Atlanta Hawks Official Trade Ideas Thread (Part 1)

Ruhiel · Post #41 » by **Ruhiel** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:53 pm

wow Gortat killing it in PER, WS/48, ORtg on a high USG%. Everything.

Superior you always trying to rob people on trades. l2ms

And Lakers incoming players are garbage. Why do we need more young guards? We need a center.

Superiorblogman · Post #42 » by **Superiorblogman** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:34 pm

Gortat isn't really that good. No-one is going to give up one of there best players for his bloated stats and Ebanks and Morris are far from garbage. Ebanks is just as good as Marvin and Morris will prove to be just as good as Eric Maynor. This thing called amnesty isn't always the smart thing to do. You still have to do this thing called pay the player. Chillz might not even get picked up by anyone and you still have to pay him full salary considering he has shown 0 since coming back to the NBA.

MaceCase · Post #43 » by **MaceCase** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:11 pm

You're not making any sense. If Chills contract is a problem then why aren't you offering the Suns actual cap savings or talent in return to garner that package? Doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid facts and nonsensically downplay Gortat's impact with statements like "bloated stats" or that they are a product of Nash, the only thing that's different for him is his scoring volume and efficiency this season but he's still at or near his CAREER averages of rebounds and blocks.

The Suns simply aren't nearly in a bad enough cap situation (They have all of 31 million in committed salary for next season) where they have to give up their top asset on one of the best value contracts in the league just to shave a year off of Childress' deal. This is just common sense here.

Superiorblogman · Post #44 » by **Superiorblogman** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:31 pm

MaceCase wrote:You're not making any sense. If Chills contract is a problem then why aren't you offering the Suns actual cap savings or talent in return to garner that package? Doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid facts and nonsensically downplay Gortat's impact with statements like "bloated stats" or that they are a product of Nash, the only thing that's different for him is his scoring volume and efficiency this season but he's still at or near his CAREER averages of rebounds and blocks.

The Suns simply aren't nearly in a bad enough cap situation (They have all of 31 million in committed salary for next season) where they have to give up their top asset on one of the best value contracts in the league just to shave a year off of Childress' deal. This is just common sense here.

Marvin's contract is better than Chillz's. Actually, you aren't making sense as usual. That transaction would save Phoenix $15.5 million over the lives of the contracts. Use some sense for once even if you have to get it from someone else. Someone tells you they will give you $15.5 million dollars and 2 2nd rd picks to make the transaction of Chillz and Gortat for Marvin and Zaza. Marvin is also better than Chillz at this point with a better contract.

MaceCase · Post #45 » by **MaceCase** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:57 pm

Marvin has 23 million left on his contract, Chills has 27 million. You are saying 15 million when in fact Gortat's deal is factored into that amount. Nobody in this league want's out of a 18, 10, & 2 per36 starting Center making only an MLE deal so please, cut your dumb bravado already. Don't believe me? Go ahead and propose this on the Phoenix board and the T&T board but do your best not to get your self banned as I'm sure you'll be disguising your ignorance and hurt feelings at the responses with nothing but personal attacks.

Post #46 » by **ATL Boy** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:04 pm

What do you guys think we can get for Hinrich?? Sund has to trade him and at least get some value from him.

MaceCase · Post #47 » by **MaceCase** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:19 pm

ATL Boy wrote:What do you guys think we can get for Hinrich?? Sund has to trade him and at least get some value from him.

Unless he's being attached as filler with another player for a big name/talent or swapped for another expiring/low paid prospect he's not going anywhere because his expiring is actually more needed for our cap purposes.

joe56755 · Post #48 » by **joe56755** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:46 pm

the headlines are saying teams are calling the celtics about pierce . i wonder if the hawks would be interested ? i know hes not the big we need but him and joe would be great together . i was thinkng marvin, hinrich and a first . i dont know if the celtics would do that but if the hawks had horford , smith , pierce , joe and teague all healthy for the payoffs thats a dangerous team .

Post #49 » by **ATL Boy** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:56 pm

joe56755 wrote:the headlines are saying teams are calling the celtics about pierce . i wonder if the hawks would be interested ? i know hes not the big we need but him and joe would be great together . i was thinkng marvin, hinrich and a first . i dont know if the celtics would do that but if the hawks had horford , smith , pierce , joe and teague all healthy for the payoffs thats a dangerous team .

Because of his history with Boston the Celtics would want to rob any team in a deal involving Pierce. They'd probably demand Josh even tho Josh is clearly a much better player and much younger than Pierce. The Hawks should not trade Teague, Josh, or Al for Pierce unless Rondo is involved .

kakopedi1 · Post #50 » by **kakopedi1** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:56 am

What do you guys think of PP,Rondo, &Oneil for Horford,Hinrich,Williams,Teague & a pick?

joe56755 · Post #51 » by **joe56755** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:06 am

kakopedi1 wrote:What do you guys think of PP,Rondo, &Oneil for Horford,Hinrich,Williams,Teague & a pick?

id say no . i wouldnt want the hawks to give up more than hinrich , marvin and a pick for pierce and while rondo is slightly better than teauge , horford is way better than oneil .

