Could we have the means to trade with PHO?

[parson]

I'm going to put this here instead of the trade board 'cuz, no matter how good (or bad) my proposal might be, idiots would emerge to chew my head off.

Could we interest PHO in trading Nash and Shaq to us for Bibby, Smoove, Speedy and Flip?

They are rumored to be wanting to get rid of Shaq and both he and Nash are nearing the end of their careers. Bibby is re-signable (almost definitely for less than his $15 million he's making now), since they'll have his salary already built into their payroll and Smoove is an up-and-coming star. At the end of this season, they'll have an immediate savings of $23,250,000 with Bibby to (maybe) re-sign.

Smoove at PF and Amare at the 5 would sell tickets and would kill teams in the regular season.

[tontoz]

Why would we trade away Smith for two guys with huge contracts near the end of their careers?

[conleyorbust]

I'm not sure why WE would consider that trade.

That gives us a lineup of:

Nash/Acie
Joe/Mo
Marv/Mo
Al/Zaza/Solo
Shaq/Zaza/Solo

If that team doesn't win a title THIS season, than we definitely screwed ourselves by trading our most potential-laden player for a 36 and 34 year old.

I don't think that team wins the title.

[parson]

For all the talk about Billy Knight's "dream" I look at this team and I see a traditional 2 (Joe), a traditional 3 (Marvelous) and a traditional 4 (Horford). Add the most traditional center and PG in the NBA and we're, chemistry-wise, set for a championship run this year and next.

In 2 years, Acie will be a 4-year vet. Check the normal time for a PG to mature, Nash, for example. If Acie is going to turn out to be a good PG, it'll be by around then.

In the meantime, if we could find a center to play after Shaq, we'd be set for the next generation.

[conleyorbust]

For all the talk about Billy Knight's "dream" I look at this team and I see a traditional 2 (Joe), a traditional 3 (Marvelous) and a traditional 4 (Horford). Add the most traditional center and PG in the NBA and we're, chemistry-wise, set for a championship run this year and next.

In 2 years, Acie will be a 4-year vet. Check the normal time for a PG to mature, Nash, for example. If Acie is going to turn out to be a good PG, it'll be by around then.

In the meantime, if we could find a center to play after Shaq, we'd be set for the next generation.

Having a "traditional" lineup isn't the way to a championship. Having a talented one is and that team just isn't deep or talented enough to mess around with the Boston/Cleveland group. It would also be very poor defensively and fantastically shallow.

What kind of C would we find to play after Shaq? A comparable one who is younger? If we are going to trade Smith, that would probably be the type of player you'd want to target instead of a 36 year old.

[tontoz]

For all the talk about Billy Knight's "dream" I look at this team and I see a traditional 2 (Joe), a traditional 3 (Marvelous) and a traditional 4 (Horford). Add the most traditional center and PG in the NBA and we're, chemistry-wise, set for a championship run this year and next.

In 2 years, Acie will be a 4-year vet. Check the normal time for a PG to mature, Nash, for example. If Acie is going to turn out to be a good PG, it'll be by around then.

In the meantime, if we could find a center to play after Shaq, we'd be set for the next generation.

If Shaq and Nash can't win a title with the Suns they sure won't do it here. Not to mention that in a couple of years we would be right back to where we were in 2004.

[parson]

Having a "traditional" lineup isn't the way to a championship. Having a talented one is and that team just isn't deep or talented enough to mess around with the Boston/Cleveland group. It would also be very poor defensively and fantastically shallow.

What kind of C would we find to play after Shaq? A comparable one who is younger? If we are going to trade Smith, that would probably be the type of player you'd want to target instead of a 36 year old.

The traditional team has evolved because it leaves no holes on the court. We could exploit any weakness in the other team's lineup without their being able to do the same to us. We would be very talented and very good defensively. Shaq and Horford would muscle the middle and our perimeter defense would be great.

