Spitballing: Love for Horford?

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:59 am

ATL was 28th in rebounding last year, and last spring's Trade Board poll had Horford the #16 most valuable player, and Love #17

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1100735

Love was 20-15, little defense, and plays a crowded position.

Horford was 15-9, good defense, and can play (out of position) center - a position we need. He's signed for $12 mil/yr for the next five years.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/al_horford/index.html

Do both teams say no to a swap? Maybe I'm just sleepy

Breakdown777 · Post #2 » by **Breakdown777** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:18 am

It seems pretty fair value-wise. It solves some of the issues with MN, not so much with ATL I'd think. I think a deal like this wouldn't get done as it seems like too lateral of a move for both teams.

IAmTheTruth · Post #3 » by **IAmTheTruth** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:43 am

Like Horford a lot, but not at Love's expense.

Pass.

shangrila · Post #4 » by **shangrila** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:36 am

I would consider it, but Horford is not a centre. He can play it, but he's undersized and has asked them to move him to PF, which they've been trying to do and the team has been better for it.

Vindicater · Post #5 » by **Vindicater** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:39 am

Atlanta would be the first to decline this offer.

KAHN_SWITCH · Post #6 » by **KAHN_SWITCH** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:10 pm

I like the deal, would be great if he could play C. Im getting a little tired of all these 6'11 PFs that dont play C. Boy i wish the days of Mutombo, Olajuwon, Shaq would come back... but i don't think im going to get it, the new hybrid C 6'9 with long arms it is...

funkatron101 · Post #7 » by **funkatron101** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:04 pm

I think value wise it is close. Fit wise, neither team bites, IMO.

eyeteeth · Post #8 » by **eyeteeth** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:17 pm

funkatron101 wrote:I think value wise it is close. Fit wise, neither team bites, IMO.

Post #9 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:23 pm

Fit wise it helps us. It allows us to draft the best player on the board without having him duplicate our best player, or at least it would give us more flexibility to put him on the floor with our best player. I don't think it helps Atlanta fit wise.
This is actually the type of trade I'd be hoping for. Trade Love or Williams for an equivalent but less redundant talent.

BeasleyTheBeast · Post #10 » by **BeasleyTheBeast** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:27 pm

NOPE.

Dewey · Post #11 » by **Dewey** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:01 pm

no ... PF for PF seems pointless at this time. We're better off taking BPA if necessary.

mandurugo · Post #12 » by **mandurugo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:18 pm

Seems like a good deal for MN, but I think ATL would have to say no. Horford might be a natural PF, but his ability to play C is too big a loss I'd think.

funkatron101 · Post #13 » by **funkatron101** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:22 pm

mandurugo wrote:Seems like a good deal for MN, but I think ATL would have to say no. Horford might be a natural PF, but his ability to play C is too big a loss I'd think.

He is being forced into that role and has spoken out against it. Well, through his dad at least. He is more effective at PF.

mandurugo · Post #14 » by **mandurugo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:27 pm

funkatron101 wrote:
mandurugo wrote:Seems like a good deal for MN, but I think ATL would have to say no. Horford might be a natural PF, but his ability to play C is too big a loss I'd think.

He is being forced into that role and has spoken out against it. Well, through his dad at least. He is more effective at PF.

Yeah, as Worm Guts said this is the right kind of deal... but maybe not the actual right one.

[RCG] · Post #15 » by **[RCG]** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:10 pm

Wouldn't mind it, but Josh Smith is also a PF and it wouldn't solve that problem for Atlanta.