end up being a lateral move for both parties (I'd think it'd definitely benefit the Hawks, though) but if they were brought forth the package I believe B-Town Spur originally suggested -- Smith and Teague -- I'm guessing it'd give them something to think about.

[Anonymous Cowherd]

Parker --> Knicks
Lee sign-and-trade --> Hawks
Smith --> Spurs

could that work/happen?

[Seventyniner]

Parker --> Knicks
Lee sign-and-trade --> Hawks
Smith --> Spurs

could that work/happen?

No. The Hawks want a star PG, and Lee probably wouldn't agree to sign for enough of a discount to make it worthwhile for the Hawks on that front either. Remember that Smith is going to make about $10M next season, which isn't bad considering his contributions.

[ohmwrecker]

I certainly would love to keep McDyess in that rotation though and play Smith at the 3 a bit-start Duncan and Splitter.

And . . . no one would ever complain about small ball ever again.

Seriously though, I don't think I want a PG that will compete with Hill for the starting job. We either give Hill the job or keep Parker. As much as I don't think Hill is a legit PG, I don't mind him starting with Manu.

[Seventyniner]

And . . . no one would ever complain about small ball ever again.

Seriously though, I don't think I want a PG that will compete with Hill for the starting job. We either give Hill the job or keep Parker. As much as I don't think Hill is a legit PG, I don't mind him starting with Manu.

Would a Hill/Ginobili/Smith/Duncan/Splitter lineup be the only one in the league that can match up with Fisher/Bryant/Odom/Gasol/Bynum?

[dbestpro]

Pop would play Smith at the SF and limit him to shooting the corner 3. Spurs fans would lament that Smith is no better SF than RJ.

[ducks]

fixing the three with smith great what able the point guard it would be worse then the three now

[dbestpro]

fixing the three with smith great what able the point guard it would be worse then the three now

Huh? Ducks Latin?

[Spurminator]

:lmao... That one goes on the ducks Wall of Fame.

[Bruno]

Parker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith.

[SpursTillTheEnd]

bruno wtf you chiefin on mane, smith >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>......... parker

[ohmwrecker]

fixing the three with smith great what able the point guard it would be worse then the three now

Good God, man. Do you paint houses for a living?

[tim_duncan_fan]

If either of the offers mentioned in this thread were on the table the Spurs would be crazy not to take it.

Our SF would be fucking huge for a Spurs 3. When's the last time this team had a legit small forward? Bowen was 2-guard sized and Udoka sucked balls.

On top of getting a very skilled, 6'8 small forward (power forward if you must), we also get either a vet point-guard or a young'n whom we could team with George Hill.

Now Bibby has been around long enough for him to be a known entity, but what about this Teague guy?

Well Jeff Teague had a 24 point 15 assist game this year against Cleveland. I know that doesn't prove much, but these kinds of games don't happen with people who can't ball. And he hit about 84% of his free throws and it's not as if we don't need a boost in that department.

I say if you can get Josh Smith and a young point to team with G. Hill for the future then you do that shit.

Just my 2 cents.

[024]

parker and smith are two different players so it's hard compare. however, parker is slightly better than smith. while smith has the obvious flash, parker has just as much as an impact during the game. parker creates, breaks down defenses, and is unstoppable when he has his jump shot going. his defense is there when he is healthy and motivated. an all star point guard, 3x nba champion, and finals mvp is hard to match. smith is good, might be better than parker in a few years, but not as good as parker currently.

[Bruno]

Can I get some of what you're smoking? I can find some justification in the statement that Tony Parker is better than Josh Smith, but I can easily argue that Smith is just as good at the moment, if not better.


Of course, you can since we don't value Parker the same way.

For you, I'm a Parker homer.
For me, You're a Parker hater.

[Blackjack]

Parker's a Top-5 player at one of the most important positions in basketball.

Smith's a Top-10 to 15 (?) player at his position and is probably more suited to being your third best player on a championship-caliber team.

Parker clearly > than Smith.

The only thing that gives this any credence are the team's standing in the league and their options for improving upon it.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Parker certainly has the better resume in comparison to Smith, but lets be honest, Tim Duncan deserves a lot of credit for those accomplishments made by Parker. Smith's defensive stats are impressive, but they are certainly not empty, Smith is a very good defender. Parker is underrated, but George Hill is the increasingly better defensive player. And this trade makes a lot of sense because a back court of Parker and Joe Johnson sounds scary enough to be very good and Josh Smith is locked up long term and is still very young, younger than almost all of the current free agents and better than a good amount of them.

This.

Trades make sense for both teams.

[Duncan2177]

Parker certainly has the better resume in comparison to Smith, but lets be honest, Tim Duncan deserves a lot of credit for those accomplishments made by Parker. Smith's defensive stats are impressive, but they are certainly not empty, Smith is a very good defender. Parker is underrated, but George Hill is the increasingly better defensive player. And this trade makes a lot of sense because a back court of Parker and Joe Johnson sounds scary enough to be very good and Josh Smith is locked up long term and is still very young, younger than almost all of the current free agents and better than a good amount of them.

:tu

[picnroll]

At the expense of being labeled a Parker hater the Parker of last season was a middle of the road PG at best. Granted he had a series of injuries but that disturbs me more than one injury. He was breaking down every week from something different. I hope he hasn't aged prematurely. When Parker's speed goes to even above average not great he will not be an impact player.

[tim_duncan_fan]

At the expense of being labeled a Parker hater the Parker of last season was a middle of the road PG at best. Granted he had a series of injuries but that disturbs me more than one injury. He was breaking down every week from something different. I hope he hasn't aged prematurely. When Parker's speed goes to even above average not great he will not be an impact player.

I agree.

My concern is that he wasn't very fast last year. He could still get in the lane but it definitely wasn't the same. It's not like he can shoot or pass or defend; if he gets any slower he'll be useless.

He's gone next year anyway. We have a chance to do more on-the-fly reloading/rebuilding while Tim and Manu are still functional and TP is gonna go free agent on us soon, so why not take advantage if the opportunity is there?

Josh Smith and Jeff Teague would be exciting new pieces with huge potential.


@Phila: We're on the same page but G. Hill is NOT a point guard.

His passing game is worse than Tony's, but hopefully it will improve so that he can be a point guard.