You are right that getting a center for Smoove is the best argument against my proposal. The problems is, who is that center? Would POR trade us Oden for Smoove?

[conleyorbust]

The traditional team has evolved because it leaves no holes on the court. We could exploit any weakness in the other team's lineup without their being able to do the same to us. We would be very talented and very good defensively. Shaq and Horford would muscle the middle and our perimeter defense would be great.

You are right that getting a center for Smoove is the best argument against my proposal. The problems is, who is that center? Would POR trade us Oden for Smoove?

Unlikely that Portland would trade us Oden for Smith. Also, I don't necessarilly think Atlanta's best course of action is to trade Smith for a C.

My point is that PHX has become worse, both of offense and interestingly enough, on D, since trying to become a more "traditional" team. I understand why teams with great bigs win titles, but I don't think Shaq is still on the level of "great big" which nullifies the advantage in versatility that a more flat team has.

In our case, even if you buy the assumption that the new team would be better than our current team, which is questionable as it is, I don't consider the new team to be a real championship threat in the next couple of seasons which is when they'd have to be if you are building a team where 2 of your top 3 players are a combined 70 years of age.

[tontoz]

Having a "traditional" lineup isn't the way to a championship. Having a talented one is and that team just isn't deep or talented enough to mess around with the Boston/Cleveland group. It would also be very poor defensively and fantastically shallow.

What kind of C would we find to play after Shaq? A comparable one who is younger? If we are going to trade Smith, that would probably be the type of player you'd want to target instead of a 36 year old.

The traditional team has evolved because it leaves no holes on the court. We could exploit any weakness in the other team's lineup without their being able to do the same to us. We would be very talented and very good defensively. Shaq and Horford would muscle the middle and our perimeter defense would be great.

You are right that getting a center for Smoove is the best argument against my proposal. The problems is, who is that center? Would POR trade us Oden for Smoove?

The only guys Horford is going to muscle around are guys like Noah. it isn't like Horford would have a size advantage at the 4 most nights. It would be easier for him on defense because he wouldn't be overmatched so often but it isn't like he would be a shutdown defender at the 4.

Offensively he would be the same non-factor he is now.

Smith is heading into his prime with a reasonable contract. He is an impact player at both ends of the court. He is the best 4 on the roster by far. It makes no sense to trade him unless we are getting a legit star in their prime, not a couple of aging players.

[parson]

If Shaq and Nash can't win a title with the Suns they sure won't do it here. Not to mention that in a couple of years we would be right back to where we were in 2004.

I think we're more of a match for Shaq's talents. He loves to kick it out and makes good 3pt shooters into stars. We have 2 very, very good 3pt shooters. Joe and Marvin'd kill with Shaq. Horford is a good match for Shaq, as well. We'd dominate inside. Amare tries to play like a SF; Shaq plays better with another brother-in-arms to battle down low.

Nash would average 15 assists/game.

In 2 years, we'd have traded Smoove to help Horford and Acie arrive (Horford could be great at the 4). If either Nash or Shaq still have anything left, we attempt to re-sign them. If they don't, we use the more than $30 million of capspace they give us to sign another player or 2.

[parson]

'toz, let's not argue Horford. In order to argue against him, you've let him devolve in your estimation. Everything you mention him, his description gets worse.

I think the guy's a horse down low.

And I love Smoove. The other night when the Clips were killing us and we all seemed to be on bad drugs, only he and Marvelous were out there fighting. I love his passion. But Horford has fewer holes in his game at the 4 than does Smoove, who will always be at a disadvantage against big 4s.

He'd never go for it, but our best approach would be to start Marvin and Horford, and let Smoove backup both. He could dominate on offense if we let him play where the other team's weak each night.

[tontoz]

If Shaq and Nash can't win a title with the Suns they sure won't do it here. Not to mention that in a couple of years we would be right back to where we were in 2004.

