Josh Smith - Would you take the risk?

mike3 · Post #1 » by **mike3** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:50 pm

Reports are we are interested, Detroit waived him.

Could be worth taking a chance. He'd help our wing length a lot, forward spot would be looking a lot better. If he's terrible just put him back to waivers but with our depth now, I'd be interested to see how he'd go.

Is a risk though.

Wammy Giveaway · Post #2 » by **Wammy Giveaway** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:54 pm

Definitely a risk. Clippers are also interested in Lance Stephenson. And they were also tied to Ron Artest earlier in the season.

Doc Rivers has basically changed his "target of interest" and is going after bad character guys. I asked Michael Dunlap a question about Artest to the Clippers, and he immediately said "Clippers don't want thuggery." With a team who is perceived to be as soft as Charmin, they should go after hard-nosed blue collar-typed players who can grit and grind like the Grizzlies.

madmaxmedia · Post #3 » by **madmaxmedia** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 pm

If Smith wants to come and play for minimum (which I guess is all we have to offer), then I would take the pretty low risk, against a decent potential reward.

If it doesn't work out, they'd just cut him.

Post #4 » by **mkwest** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:10 pm

Is he a great fit? Absolutely not. He's been woeful this year and has had terrible tendencies throughout his career. However, we're talking about the vet minimum. At the very least, signing him would prevent him from going to another western conference playoff team that could really use him.

He'd have to be willing to make some concessions though.

simon24 · Post #5 » by **simon24** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:25 pm

I wouldn't sign him.

LACtdom · Post #6 » by **LACtdom** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:53 pm

It's not a very long term plan because at the end of the year I'm assuming we couldn't afford to resign him? Unless maybe we don't resign DJ?

Can anyone tell me if this is a stupid idea:
We play Smith in the bench unit at PF and he can provide our bench scoring.
Play him at SF if we want to go big in our starting unit.
Play him at PF and Blake at C when we want to spread the floor.

I'd much rather Smith over Lance and I'd even consider re-signing him at the expense of DJ.

Ranma · Post #7 » by **Ranma** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:23 am

Matt Moore, CBS Sports (12/22/14)

LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: WISE CHOICE

The Clippers have no extra money to offer Smith. They would have to make room on roster for him. He'd have to play small forward instead of power forward, which encourages his worst instincts. And he's not a shooter, so spacing becomes complicated.

Yet, this might be the best potential option. The Clippers' biggest weakness is at the three. Matt Barnes is having a great year, but routinely, teams that have bested the Clippers have funneled the ball to him, and watched as he couldn't make them pay. He shot 32 percent from three in the playoffs last year. He's a good defender, not a great one, and is only good for catch-and-shoot opportunites or a few open drives.

"But wait," you might ask, "Smith's a worse shooter than Barnes. How does that work?" The Clippers have enough offense; they were the best team in points per possession last season. They have J.J. Redick and Jamal Crawford. They need a player who gives them better defense and can create in more mismatch situations. Smith is that player. Throw in his ability to play back-up four minutes (replacing Glen Davis) and to create a super-athletic smallball lineup with Blake Griffin, and you have a lot of what the Clippers could use.

It frees up the Clippers to package Crawford and Barnes for other upgrades, it gives Doc Rivers a veteran he'll feel he can trust, and another athlete to run the break. For all of Smith's drawbacks, the Clippers' locker room may be the strongest to be able to handle it. Plus, we finally get to see what it would have been like if the Hawks had had Josh Smith and Chris Paul.

A look at Josh Smith's free agency options

mattd13 · Post #8 » by **mattd13** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:46 am

I do not see it happing but I would be all in if the price is right. if he buys in to his role great, if not see ya.

Forte IV · Post #9 » by **Forte IV** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:57 am

Honestly, I wouldn't mind it defensively. Smith can guard SFs, but he can't play offense against them. But I don't know really. I'm torn on it. Without really digging deep into stats and shot charts I feel a Smith at the 3 would work better then with the Pistons because Blake can spread the floor more then Monroe could/can. Blake would theoretically become the SF on offense while Smith is the PF there.