[SpursTillTheEnd]

Parker certainly has the better resume in comparison to Smith, but lets be honest, Tim Duncan deserves a lot of credit for those accomplishments made by Parker. Smith's defensive stats are impressive, but they are certainly not empty, Smith is a very good defender. Parker is underrated, but George Hill is the increasingly better defensive player. And this trade makes a lot of sense because a back court of Parker and Joe Johnson sounds scary enough to be very good and Josh Smith is locked up long term and is still very young, younger than almost all of the current free agents and better than a good amount of them.


this perfectly said this is what i was trying to say but i didnt feel like typing that much props phila

[024]

Parker certainly has the better resume in comparison to Smith, but lets be honest, Tim Duncan deserves a lot of credit for those accomplishments made by Parker. Smith's defensive stats are impressive, but they are certainly not empty, Smith is a very good defender. Parker is underrated, but George Hill is the increasingly better defensive player. And this trade makes a lot of sense because a back court of Parker and Joe Johnson sounds scary enough to be very good and Josh Smith is locked up long term and is still very young, younger than almost all of the current free agents and better than a good amount of them.
if the spurs' goal is to spend duncan's last two years competing for a championship, then trading for smith and integrating a new second option is not the right choice. smith is not a primary option and doesn't have the scoring capabilities yet to take over games. smith's skills have not caught up with his athleticism yet so his scoring consists a lot on hustle points.

with duncan and ginobili aging, parker has taken the primary scoring role and has the skill and confidence to execute that role. replacing parker with smith would only be a step backwards for the spurs. duncan and ginobili can be up and down because of their age and fatigue. parker will have to provide the consistency in scoring and shot creating, which is something smith cannot do. when duncan is suffering from fatigue and ginobili is having one of those massive turnover/brickfest nights, it's nice to have parker handling the ball and scoring rather than relying on josh smith to create.

[DAF86]

Good luck giving Smith the ball to try create something on offense like we do with Parker.

[SpursTillTheEnd]

hill's 3 point shot > parker's 3 point shot
hill's d > parker's d
hill can get to the rim as much as parker so why do yall keep saying hill cant run this team at pg, i guess yall forgot how when tony was out hill was the pg and was ballin

[Bruno]

You're thinking too much like a fan and not enough like a GM on the trades.

Is it a joke?
Every time I look at some virtual trade, I look at the financial side like a GM would do. Saying that I'm thinking more as a fan and you're thinking more as a GM is based on nothing.

Let's say, I'm Spurs GM. I have an amazing player with Parker and there is no way I would trade him for a lesser player like Josh Smith. Parker will get a bgi contract/extension but he is worth it.



And for the record I really like Tony, but the Spurs are not winning anything if they don't shake things up. George Hill is really good, but the way things work means that he won't bring any value in a trade. Trading Tony Parker is the only way the Spurs can shake things up.

Oh, I get it.
My bad, you were right. You're thinking like a GM, the only problem is that this GM is Isiah Thomas.
We won't win the championship, let's do some random trades that makes no sense.



Is Josh Smith the answer to the Spurs problems? Maybe, maybe not. But George Hill is ready to step into the starting line up as a point guard, he isn't better than Tony, but the gap isn't nearly as big as most of you insist it is.

Well, I fully disagree with you on that. The gap between Parker and Hill is huge.



I believe that if the Spurs were offered Bibby and Smith for Parker then the Spurs would do it. Bibby is the key to the trade, he would be a very solid player off the bench and play a very good role. Josh Smith is getting better and understanding what he can and cannot do every year, and he's only 24.

Well, that's your opinion. I've mine and it's that Parker for Bibby+Smith would suck for Spurs.

[tim_duncan_fan]

The way I see it, George Hill won't get better at running a team if he isn't given the chance. I think 82 games (and 8 months learning under Manu) is about enough to learn how to become a better play maker. George Hill has all of the tools to become a good point guard, but tools get rusty and forgotten if they go unused. People keep saying that George is not a "true point guard" but based off what? He was a second year player, playing behind the best back court combo of all time. He played the point a little bit as a rookie, but Pop's trust issues with rookies in the playoffs kept Hill benched. Last season Hill played part time point part time off-guard. If they moved Hill to the point 90% of his playing time and learned under Pop then he would get better.

I just think he looked a little shaky just bringing the ball up.

In the limited amount of time he had running the 1, he looked uncomfortable.

Hill would get the ball, dribble up to the 3 point line and then pass it to Manu. The first thing he's gonna have to learn is assertion.

I hope you're right about him being able to become a point though. That would be huge for us.

[DAF86]

hill's 3 point shot > parker's 3 point shot
hill's d > parker's d
hill can get to the rim as much as parker so why do yall keep saying hill cant run this team at pg, i guess yall forgot how when tony was out hill was the pg and was ballin

Did you figure that out when Hill performed that awesome defensive job on Nash in the second round of the playoffs?

[Muser]

If you can do Parker + Dice for Smith/Bibby you do that.

[tim_duncan_fan]

If you can do Parker + Dice for Smith/Bibby you do that.

Anybody in their right minds would do this. You get a borderline all-star that can play a big 3 or a small 4 and a B-level point guard to offset the loss from the 1.

It's a great trade that works for both teams if the Hawks are really interested in getting rid of Josh Smith.

I know TP is a better guard than Josh Smith is a forward but...


LENGTH WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!

[Brazil]

At the expense of being labeled a Parker hater the Parker of last season was a middle of the road PG at best. Granted he had a series of injuries but that disturbs me more than one injury. He was breaking down every week from something different. I hope he hasn't aged prematurely. When Parker's speed goes to even above average not great he will not be an impact player.

At the expense of being labeled a parker homer even with a so so season due to injuries, TP has been our most consistent player during the PO on Offense and guess what Defense too. On top of that healthwise untill last year he has a pedigree of being a rock, he never missed a PO game in 9 seasons (who can say the same), he healed of a broken hand in 1 month.
With Parker you also have a PO performer clutch as hell.

so yes parker >>> JS


You're thinking too much like a fan and not enough like a GM on the trades.

:lol If there is one guy not thinking like a fan on the trades it is Bruno. IMO Bruno is thinking too much like a GM and/or a CFO.


And for the record I really like Tony, but the Spurs are not winning anything if they don't shake things up. George Hill is really good, but the way things work means that he won't bring any value in a trade.