Superiorblogman · Post #52 » by **Superiorblogman** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:50 am

ATL Boy wrote:What do you guys think we can get for Hinrich?? Sund has to trade him and at least get some value from him.

Not what we put into which was just a bad move by the FO, but he has value for a team like the Lakers. Steve Blake is out and they have always spoke of needing a guard that could help stop penetration. Hinrich is considered that by many rather that is true or not. I think we could definitely get the early trade I posted for Hinrich. Devin Ebanks+TPE+1st rd pick since they have 2 or Ebanks+Darius Morris+TPE.

The rest of the scenarios are more of package deals. There are several such deals out there.

Post #53 » by **ATL Boy** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:51 am

kakopedi1 wrote:What do you guys think of PP,Rondo, &Oneil for Horford,Hinrich,Williams,Teague & a pick?

Horford and Teague for Pierce and Rondo is wayy to much let alone the package you offered. Horford didn't tear one of his ligaments his value isn't gonna suffer, but most of the people coming onto this board are acting like his value is shot. They think we're gonna give away Horford cheap cause he got hurt. Horford>>>Pierce, Teague<Rondo but not by much. the difference between Horford and Pierce makes this a bad deal for us.

Ruhiel · Post #54 » by **Ruhiel** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:51 pm

Ruhiel wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:
Ruhiel wrote:Know about the 2 point game. I always said Bogut was a 4th option type. So just checking again: Horford and a 2nd for Bogut and Leuer.

Here's your counter:

Bogut/Jackson for Horford/Hinrich

If for some reason you've got to have Leuer, we'll include him, but send a future first then.

"I can afford it" - S-Jax's ego showing, in reference to earning technicals.

Stephen Jackson and his ego is anathema to ATL winning. He might sit, he might not play and would be frustrated Especially with his contract situation.
Not to pile on because you surely know this too well, but for anyone else seeing that. S-Jax is shooting horribly and is declining athletically to the point he's garbage. Pretty sure Marvin Williams is better for youth, accepting a bench role/that he won't close games.

The 2ndary player in a Horford-Bogut swap might not play as the lineup is fluid.

But in Leuer we're looking for the potential of a young stretch 4 like Vlad Rad to complement the penetration and post ups of Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, and Jeff Teague and open our window not just this season where Rose has turf toe but the future where Wade gets old etc.
ATL lacks "super"stars but they have stars and need young spry size and role players like Leuer. Bogut is self explanatory. A 4th option to replace Jason Collins at center for playoff runs.

A future 1st (2013?2014?) and Horford would be absolutely fair to me.

Post #55 » by **ATL Boy** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:27 pm

Ruhiel: At this point even with his injury I wouldn't even consider Horford for Bogut, Bogut has proven himself as not only an injury risk but a hazard; no to the trade no matter how much you love Leuer or Jackson.

Ruhiel · Post #56 » by **Ruhiel** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:07 pm

Where did you misread that I love the idea of bringing in Stephen Jackson? Iirc I called him anathema to winning on MIL's board.

At this point all that Bogut's proven is he's not a go to player. Neither has Al. But we don't need that do we?

We need a Horford level 4th option scorer but with more size. A Jason Collins with more speed and blocks and minutes come playoffs. Thats all we need to make an impact. Thats all we need. We have stars that give us advantages against superstar teams and we need role players.

a stretch specialist
and a 2 way rebounding specialist

I did not say we need Bogut to be Dwight and come play 35 mpg and run the offense through him like Dwight. Milwaukee tried and failed. Give him Collins/Horford's/Zaza's role touches

Superiorblogman · Post #57 » by **Superiorblogman** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:13 pm

Bogut for Horford is a lateral move at best for the millionth time. If we can get Dwight or Bynum great, other than that I don't think it is smart to trade Al for someone just because they are more of a traditional center. I would rather amnesty Marvin next year and sign Kaman as a free agent than do such a lateral move if we are not able to get Kaman for Zaza+Kirk+ 2 2nd rd picks. Heck I would rather pick Festus Ezeli and hope he works out, which I don't think he will than trade Al for Bogut. Dampier wants a job, he said so over the weekend, just waiting on a call.

Marvin, Zaza, and Kirk's expiring plus picks should be our trade chips. If Joe pads his stats enough to make some team think he can carry a team or is better than what he is, I would rather trade him also. Just get it out of your head Bogut is not worth Al Horford, he is injury prone and ineffective on offense. His rebounding rates are not that much better than Al's, his block shots are the only real major upgrade. Bogut is nothing more than Tyson Chandler and maybe slightly less, and he is a loser. Been on 1 playoff team his whole career. Marvin, Zaza, and 2 1st rd picks is as far as I would ever go for Bogut, and I think those 2 picks makes that proposal too much.