LACtdom · Post #10 » by **LACtdom** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:25 am

Ranma wrote:Matt Moore, CBS Sports (12/22/14)
LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: WISE CHOICE

The Clippers have no extra money to offer Smith. They would have to make room on roster for him. He'd have to play small forward instead of power forward, which encourages his worst instincts. And he's not a shooter, so spacing becomes complicated.

Yet, this might be the best potential option. The Clippers' biggest weakness is at the three. Matt Barnes is having a great year, but routinely, teams that have bested the Clippers have funneled the ball to him, and watched as he couldn't make them pay. He shot 32 percent from three in the playoffs last year. He's a good defender, not a great one, and is only good for catch-and-shoot opportunites or a few open drives.

"But wait," you might ask, "Smith's a worse shooter than Barnes. How does that work?" The Clippers have enough offense; they were the best team in points per possession last season. They have J.J. Redick and Jamal Crawford. They need a player who gives them better defense and can create in more mismatch situations. Smith is that player. Throw in his ability to play back-up four minutes (replacing Glen Davis) and to create a super-athletic smallball lineup with Blake Griffin, and you have a lot of what the Clippers could use.

It frees up the Clippers to package Crawford and Barnes for other upgrades, it gives Doc Rivers a veteran he'll feel he can trust, and another athlete to run the break. For all of Smith's drawbacks, the Clippers' locker room may be the strongest to be able to handle it. Plus, we finally get to see what it would have been like if the Hawks had had Josh Smith and Chris Paul.

A look at Josh Smith's free agency options

Neddy · Post #11 » by **Neddy** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:45 am

i would only take him for the vet's minimum AND only as Blake's backup. he has no business in our starting lineup.

Post #12 » by **thanumba2clippersfan** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:07 am

Well I wasn't expecting Smith to be waived by the Pistons. I think that we should really try to sign him. I know we only have the vets minimum to give him. I think we can sign him for 1 season and see how it goes. I don't mind him coming off the bench playing the 3 and 4. We'll see what happens, but at least Smith can play some defense.

Neddy · Post #13 » by **Neddy** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:33 am

thanumba2clippersfan wrote:Well I wasn't expecting Smith to be waived by the Pistons. I think that we should really try to sign him. I know we only have the vets minimum to give him. I think we can sign him for 1 season and see how it goes. I don't mind him coming off the bench playing the 3 and 4. We'll see what happens, but at least Smith can play some defense.

here is the thing tho. it doesn't matter if we can only offer him the minimum or the mid level, as his salary paid by any team signing him will simply be deducted from what Pistons still have to pay him. in other words, whoever chooses to pay Smith more, is only doing Detroit a favor as Smith will earn the same amount regardless.

Neddy · Post #14 » by **Neddy** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:36 am

one more thing, if we can sign Smith to be blake's backup and only on small occasions as our SF, I would cut cunningham to bring Smith in, then find a trade partner for Farmar and Jamal which nets us a solid backup PG who can actually run an offense. if we get a smaller contract in return to have a room for another minimum player, i would save that spot for a 10 day deals for later in the season when injuries happen.

nickhx2 · Post #15 » by **nickhx2** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:55 am

I've said before i'd lean against signing him. But as weird as it sounds, cause i dislike crawford so much for this team, smith is someone we want to pair with him.

I keep seeing people say things like "our offense is so good, we can take him on without hurting much" But that's just not true. It's a double effect: not only does he contribute almost nothing to the offensive side of the ball (lest you want him taking contested 18 footers over and over and over and over), pretending he doesn't exist on offense is tantamount to playing 4v5 as well. So not only does he give you nothing, the rest of your guys have an extra defender coming at them at all times. You absolutely cannot give away people who can create their own shots if you are going to place your team in an environment where you're willing to play 4v5. The only exception, imo, is if the entire bench unit is full of strong defensive players so at least you can get stops and manufacture points off of turnovers. But an athletic, defensive bench isn't something we've had since bledsoe was on the team.

And consider this: If you take away jamal crawford, guess who becomes the star of the show when blake/cp3 are resting? Yeah that guy who is shooting less than 40% from the field and less than 50% from the line. Crawford's the only person on our bench who can hog his shots and stop him from crapping all over himself and the rest of the team.

I don't like either guy but there's some kind of weird synergy there where they mitigate each other's weaknesses. I think the bench would be a disaster if we signed smith and got rid of crawford.