George is really good but he isn't a PG he is a SG. Guy averaged something like 0,3 assist per game. I'm not saying he hasn't the potential / talent to become a very good PG but not next year and next year is our last chance. So unless you have a very very very good trade for TP with a very good PG coming with, you keep him.


hill's 3 point shot > parker's 3 point shot

yes no debate


hill's d > parker's d

:lol this one is funny. Hill has a very bad resume at defending elite PGs see Nash Steve. TP Defense is decent at best during RS no doubt but in POs TP D has always been from above decent to very good at times.

[ChumpDumper]

hill's 3 point shot > parker's 3 point shot
hill's d > parker's d
hill can get to the rim as much as parker so why do yall keep saying hill cant run this team at pg, i guess yall forgot how when tony was out hill was the pg and was ballinHe was playing shooting guard.

[Brazil]

BTW I'm quite surprised to haven't seen yet an argument like "lets trade TP for (insert here whatever FA even he doesn't fit or he is overrated or not even close to TP talent... what matters is trading) and let's sign Iverson for cheap to substitute TP".

[ElNono]

Hill's D is way superior than Bogans or RMJ (who isn't?), but Tony definitely has the better footwork and understanding of team D than Hill at this point. And Hill flat out cannot run a team right now either. Especially the difference of running a pick and roll between TP and GH is night and day. I wish Pop would stop fucking around about that, make Hill the backup SG behind Gino, and we could get a relatively solid and experienced backup PG behind TP, and stop with the whole playing out of position BS.

[HarlemHeat37]

:lol Do people actually believe Hill played "PG" when Tony was out?..

Manu's usage % was around 28 or so(IIRC) when Parker was out, meaning he was the highest usage eater on the team by a wide margin..he was the PG for this entire stretch, Hill isn't ready for that..

When Parker is in the lineup, his usage % is around 25, while Manu's is slightly less IIRC..it's a good balance, and clearly it has worked..people like to bash Parker's skills as a PG, but he actually does do a good job, especially compared to Hill..

[Blackjack]

If Hill is nothing more than a backup 2-guard in the Spurs' eyes, they need to deal him for a comparable talent in a bigger body or who plays a different position. Period.

[ducks]

how many games has he tried to learn before the 82 games he will have next year

[ChumpDumper]

If Hill is nothing more than a backup 2-guard in the Spurs' eyes, they need to deal him for a comparable talent in a bigger body or who plays a different position. Period.Eh, he might be able to learn more. That doesn't change the past though.

[HarlemHeat37]

I don't trust Josh Smith..this was the first season where he actually put his game together and played like he's supposed to with his talent, but he showed signs of crumbling and was exposed later on in the season and during pressure situations..

He's a good defensive player, but really overrated..his great shot-blocking/altering skills would obviously be a huge help for the Spurs, but he's not a good man defender and his IQ is questionable..he would obviously be a huge help there though, since he can guard outside big men..so he would add mobility in the frontcourt and shot blocking, obviously a huge need for the Spurs, but he's still very overrated as a defender..

The problem is that his scoring is so horrible, and this team still has scoring droughts at key times..you also have to account for the fact that there's a realistic possibility that Manu and Duncan continue to see a potential decline in offense next season..a healthy Parker is a legitimate scoring threat that scores very efficiently, especially if he regains his 2009 form..Josh Smith should be a #4 scoring option on a top team, he's inconsistent and has no jump shot..

Then, like 024 said, you would have to account for the massive change of style and the time it would take for chemistry to develop..the Hawks run arguably the easiest system in the NBA among playoff teams..they run by far the most isolation plays in the NBA, and they run a simplistic switching defense scheme..this will change with Woodson's terrible coaching gone, but this is what Smith is accustomed to..

I don't think it's worth it, since the Spurs only have 1 year to win IMO..

[coyotes_geek]

Josh Smith is one of those players whom I enjoy watching, but I don't really want on my team.

[My Fault]

I must be the only one who watched the Spurs play last year. Hill was at the point but it was Manu running the offense. Hill only ran PnR and hit open shots. Parker by a long shot is better than Hill right now. I'm not a Parker fanboy and wouldn't be opposed to trading him for the right player. However if that's done then the chances at a Ship this year are done and the rebuilding has begun.

[Cane]

Hill's a more versatile defender than Tony Parker since his length allows him to bother forwards in addition to guards. He did get manhandled by Steve Nash but thats what premier PG's do to newer players (remember Hill was just a sophomore at the time playing his first serious role in the playoffs) ala Jason Kidd vs Parker back in the day. Nash had some great stats against the two-peat Laker champions as well FWIW. Hill was also the starter in the series the Spurs ended up winning as well while Parker came off the bench, again FWIW.

George Hill is still a work in progress at the point however its hard to discount how impressive the Spurs were without Tony Parker this season. It was easily the most difficult stretch of the season and they managed to win against some of the best teams in the NBA by playing PG by committee - Manu, Temple, and Hill.

IIRC, both Parker and Hill's deals are expiring as well so thats some serious $$$ to shell out in the near future. Maybe RJ opting out and a possible trade exception through a S&T can help on this end though.

Still, a healthy Parker is one of the best scorers in the NBA and an incredibly efficient player. However if I was Tony Parker it might be too hard to resist trying to get a max deal under the CBA especially after seeing Joe Johnson get that monster contract. There could be some serious discussion behind closed doors but unless a great deal comes along, its best to stick with the championship core for at least one last run.

A Bibby/Smith for Parker/McDyess seems too intriguing to pass up though.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Josh Smith can't shoot, but Matt Bonner can. Matt Bonner can't rebound, defend, block shots, run the floor, and doesn't have athletic ability- Josh Smith does. A Duncan/Splitter/Smith front court is worlds better defensively than a Duncan/Bonner/RJ front court. And some people here have forgotten that defense wins championships.

As an addendum to this, Matt Bonner can't shoot, at least not in the playoffs.

[Bruno]

Bruno, in the history of the NBA the team that dominates the paint wins championships. .....

What a damn long post... You should have a lot of time to waste.

I guess we can all agree that Having quality bigmen is very important to win a championship but I don't see where is the logic in what you said. I don't see how Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell being great and leading teams to championships have a link with Josh Smith.

I think that Josh Smith is a great athlete but nowhere near a great player. Parker is significantly better than him and will help Spurs way more than him... ...even if he is a PG.

