Hawks considering trading Josh Smith

[ChumpDumper]

The game has changed.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...aded_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_archiv...aded_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 vs. the Spurs FO and Coaching ?

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

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.

"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 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 le 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 le 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 cir scribed 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 cir scribed 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 cir scribed 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 compe ive 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 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.