Forte IV · Post #16 » by **Forte IV** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:38 am

The thing is, I've been reading places that money he might receive might become a reason why he'd sign there. But money won't end up being an issue at all. I'm pretty sure whatever money he gets from a team will just reduce the amount the Pistons still owe him. It'll be a similar situation like Glen Davis last year.

Post #17 » by **og15** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:38 am

Forte IV wrote:Honestly, I wouldn't mind it defensively. Smith can guard SFs, but he can't play offense against them. But I don't know really. I'm torn on it. Without really digging deep into stats and shot charts I feel a Smith at the 3 would work better then with the Pistons because Blake can spread the floor more then Monroe could/can. Blake would theoretically become the SF on offense while Smith is the PF there.

You should never take your best players out of their most effective spots to accommodate for complimentary and inferior players though. That's where the problem lies.

If Josh Smith being added means pushing Blake more to the perimeter, then you don't want to do that, or you don't play them in many lineups that would force that.

Sofia · Post #18 » by **Sofia** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:39 am

Ranma wrote:Matt Moore, CBS Sports (12/22/14)
LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: WISE CHOICE

The Clippers have no extra money to offer Smith. They would have to make room on roster for him. He'd have to play small forward instead of power forward, which encourages his worst instincts. And he's not a shooter, so spacing becomes complicated.

Yet, this might be the best potential option. The Clippers' biggest weakness is at the three. Matt Barnes is having a great year, but routinely, teams that have bested the Clippers have funneled the ball to him, and watched as he couldn't make them pay. He shot 32 percent from three in the playoffs last year. He's a good defender, not a great one, and is only good for catch-and-shoot opportunites or a few open drives.

"But wait," you might ask, "Smith's a worse shooter than Barnes. How does that work?" The Clippers have enough offense; they were the best team in points per possession last season. They have J.J. Redick and Jamal Crawford. They need a player who gives them better defense and can create in more mismatch situations. Smith is that player. Throw in his ability to play back-up four minutes (replacing Glen Davis) and to create a super-athletic smallball lineup with Blake Griffin, and you have a lot of what the Clippers could use.

It frees up the Clippers to package Crawford and Barnes for other upgrades, it gives Doc Rivers a veteran he'll feel he can trust, and another athlete to run the break. For all of Smith's drawbacks, the Clippers' locker room may be the strongest to be able to handle it. Plus, we finally get to see what it would have been like if the Hawks had had Josh Smith and Chris Paul.

A look at Josh Smith's free agency options

If you don't listen already, check out CBS Eye on Basketball podcast hosted by Zach Harper, he discussed this option with Matt Moore today.

I hate inefficiency, but I agree that what Smith can bring in terms of athleticism and skill, I don't see why we should hold on to someone like Hedo. If he gets here and doesn't want to play the right way, Chris Paul can freeze him out of the offence or can we keep him on the bench until he learns. If he doesn't want to learn, we release him after the free agency cut off so if he does get signed he can't play playoff basketball.

Clemenza · Post #19 » by **Clemenza** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:18 am

Please choose the Clipps.. if he goes to another team that'll be another Western Conference team that's stronger than us and makes it harder for us to get out of the 2nd round

Post #20 » by **QRich3** » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:51 pm

I'd definitely take the risk, and if he wants to play meaningful minutes I feel he should come here too. He'd be a great fit wit our bench unit, since all of Hawes-Farmar-Crawford-Turk can shoot and would leave a lot of space for him to work in the paint. Even if he wants to start I'd have no problem with it, since Barnes has always played better for us when he came off the bench, and we could play him 10-15 minutes with the starters and another 10-15 with the bench unit.

And even if he is a bit of an awkward fit on offense with Blake and DJ, it'd be MUCH better than he had in Detroit, if only because the Paul-Griffin P&R draws so much attention that every shot he had to take would be wide open, instead of the contested midrange bricks he was forced to take in the Pistons again and again. He'd be awesome at Barnes' role of cutting to the basket with all the space our offense leaves, and I think he could even do some playmaking work from the elbows on some sets. It's also the best chance we'll have at a decent SF defender in a long time, even if the fit is not perfect.

It seems like he's leaning towards the Rockets though