[Lackluster]

with the more athletic, versatile, and beefed up front line of duncan/splitter/smith our need for an elite point guard decreases. especially with the kind of passing game smith brings.

hill isn't as efficient as parker as far as getting into the paint and sucking in the defense, but he has the speed to get in there, just at a lower frequency. i think smith's overall offensive game would offset that advantage tony has over hill.

the biggest gain though would be the spurs get that athletic shot blocking presence next to tim duncan. the fact that smith has the added offensive tools is only icing on the cake.

on the other hand tony had an off year and it's easy to forget the 27/7 playoff series he's had against teams like phx and dallas and the way he carried the team at the end of the 09 season much the way gino did this year. he's a mismatch for any team (especially LA). and he'll likely be healthy this year and put up numbers that should match or surpass his 08 year - we sure could have used a 22/7 guy last year. i think tony can be that player this year, but we'd be a much better defensive team with smith.

[Bruno]

And the Parker/Hill/Ginobili back-court works damn well. I don't know why people are worried about or want to break it. These players complement each other very well.

[UnWantedTheory]

I think most just want to try to shake things up because everyone knows we are not good enough as is.

[gospursgojas]

Does everyone here forget how Hill couldn't stay if front of Nash to save his life?

[tim_duncan_fan]

And the Parker/Hill/Ginobili back-court works damn well. I don't know why people are worried about or want to break it. These players complement each other very well.

Smith, Duncan, and Splitter is a huge front line.

We would get Bibby back, and if we got Teague instead, we could just sign a vet PG while the 2 young guards learned. An elite point guard wouldn't be necessary.


C Splitter, Dice,
PF Duncan, Blair, Bonner
SF Smith, Hairston
SG Ginobili, Anderson, Temple
PG Bibby, Hill, Temple


Nice mix of vet, youth, athleticism, size, speed


Face it guys. The smallish, Duncan-at-center, inathletic lineups we've played the last few years aren't going to win anything. This team may not win the championship but last years team isn't gonna get it done either.

Time to mix it up. Something's got to give and at the end of the day, Tim and Manu are still there.

[Bruno]

Tim Duncan is playing the role of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. Josh Smith is playing the role of a player who will make things easier for the Spurs on the defensive end. You totally didn't get the point of my post.

So you just go back to the 60s to say that Josh Smith will help Spurs on the defensive end?

It could have been said in one sentence.

[SpursTillTheEnd]

stop bringing stats into this shit i off of what i seen and what i seen is hill>parker, stop bringng up the suns series kobe/parker got burnt worse then hill did, and yes hill played pg when parker was out, some of yall need to go be rocket fans fucking pussies

[ElNono]

IIRC, both Parker and Hill's deals are expiring as well so thats some serious $$$ to shell out in the near future. Maybe RJ opting out and a possible trade exception through a S&T can help on this end though.

The Spurs have a team option on Hill for the 2011/12 season of $2,086,359 that I'm sure they will pick up. There's also a qualifying offer of $3,079,466 for the 2012/13 season.

[Cane]

The Spurs have a team option on Hill for the 2011/12 season of $2,086,359 that I'm sure they will pick up. There's also a qualifying offer of $3,079,466 for the 2012/13 season.

Ah, thanks for the heads up. :toast

[ElNono]

If Hill is nothing more than a backup 2-guard in the Spurs' eyes, they need to deal him for a comparable talent in a bigger body or who plays a different position. Period.

Georgie is set to make 1.1 million this season... You're not going to get equal talent for that amount. Being on the rookie scale, he's very cheap for what he brings.

[Seventyniner]

The Spurs have a team option on Hill for the 2011/12 season of $2,086,359 that I'm sure they will pick up. There's also a qualifying offer of $3,079,466 for the 2012/13 season.

Yup, that's the nice thing about having a productive rookie (especially one drafted at the end of the first round): you get 4 years (potentially 5) of cheap service.

[Vic Petro]

I have been very open minded to Tony Parker trades throughout this offseason. Hell I even advocated exploring trades for him last offseason when he was really at peak value.

However, Tony for Smith is not a good move. The beauty of the Spurs during our run was that while we could stifle you on the defensive end, we still had enough guys with offensive brilliance that an opposing defense could not stop all of them: Duncan, Parker, Manu. If you trade Tony for Smith, who is left on our roster to put the ball into the basket?

Duncan is not your primary scorer any longer. Manu, with his minutes limited, will score in the mid teens. Smith is maddening on the offensive end. We would be a very easy team to keep around 90pts and while our defense would be improved, the days of holding teams to 84pts every game are over.

These days, for a small market, if you are going to pay a guy $10+ million he better be able to put the ball in the basket.

[My Fault]

Smith, Duncan, and Splitter is a huge front line.

We would get Bibby back, and if we got Teague instead, we could just sign a vet PG while the 2 young guards learned. An elite point guard wouldn't be necessary.


C Splitter, Dice,
PF Duncan, Blair, Bonner
SF Smith, Hairston
SG Ginobili, Anderson, Temple
PG Bibby, Hill, Temple


Nice mix of vet, youth, athleticism, size, speed


Face it guys. The smallish, Duncan-at-center, inathletic lineups we've played the last few years aren't going to win anything. This team may not win the championship but last years team isn't gonna get it done either.

Time to mix it up. Something's got to give and at the end of the day, Tim and Manu are still there.
Smith can't play SF :nope

[ChumpDumper]

stop bringing stats into this shit i off of what i seen and what i seen is hill>parker, stop bringng up the suns series kobe/parker got burnt worse then hill did, and yes hill played pg when parker was out, some of yall need to go be rocket fans fucking pussiesAre you from Oak Cliff?

[yavozerb]

Smith can't play SF :nope

Agreed....He may be able to defend some 3's but on offense there is no way anyone in there right mind would defend this guys outside shooting.

[ohmwrecker]

The game has changed.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67906/20100706/bosh_signed_and_traded_to_miami/

[JustinJDW]

The would be, without a doubt, the most absolute stupidest thing the Hawks Organization could do.

[ducks]

The game has changed.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67906/20100706/bosh_signed_and_traded_to_miami/

that thread got locked in nba forum

[ChumpDumper]

The game has changed.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67906/20100706/bosh_signed_and_traded_to_miami/No, it hasn't.

[Vic Petro]

Bucher denied it already. no trade btw Miami and Tor

[JustinJDW]

The game has changed.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/67906/20100706/bosh_signed_and_traded_to_miami/Wow.