Post #58 » by **ATL Boy** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:53 pm

Superiorblogman wrote:Bogut for Horford is a lateral move at best for the millionth time. If we can get Dwight or Bynum great, other than that I don't think it is smart to trade Al for someone just because they are more of a traditional center. I would rather amnesty Marvin next year and sign Kaman as a free agent than do such a lateral move if we are not able to get Kaman for Zaza+Kirk+ 2 2nd rd picks. Heck I would rather pick Festus Ezeli and hope he works out, which I don't think he will than trade Al for Bogut. Dampier wants a job, he said so over the weekend, just waiting on a call.

Marvin, Zaza, and Kirk's expiring plus picks should be our trade chips. If Joe pads his stats enough to make some team think he can carry a team or is better than what he is, I would rather trade him also. Just get it out of your head Bogut is not worth Al Horford, he is injury prone and ineffective on offense. His rebounding rates are not that much better than Al's, his block shots are the only real major upgrade. Bogut is nothing more than Tyson Chandler and maybe slightly less, and he is a loser. Been on 1 playoff team his whole career. Marvin, Zaza, and 2 1st rd picks is as far as I would ever go for Bogut, and I think those 2 picks makes that proposal too much.

Why amnesty Marvin at all? Sund would be an idiot to amnesty Marvin while he still has Joe's contract on the books; we have to wait 2 to 3 years and then amnesty Joe when he starts his downward spiral.

Superiorblogman · Post #59 » by **Superiorblogman** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:16 pm

ATL Boy wrote:
Superiorblogman wrote:Bogut for Horford is a lateral move at best for the millionth time. If we can get Dwight or Bynum great, other than that I don't think it is smart to trade Al for someone just because they are more of a traditional center. I would rather amnesty Marvin next year and sign Kaman as a free agent than do such a lateral move if we are not able to get Kaman for Zaza+Kirk+ 2 2nd rd picks. Heck I would rather pick Festus Ezeli and hope he works out, which I don't think he will than trade Al for Bogut. Dampier wants a job, he said so over the weekend, just waiting on a call.

Marvin, Zaza, and Kirk's expiring plus picks should be our trade chips. If Joe pads his stats enough to make some team think he can carry a team or is better than what he is, I would rather trade him also. Just get it out of your head Bogut is not worth Al Horford, he is injury prone and ineffective on offense. His rebounding rates are not that much better than Al's, his block shots are the only real major upgrade. Bogut is nothing more than Tyson Chandler and maybe slightly less, and he is a loser. Been on 1 playoff team his whole career. Marvin, Zaza, and 2 1st rd picks is as far as I would ever go for Bogut, and I think those 2 picks makes that proposal too much.

Why amnesty Marvin at all? Sund would be an idiot to amnesty Marvin while he still has Joe's contract on the books; we have to wait 2 to 3 years and then amnesty Joe when he starts his downward spiral.

To sign a Center. I would rather amnesty Marvin than trade Al in a bad trade or lateral trade. That was the premises, things that I would rather do than trade Al for Bogut.

Post #60 » by **ATL Boy** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:29 pm

Superiorblogman wrote:
ATL Boy wrote:
Superiorblogman wrote:Bogut for Horford is a lateral move at best for the millionth time. If we can get Dwight or Bynum great, other than that I don't think it is smart to trade Al for someone just because they are more of a traditional center. I would rather amnesty Marvin next year and sign Kaman as a free agent than do such a lateral move if we are not able to get Kaman for Zaza+Kirk+ 2 2nd rd picks. Heck I would rather pick Festus Ezeli and hope he works out, which I don't think he will than trade Al for Bogut. Dampier wants a job, he said so over the weekend, just waiting on a call.

Marvin, Zaza, and Kirk's expiring plus picks should be our trade chips. If Joe pads his stats enough to make some team think he can carry a team or is better than what he is, I would rather trade him also. Just get it out of your head Bogut is not worth Al Horford, he is injury prone and ineffective on offense. His rebounding rates are not that much better than Al's, his block shots are the only real major upgrade. Bogut is nothing more than Tyson Chandler and maybe slightly less, and he is a loser. Been on 1 playoff team his whole career. Marvin, Zaza, and 2 1st rd picks is as far as I would ever go for Bogut, and I think those 2 picks makes that proposal too much.

Why amnesty Marvin at all? Sund would be an idiot to amnesty Marvin while he still has Joe's contract on the books; we have to wait 2 to 3 years and then amnesty Joe when he starts his downward spiral.

To sign a Center. I would rather amnesty Marvin than trade Al in a bad trade or lateral trade. That was the premises, things that I would rather do than trade Al for Bogut.

Keeping Marvin and possibly going into into the tax is way better than paying Joe (a 30 year old guard) 20 Mil a year for the next 5 years.