I think we're more of a match for Shaq's talents. He loves to kick it out and makes good 3pt shooters into stars. We have 2 very, very good 3pt shooters. Joe and Marvin'd kill with Shaq. Horford is a good match for Shaq, as well. We'd dominate inside. Amare tries to play like a SF; Shaq plays better with another brother-in-arms to battle down low.

Nash would average 15 assists/game.

In 2 years, we'd have traded Smoove to help Horford and Acie arrive (Horford could be great at the 4). If either Nash or Shaq still have anything left, we attempt to re-sign them. If they don't, we use the more than $30 million of capspace they give us to sign another player or 2.

That is just a pipe dream that has no basis in reality. There is nothing about Horford's game that would make him great at the 4. he is a 10/8 player. His post game blows and he is reluctant to take guys off the dribble. I don't see how his game would blow up at the 4.

If Horford had any offensive game at all he would be killing right now against the big, slow stiffs he faces every night. The best defender is always guarding Smith.

[parson]

You and I are not going to argue Horford. I think you've lost all perspective about him in order to "win" debates about him. This is the same guy that NBA insiders were RAVING about last year as a rookie for his play down low.

[tontoz]

You and I are not going to argue Horford. I think you've lost all perspective about him in order to "win" debates about him. This is the same guy that NBA insiders were RAVING about last year as a rookie for his play down low.

Name 1 player in NBA history who averaged 10/8 in 32 minutes at Horford's age and became a great player.

[parson]

That is just a pipe dream that has no basis in reality.

At 1st, I thought you meant the entire article was a pipe dream but you're really just talking about Horford, right?

You don't think Joe and Marvin would thrive with kickouts from Shaq? What about Nash doing really well with our young stars to take passes from him?

[parson]

Name 1 player in NBA history who averaged 10/8 at Horford's age and became a great player.

??????? And this matters, how?

How many averaged a double-double for their rookie season and became great?

[tontoz]

Name 1 player in NBA history who averaged 10/8 at Horford's age and became a great player.

??????? And this matters, how?

How many averaged a double-double for their rookie season and became great?

I knew you would dodge the issue. You are always trying to avoid reality with Horford. You say Horford could be great at the 4 but you don't say why.

What exactly is so great about Horfords game? Would he be great just because you say so? Great logic there.

Okafor averaged a double double as a rookie and has yet to be called great. He is definitely better than Horford though.

[conleyorbust]

I just disagree with a few of your premises.

For one, Smith is a more effective player than either Marv or Al. Its not really debatable. The only thing that is debatable is whether Al would be better than Smith if Al were playing full time as PF and the only reason it is debatable is because he doesn't do it so we have no factual proof. I've yet to hear a convincing argument though, about why Al's offensive game would benefit were he playing at the 4 as the hypothetical benefit would be that he could more easily post up but he's not a good post player and if he were playing next to Shaq he wouldn't be able to post up because Shaq is virtually immoble and has no jump shot so he just stands on that left block and waits.

That means that I don't think we would have traded Smith for the reasoning of improving the team to help Horford and, of all people, Acie.

Also, I don't think we are necessarilly a better fit for Shaq and Nash than PHX. We are going to probably run a similar offense to them and they have Richardson and Barbosa playing major minutes, both comparable 3pt shooters to who we have. They also have Hill and Amare who are deadly shooters from midrange.

[parson]

Tontoz, I tried to avoid an argument with you about Horford. Please, I just don't think you're very objective about him anymore. I think you're just bent on winning arguments about him.

[tontoz]

Tontoz, I tried to avoid an argument with you about Horford. Please, I just don't think you're very objective about him anymore. I think you're just bent on winning arguments about him.

I am very objective. You aren't. I am talking about what Horford is now. You are constantly avoiding the discussion about what Horford is now, clinging to a pie in the sky dream that Horford would magically transform if he was moved to the 4.

he played the 4 plenty when Smith was out and didn't do anything noteworthy.