[CaptainLate]

definition of a freak athlete: 6'8, 7 ft wingspan, 39 inch vertical...And is only 24 years old. Contract is a little high for my taste but the guy has undeniable talent. The only problem I see with his game is that it just doesn't get better season after season....Hard to say his game would not improve the spurs though.

Let's see...the Hawks FO and Coaching :lol vs. the Spurs FO and Coaching :lobt2: ?

Not even close. Damn right it would improve. 24 yrs old? This is a no brainer.

[HarlemHeat37]

Smith can't play SF at all..he has trouble defending more athletic SFs, and he absolutely can't play offense at the SF position, considering his offense is already not that good and he can't shoot at all..

Also, you better hope Duncan is going to be playing at C, because he certainly isn't quick enough to play at PF anymore..

[ohmwrecker]

No, it hasn't.

That link was as legit as any of the other ones posted this month. No need to be an asshole about it.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Smith can't play SF :nope

Eh you may be right but it doesn't matter.

I was just sitting here thinking and I realized this is what our roster will look like next year:

C Splitter(Maybe, but they probably F it up and he stays in Europe), Dice
PF Duncan, Bonner
SF Jefferson, Mason Jr., Hairston
SG Manu, Anderson,
PG Parker, Hill, Temple

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2010-2011 San Antonio Spurs.


Championship!

[ChumpDumper]

That link was as legit as any of the other ones posted this month. No need to be an asshole about it.:lol "Succinct" is more accurate.

[Blackjack]

Smith can't play SF at all..he has trouble defending more athletic SFs, and he absolutely can't play offense at the SF position, considering his offense is already not that good and he can't shoot at all..

Also, you better hope Duncan is going to be playing at C, because he certainly isn't quick enough to play at PF anymore..

I don't think there's any way around that anymore. Tim's a center from here on out.

[Blackjack]

Georgie is set to make 1.1 million this season... You're not going to get equal talent for that amount. Being on the rookie scale, he's very cheap for what he brings.

I realize that. But I don't believe the Spurs view him as their backup 2-guard now or in the future.

[DPG21920]

I don't want to break up our back court, by I am way more open to moving Hill for a SF than TP for anything else.

I love our back court (when healthy), but the Spurs with or without RJ need a better fit at SF.

If Hill can bring you that, you have to move him imo.

TP for Josh Smith would not be too bad value wise, but makes little sense imo. Especially if you are getting Tiago.

Now, if the Spurs are sure TP is going to walk or that he will not agree to an extension (which are both not likely), then I can see getting the best talent you can for him.

[tim_duncan_fan]

In terms of specific players and being realistic, what changes do you guys want to see?

We can't come back with the same team as this past season and expect a different result, even if Splitter is coming over.

[Vic Petro]

In terms of specific players and being realistic, what changes do you guys want to see?

We can't come back with the same team as this past season and expect a different result, even if Splitter is coming over.

Phoenix was a shit matchup for us, and now Phoenix sucks.

Obviously we wouldn't have beaten the Lakers or won the championship. But give me Splitter, a couple of shooters, the kids a year older...really what teams in the West that finished ahead of us are worrisome? Lakers yes and OKC yes. Other than that? I'd take my chances against Denver, Utah, Dallas, etc.

I'd rather go to war with this group than panic and acquire a big money guy on a long term deal who may or may not fit just for the sake of doing something different.

[ElNono]

I realize that. But I don't believe the Spurs view him as their backup 2-guard now or in the future.

The question is wether what they view or think correlates with where Hill actually performs better at. I mean, I hope he learns and does great, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities that he just can't be as effective playing the PG position as he is playing the SG position.

I think the Spurs really tried hard to push him to the PG spot in his first season, and kinda backed up a bit in his second season.

[Blackjack]

The question is wether what they view or think correlates with where Hill actually performs better at. I mean, I hope he learns and does great, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities that he just can't be as effective playing the PG position as he is playing the SG position.

I think the Spurs really tried hard to push him to the PG spot in his first season, and kinda backed up a bit in his second season.

We differ in our views of Hill's projection position-wise but let's look at what we've heard.


Multiple reports suggested the Spurs attempted to get Bosh via sign-and-trade.

Don Harris reported yesterday that he confirmed through a league source that Parker was indeed the player offered.


Now that seems to correlate with the rhetoric and opinion we've heard expressed by Pop and the staff in regards to Hill and would lead one to believe that they view him as a capable enough point to make the Bosh acquisition something that betters their team -- I get the feeling they believe they're on the outside looking in from legitimate talk of a title as-is. Somewhat like the Hawks but a little better off given the benefit of health (which is a benefit not too likely to be afforded).

As for the comment that they should trade Hill if they view him to be a backup 2, here's what I was getting at.

Hill became without question (IMO) their fourth best player by season's end last year. But 2 of the 3 ahead of him play his position, 1-2. So if your fourth best player is someone you'd likely have to have on the sidelines when it counts with the game on the line, it would seem you have a player that's too good for his role. He's just not a fit, regardless of talent -- if your goal is to really win a championship, you can't be running a defensive lineup out there with Manu at the 3 when you've got to contend with front lines like the Lakers or wings like Anthony, Durant, LeBron, Pierce, etc.

And I was on my way out the door before when I responded, but the Spurs could've very well moved Hill for a comparable talent in a different size or position. Had they given Indy a call, they probably could've discussed Rush and/or the 10 and I'm sure they could've found a way into the lottery with a package centered around Hill for the likes of Henry, Babbitt and one or two others. The fact that they didn't do so, leads me to believe they're much higher on Hill helping them now and in the future as their starting 1 or 2 -- the former in the event Parker's moved or leaves via free-agency, the latter should he not.

I'm of the opinion that Hill can play the point and do so in a fashion similar to Fisher, should the Spurs be capable of landing Bosh. Whether the Spurs and Knicks can get Toronto and Bosh to play ball for such a deal ... that's another matter.

[024]

no doubt the spurs desperately need someone like josh smith in the frontline but the benefit would be negated by subtracting tony parker. if the spurs can do some sign and trade exchange of jefferson and blair + picks for josh smith then it's a no brainer.

[Brazil]

if the spurs can do some sign and trade exchange of jefferson and blair + picks for josh smith then it's a no brainer.

where do I sign ? we can dream after all

[ElNono]

We differ in our views of Hill's projection position-wise but let's look at what we've heard.


Multiple reports suggested the Spurs attempted to get Bosh via sign-and-trade.

Don Harris reported yesterday that he confirmed through a league source that Parker was indeed the player offered.


