RealGM

It has been reported on ESPN that Shaq's 1st choice is to play next season in DAL...If DAL is interested as I imagine they will be, that will open up the opportunity to sign B. Haywood...We would finally get the big C that could allow Horford to play PF...ANd we put Josh @ SF, that would be an incredible DEF for teams to face...

Incredible defense in the paint. But we would have trouble scoring with smith at 3, and no JJ. If we get Haywood, Josh Smith or Al Horford gotta go.

Dallas is flat out in trouble if they end up with Kidd,Marion and Shaq.

They better be able to keep Nowitski. I think he may surprise you a la Nash.

Space Jam wrote:Incredible defense in the paint. But we would have trouble scoring with smith at 3, and no JJ. If we get Haywood, Josh Smith or Al Horford gotta go.

you do know that Haywood is 31yr right? why would you trade away a young all star big. smart thing to do is to spend the cap space on Haywood and let him come off the bench with 25mpg, with Dwight and all the fouls that Josh and Al pick up, you would use Haywood in different game situations, especially in the 4th.

We already have ZaZa, and the only way ATL would sign him is if Smith or Horford are unloaded because then we would need anotheir big.

^ i really hope that Sund is not making decisions based on the fact that the Hawks have such a talent on the bench with a $5M center, Zaza

Well if we have ZaZa and Haywood on the bench it's a waste. Having two good backup centers taking up cap is not a good thing when it could be used in other areas, and Haywood will be looking for a multi year contract..of course..

There are enough minutes for a 3rd key big off the bench. Zaza just isn't big or long enough for that role. He's destined for the 4th big role and lesser minutes if we hope to match up against some of these other teams. The big issue with Haywood is that he would likely want to start and might pout if he doesn't. He said he would accept whatever role needed in Dallas but complained when Dampier came back from injury and Carlisle tried to bring him off the bench. If he was willing to accept 28 minutes of the bench he'd be perfect to add. If not, Brad Miller brings a lot and will accept his role.

As for contracts you have to give a C like this a multiple year deal. They aren't at the point yet where they are 1 year vet minimum guys. They bring too much to the table and even if they can't get the big money they got before they still expect security and a healthy chunk of the MLE (if not the full thing). Use what San Antonio paid Antonio McDyess last year as your guideline. I think Drew Gooden did a 1 year last year for 4.5M, but we'll need to go multi-year because of the looming lockout to separate ourselves from other bidders. One year deals at league minimum get you players more in the realm of Jason Collins or Joe Smith.

Before you dismiss paying for 2 backup Cs, look at what the Celtics spent at the PF-C positions with Garnett, Perkins, Wallace, Davis, Scalabrine, and Sheldon. Perkins was locked in at a good price. Garnett was big dollars. They tied Davis up for 3M because he was a RFA. Wallace cost them the full MLE. Sheldon was the minimum and Scalabrine was 3.2M finishing up a bad contract. That means 12.8M for backup bigs and two of them suck. The Hawks have 4.2M next season in Zaza and fill the 5th and 6th spots for league minimum (2nd rounder or free agent). A Full MLE center would mean 12M in backups. Of course if we could land a C for less than the full MLE we might be able to add another partial MLE player to help the rotation.

Not that the ASG would do this, but it would be the actions of an ownership that wants to win. I can understand the philosophy against paying someone the full MLE (historically it hasn't paid great returns although Ron Artest worked out in the end), but when you have such a glaring need it might be necessary to adjust one's thinking.

The mistake was last summer and I was as guilty as anyone because at the time I thought we got some good deals. We rewarded people based on what they had done for us instead of projecting where we wanted to go and if they were the right fit for that. We invested in Zaza because he's a good energy player, but he wasn't long enough or big enough to bang with our main opponents. Losing him would have hurt short term until we landed the right guy, but investing in him hurt our ability to get the right fit. Our ownership doesn't have the deep pockets needed to overpay to try and fix the lineup. We paid Bibby because we needed his experience and we needed a PG solution, but now his defensive shortcomings make him a bad fit and price tag. Marvin Williams is quite the same. He was signed for what was thought to be a reasonable salary, but instead of continuing to improve he regressed into a performance and role suitable for someone making half the money.

Space Jam wrote:Incredible defense in the paint. But we would have trouble scoring with smith at 3, and no JJ. If we get Haywood, Josh Smith or Al Horford gotta go.

I don't understand how lots of people think like each guy is playing 48min.
16" Smith PF / Horford C
16" Smith PF / Haywood C
16" Horford PF / Haywood C

Why one has to go ?