Now that seems to correlate with the rhetoric and opinion we've heard expressed by Pop and the staff in regards to Hill and would lead one to believe that they view him as a capable enough point to make the Bosh acquisition something that betters their team -- I get the feeling they believe they're on the outside looking in from legitimate talk of a title as-is. Somewhat like the Hawks but a little better off given the benefit of health (which is a benefit not too likely to be afforded).

As for the comment that they should trade Hill if they view him to be a backup 2, here's what I was getting at.

Hill became without question (IMO) their fourth best player by season's end last year. But 2 of the 3 ahead of him play his position, 1-2. So if your fourth best player is someone you'd likely have to have on the sidelines when it counts with the game on the line, it would seem you have a player that's too good for his role. He's just not a fit, regardless of talent -- if your goal is to really win a championship, you can't be running a defensive lineup out there with Manu at the 3 when you've got to contend with front lines like the Lakers or wings like Anthony, Durant, LeBron, Pierce, etc.

And I was on my way out the door before when I responded, but the Spurs could've very well moved Hill for a comparable talent in a different size or position. Had they given Indy a call, they probably could've discussed Rush and/or the 10 and I'm sure they could've found a way into the lottery with a package centered around Hill for the likes of Henry, Babbitt and one or two others. The fact that they didn't do so, leads me to believe they're much higher on Hill helping them now and in the future as their starting 1 or 2 -- the former in the event Parker's moved or leaves via free-agency, the latter should he not.

I'm of the opinion that Hill can play the point and do so in a fashion similar to Fisher, should the Spurs be capable of landing Bosh. Whether the Spurs and Knicks can get Toronto and Bosh to play ball for such a deal ... that's another matter.

We're mostly not disagreeing. I'll try to make it more clear in this post.
I agree that the Spurs think highly of Hill, and I think that's a major factor of why they wouldn't trade him for anything except something completely lopsided. I also agree that they still have hopes he can become a versatile enough guard that can both run a team at the 1 and also tandem at the 2, much like what Ginobili has been doing for a good amount of time the last season.

But as HarlemHeat cleverly indicated, the Spurs really gave Manu more responsibility at the 1 than Hill. Somewhere around the middle of the season (and I recall Kori clamoring for it), we eventually moved to Hill starting at SG next to TP, and Manu back to coming off the bench. My impression of Hill's first season was that he was somewhat circumscribed to playing the backup 1 position, and he didn't see as much time at SG as the last season.

I think the Spurs (and so do I) are very confident that Hill can play the 2, even do a solid job starting to eventually bring Manu off the bench. Even as a future 2 for the team, he could be solid if he improves his defense.
I also believe they still have hopes he improves enough at the 1 where they can eventually hand him the reins they've been handing to Manu lately.

And this is where it joins my previous post: Hill's improvement at the 1 are not a given. They're not a 'matter of fact' that he will become as effective at the 1 as he is effective at the 2. The vision that the FO has for Hill is nowhere near guaranteed. I think he's a lot safer as far as what the Spurs want from the 2 position, but him being able to perform as well the duties of a 1 is pretty debatable.

As far as moving TP for somebody like Bosh, I don't personally think it cements or confirms that Hill is ready to play consistently the 1 position. I think if you get a chance to get a top big and potentially be able to start looking past the Duncan window up front, you do it, you pivot the the offensive game from the PG spot to an incredibly strong frontcourt, and hope that a guard lineup of Manu, Hill and a vet or two with the LLE can shore up the backcourt. That's my take about it anyways.

[024]

where do I sign ? we can dream after all
that's why a trade for josh smith is unlikely. spurs will lose if they have to give up parker and the hawks probably won't accept jefferson, blair, and/or splitter.

[Brazil]

We're mostly not disagreeing. I'll try to make it more clear in this post.
I agree that the Spurs think highly of Hill, and I think that's a major factor of why they wouldn't trade him for anything except something completely lopsided. I also agree that they still have hopes he can become a versatile enough guard that can both run a team at the 1 and also tandem at the 2, much like what Ginobili has been doing for a good amount of time the last season.

But as HarlemHeat cleverly indicated, the Spurs really gave Manu more responsibility at the 1 than Hill. Somewhere around the middle of the season (and I recall Kori clamoring for it), we eventually moved to Hill starting at SG next to TP, and Manu back to coming off the bench. My impression of Hill's first season was that he was somewhat circumscribed to playing the backup 1 position, and he didn't see as much time at SG as the last season.

I think the Spurs (and so do I) are very confident that Hill can play the 2, even do a solid job starting to eventually bring Manu off the bench. Even as a future 2 for the team, he could be solid if he improves his defense.
I also believe they still have hopes he improves enough at the 1 where they can eventually hand him the reins they've been handing to Manu lately.

And this is where it joins my previous post: Hill's improvement at the 1 are not a given. They're not a 'matter of fact' that he will become as effective at the 1 as he is effective at the 2. The vision that the FO has for Hill is nowhere near guaranteed. I think he's a lot safer as far as what the Spurs want from the 2 position, but him being able to perform as well the duties of a 1 is pretty debatable.

As far as moving TP for somebody like Bosh, I don't personally think it cements or confirms that Hill is ready to play consistently the 1 position. I think if you get a chance to get a top big and potentially be able to start looking past the Duncan window up front, you do it, you pivot the the offensive game from the PG spot to an incredibly strong frontcourt, and hope that a guard lineup of Manu, Hill and a vet or two with the LLE can shore up the backcourt. That's my take about it anyways.

and it's pretty solid take.

Spurs are willing to trade parker if its for landing a tier 1 big ala bosh because this is not the kind of opportunity that you can reject. They won't trade TP for a tier 2 big or wing

[TDMVPDPOY]

wtf trades big for small? unless ur have a mole working in there organization

[Blackjack]

We're mostly not disagreeing.

I think our only real disagreement is in the projection of Hill's position. I don't believe he's suited to play the 2 on a championship-caliber team but I could easily see him being a Triangle-like point that initiates the offense, creates to a decent degree and knocks down the spot-up shot.


But as HarlemHeat cleverly indicated, the Spurs really gave Manu more responsibility at the 1 than Hill. Somewhere around the middle of the season (and I recall Kori clamoring for it), we eventually moved to Hill starting at SG next to TP, and Manu back to coming off the bench. My impression of Hill's first season was that he was somewhat circumscribed to playing the backup 1 position, and he didn't see as much time at SG as the last season.

No disagreement. They played with Manu being more of the point and Hill playing that somewhat Triangle-like role from the actual point: bringing up the ball, initiating offense and playing off the ball.


I think the Spurs (and so do I) are very confident that Hill can play the 2, even do a solid job starting to eventually bring Manu off the bench. Even as a future 2 for the team, he could be solid if he improves his defense.
I also believe they still have hopes he improves enough at the 1 where they can eventually hand him the reins they've been handing to Manu lately.

Again, I agree. I think he could be somewhat of a Bobby Jackson in his role down the road should they have the type of talent in front of him to warrant it. But as of this moment in time, Hill's too important to their success to be simply a backup 2 and I mean that quite literally, as I stated in the previous post about him being their fourth best player and 2 of the 3 in front of him playing his position. It's just not an ideal fit to utilize your best talent.


And this is where it joins my previous post: Hill's improvement at the 1 are not a given. They're not a 'matter of fact' that he will become as effective at the 1 as he is effective at the 2. The vision that the FO has for Hill is nowhere near guaranteed. I think he's a lot safer as far as what the Spurs want from the 2 position, but him being able to perform as well the duties of a 1 is pretty debatable.

Again, I think it goes to the importance of Hill as a player moving forward and where it's best to utilize him to get the most out of your roster. What's the best way to build a roster that's able to max out the potential contributions for Hill on the team, iow.

Having a guy like Temple come through would be the perfect scenario because you'd have a Doug Christie/Eric Snow to share in the play-making responsibilities while being able to maintain equal footing when it comes to defensive matchups (and I'm speaking in the event Parker bolts or is traded).


As far as moving TP for somebody like Bosh, I don't personally think it cements or confirms that Hill is ready to play consistently the 1 position. I think if you get a chance to get a top big and potentially be able to start looking past the Duncan window up front, you do it, you pivot the the offensive game from the PG spot to an incredibly strong frontcourt, and hope that a guard lineup of Manu, Hill and a vet or two with the LLE can shore up the backcourt. That's my take about it anyways.

I just believe the Spurs wouldn't make a move for Bosh if they didn't believe it could help them get No. 5 with Tim next year. And for them to actually offer Tony in a deal -- something that is 8-to-9-times-out of 10 gonna leave you worse off -- they had to be convinced that Hill could be the Fisher-type of point-guard to get things done going the way of the Twin Towers again.

I just don't believe they make that move without feeling they've got the right mix of players already in their midst. I just can't believe they'd leave something like that up to exceptions or free-agency that are far from certain.

[ElNono]

I think our only real disagreement is in the projection of Hill's position. I don't believe he's suited to play the 2 on a championship-caliber team but I could easily see him being a Triangle-like point that initiates the offense, creates to a decent degree and knocks down the spot-up shot.

I think he can get better than that at the two. I think he definitely needs to improve his footwork, and that will go a long ways towards allowing him to penetrate more easily and also make him a better defender. I think his mid-range is already pretty good. I don't think he's going to have the basketball smarts of a Ginobili, but then few players do.
TBH, I personally only see next season as the last shot at number 5 in the TD era, after that Hill is either going to develop into an incredibly good talent, and we might be able to keep him (or not), or simply be a solid but not over the top SG, which would be enough for a non-championship caliber team (you never know what the future brings, but I expect at least a few seasons of average play unless we get really lucky) and replacing a fairly aged Manu.

I understand that I don't have a crystal ball, and that you might have a different opinion of what the future could bring, and that's obviously fine by me.


Again, I think it goes to the importance of Hill as a player moving forward and where it's best to utilize him to get the most out of your roster. What's the best way to build a roster that's able to max out the potential contributions for Hill on the team, iow.

Having a guy like Temple come through would be the perfect scenario because you'd have a Doug Christie/Eric Snow to share in the play-making responsibilities while being able to maintain equal footing when it comes to defensive matchups (and I'm speaking in the event Parker bolts or is traded).

Well, I personally don't think Temple will be ready for the playoffs next season, so I rather have better insurance with some sort of a more solid backup PG (maybe a vet), and actually build a solid rotation at both SG and PG instead of the interchangeable pieces we had last season. But that's just my preference.

Going forward, sure, I think Temple has as good a chance as anybody to grow into a pretty solid PG (maybe not a TP like PG, but a solid PG).


I just believe the Spurs wouldn't make a move for Bosh if they didn't believe it could help them get No. 5 with Tim next year. And for them to actually offer Tony in a deal -- something that is 8-to-9-times-out of 10 gonna leave you worse off -- they had to be convinced that Hill could be the Fisher-type of point-guard to get things done going the way of the Twin Towers again.

I just don't believe they make that move without feeling they've got the right mix of players already in their midst. I just can't believe they'd leave something like that up to exceptions or free-agency that are far from certain.

I disagree on this. I think it's incredibly hard to come by proven, fairly solid big guys. I think the Spurs would think about it looking not only at the possibility of getting #5 with TD, but also past that, where Bosh may not make them a championship contender, but it would allow the team to remain competitive for a little bit longer after TD retires, perhaps being able to build a new fairly solid frontcourt if Splitter pans out and Blair keeps on improving.
As far as the upcoming season, you look at your foes today and frontcourt size is a huge factor. I personally wouldn't pass on Bosh if he would be available, even though I don't really think he wants to play for a small market. Now, I would do it for a top tier like Bosh. Smith is not top tier, IMO.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

He's a bigger ass than Amare. He also can't create for himself or anyone else, or shoot. Other than that, I can't think of a thing.

So, there are a ton of better PFs on similar contracts? GTFOH.

Smith had a career year last year, and now that he's worked out that his game is not shooting the 3, I think he'll have another great year next year.

He doesn't need to create, that Joe Johnson's job, and he doesn't need to shoot (thank fuck he finally worked that out). Smith does exactly what that team needs him to - he hits the boards, defends hard, blocks shots, causes havoc on the offensive boards, plays with fire. Like Tawn Jamison, he is a super-hustle guy. For 12mil/yr I'd take him as a Spur.

[kobyz]

Parker is better player than Smith, Parker was the second best player on a championship team, Smith will never be more than third option type player, Parker brings for winning games way more than Smith.
also with Splitter coming to the NBA, to bring Smith when you have Duncan and Splitter will be a waste, Smith can't play the 3! he has no range on his jumper at all, his skills match to the PF position.
for Smith trade we should talk about trading Splitter which way more close in value and i'm even not sure who is better and if Spurs should to it.

[Blackjack]

I think he can get better than that at the two. I think he definitely needs to improve his footwork, and that will go a long ways towards allowing him to penetrate more easily and also make him a better defender. I think his mid-range is already pretty good. I don't think he's going to have the basketball smarts of a Ginobili, but then few players do.
TBH, I personally only see next season as the last shot at number 5 in the TD era, after that Hill is either going to develop into an incredibly good talent, and we might be able to keep him (or not), or simply be a solid but not over the top SG, which would be enough for a non-championship caliber team (you never know what the future brings, but I expect at least a few seasons of average play unless we get really lucky) and replacing a fairly aged Manu.

I understand that I don't have a crystal ball, and that you might have a different opinion of what the future could bring, and that's obviously fine by me.

There's that old saying: opinions are like assholes ... well, at least yours are. I think that's how it goes. :downspin:

No, but seriously, I don't have any problem with your view or opinion of Hill. It's reasoned, well-thought and there's no irrational hate or spite coming from it. We just differ (and I'd worry for you and your family if you agreed with me every time :hat).

When I look at Hill, I see a player that had never legitimately played the point-guard position until the '08 Summer League. When most were rushing to call him a bum or a bust, I was trying to preach patience because I understood what the guy was going through. I realized just how much the mind gets in the way when you're uncertain and trying to do the right thing instead of play.

So watching him his rookie year, I thought it was pretty easy to see the progression as the season went along and he received more opportunities. He began to become accustomed to the huge leap in athleticism and competition coming from IUPUI and his game started to translate more -- he was starting to finish at the rim in traffic and find his stroke. He started to just looked like he belonged much more. But his play-making was non-existent for the most part and his approach was to take care of the ball -- eliminate turnovers -- and just make the obvious plays.

Going into his sophomore year, it was easy to see that his offseason was almost solely used to improve his offensive game. It was clearly apparent it had become his focus and was part of the reason for the defensive slippage, IMO. But his his play and decision-making were much improved -- even if the results didn't always show -- as he was seeing the play more and attempting to make the play more instead of always taking the better-safe-than-sorry approach -- it was really noticeable when he played the likes of the Clippers and Wolves (two terrible defensive teams that Tony's always feasted on) and he exploited their ineptitude. Some like to say: "Look at the competition!" but I believe cream rises and the good ones take advantage. The mere fact that he was able to rack up the assists or make some of the reads and plays he did against those teams -- and not solely those teams -- showed me a significant growth that should only continue as he enters his third year.

I really believe he'll learn this offense much the same way Tony has and become a solid point with the Spurs for years to come. The only problem I have with some of those that dismiss the notion, is that they fail to acknowledge that this is a player far from being a finished product and that comparing him to Parker -- the fourth or fifth best player in franchise history -- is just asinine; and I also find it a little strange that someone like Hill could never play the point but someone like Parker could be a Top-5 point-guard in the league. There is middle ground, I guess is what I'm trying to say, and we never seem to see much of it here if there's ever talk between Manu and Tony or Tony and George.

Again, it almost becomes a blood feud for some where they have to take a side. It's just not enough to realize some player's play and position conflicts by nature at times or just inevitably. There's just always got to be something sinister at play. :lol


Well, I personally don't think Temple will be ready for the playoffs next season, so I rather have better insurance with some sort of a more solid backup PG (maybe a vet), and actually build a solid rotation at both SG and PG instead of the interchangeable pieces we had last season. But that's just my preference.

Going forward, sure, I think Temple has as good a chance as anybody to grow into a pretty solid PG (maybe not a TP like PG, but a solid PG).

I'm fine with their point-guard depth for next year if they keep Tony. I mean, Hill's the best backup point-guard they've had in forever. That's just being honest. They could definitely use a Martell Webster or Ariza in their starting lineup and they really need to hope that their youth and (cross fingers) Splitter come through, but the point-guard position isn't one of my worries -- and I was speaking long-term with Temple and how a 6-5 or bigger guy that could share play-making responsibilities would be ideal with Hill. I wasn't suggesting Hill would be the 2, only that he wouldn't be the sole playmaker in the backcourt.



I disagree on this. I think it's incredibly hard to come by proven, fairly solid big guys. I think the Spurs would think about it looking not only at the possibility of getting #5 with TD, but also past that, where Bosh may not make them a championship contender, but it would allow the team to remain competitive for a little bit longer after TD retires, perhaps being able to build a new fairly solid frontcourt if Splitter pans out and Blair keeps on improving.
As far as the upcoming season, you look at your foes today and frontcourt size is a huge factor. I personally wouldn't pass on Bosh if he would be available, even though I don't really think he wants to play for a small market. Now, I would do it for a top tier like Bosh. Smith is not top tier, IMO.

I actually find part of me nodding in congruence. I don't know, man ... I don't know. Almost every fiber of my being leads me to believe that the Spurs are approaching this last season as their last stand -- one last drive-for-five and let the chips fall where they may -- but it's that same line of thinking that leads me to believe they won't make a Parker trade unless they feel it puts them closer to No. 5 in what could very likely be their last opportunity.

You just don't come across these chances often and I just can't see Pop and the Spurs sending Parker on his way for a lateral move or one that leaves them worse off. Even if they're not championship-caliber with Parker and the expected team for next year -- at least not quite if all goes well -- they're still close enough to where you've got to believe they'd have to give themselves a shot. That's just something --even if it's the right move -- you can never really live with if you don't give the guys one last shot after all of the blood, sweat and tears that have been shed.

Basketball is a business and there's an inherent cynicism attached to all things professional athletics, but this team and organization seems and feels like one of those unique and rare examples. There's a certain amount of loyalty, camaraderie and family that separates them from most. I just honestly believe their intentions were always to give it one last shot -- but things and circumstances change.

I guess there's always a certain amount of romanticism for dynastic teams or those with sustained excellence and it's not always rooted in the facts.

It is a business, after all. Unfortunately we're too often reminded of it.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Trading Parker for Smith?? You only do this IF Parker has already notified the FO he will not sign an extension and IF there is no better offer on the table. Trying to justify this trade with basketball arguments will always come short, as clearly Parker >> Smith and Parker >> Hill. Smith can't play the 3 and Hill can't play the 1.