All the people that want josh smith traded

[raleigh]

I think if the Hawks were willing to trade Horford they would get much more talent back than if they traded Smith. Do you disagree with that mrhonline?

Again, it would depend on the team. Some teams would value Smith's shotblocking, slashing, and athleticism, while some teams would value Horford's rebounding, cheaper contract, and leadership. Either way, I've said repeatedly that the Hawks aren't really compelled to trade either of them in the next 12-18 months, so if they decided to trade one, they should be able to get good value either way.

{I don't agree with the implication here, kb. Just because a player would get much more talent back doesn't mean you should trade that player. Your first decision would be which player do you want on your team long-term, not who would bring back the most talent in a trade}.

[tontoz]

The point is that Horford played the same when Smith was out. He didn't blow up at the 4 like so many people claim he would. His lack of scoring has nothing to do with his position.

The only thing moving to the 4 would help is his defense because he wouldn't be overmatched as often physically.

No, I don't think that is the point. I don't know many who believed that Horford himself would "blow up at the 4." Frankly, I'm not so concerned about how Horford himself would perform, but how the team would perform.

The point is that the Hawks could win if Horford was at the 4.

Of course they could win some games. Not even the Hawks can lose them all. But Smith is the only player on the roster other than JJ with star talent.

Horford's big problem is that he doesn't score. He has never scored consistently regardless of what position that he plays. There have been plenty of people that say his scoring problems are because he plays center but there has been no evidence that his scoring would increase at the 4.

We have seen how the team performs without Smith. It was a joke how bad the defense was.

[raleigh]

Umm, the Hawks played just as well without Smith as they did with him. And I've already addressed your concerns about the defense. You can't simply rely on how the defense was without Smith. You would have to project how the defense would be with Horford at the 4 and a real center at the 5.

Also, the Hawks don't need Al Horford to score every night to win games. For that matter, they don't need Josh Smith to score to win games.

[tontoz]

Umm, the Hawks played just as well without Smith as they did with him. And I've already addressed your concerns about the defense. You can't simply rely on how the defense was without Smith. You would have to project how the defense would be with Horford at the 4 and a real center at the 5.

Also, the Hawks don't need Al Horford to score every night to win games. For that matter, they don't need Josh Smith to score to win games.

Actually they do. this team does not have a lot of offensive talent right now and with bibby and Flip both possibly leaving scoring will be a major concern.

[killbuckner]

mrhonline- the first question about whether to trade someone is what you could get for them. My perception is that Smith is probably more important to the Hawks but that the Hawks could get much more in trade for Horford. Honestly Horford's trade value comes down to how you think his offense is going to progress in the future. To me, I haven't seen anything to make me think that he has all this latent offensive talent just waiting to spring up so I would look to deal him now and let someone else fawn over him.

A trade makes sense when their perceived value exceeds their actual value to you. I think that with Horford its exactly that kind of situation. But I will also say that I don't know what Horford trades are out there that could make the team better. Even just looking at Centers there aren't a ton of guys that I would trade Horford for. Its just more an idea that people still are projecting Horford to be a FORCE on offense and will trade for him based on that but I simply don't see it.

[parson]

mrh is right: the goal is not to earn the most chips in a trade but to KEEP the players you need the most and add others who fit in. The Lakers could get more by trading Bryant than Walton; should they trade the best #2 in the NBA?

To me, the dilemma is this:
1) if Smoove continues to grow, he will (not may but WILL) become a major superstar -- but maybe his immaturity will forever hold him back.
2) if we move Horford to the 4 and add a traditional center, we'll have a very strong lineup made of players who are really well-suited for their positions. By "traditional" I mean being very good at playing a particular position both offensively and defensively.

If we trade Smoove, we may be giving up a cross between Karl Malone and Vince Carter.
If we trade Horford, we may never have a well-balanced team, offensively AND defensively. We may continue to play awkward basketball.

[tontoz]

mrh is right: the goal is not to earn the most chips in a trade but to KEEP the players you need the most and add others who fit in. The Lakers could get more by trading Bryant than Walton; should they trade the best #2 in the NBA?

To me, the dilemma is this:
1) if Smoove continues to grow, he will (not may but WILL) become a major superstar -- but maybe his immaturity will forever hold him back.
2) if we move Horford to the 4 and add a traditional center, we'll have a very strong lineup made of players who are really well-suited for their positions. By "traditional" I mean being very good at playing a particular position both offensively and defensively.

If we trade Smoove, we may be giving up a cross between Karl Malone and Vince Carter.
If we trade Horford, we may never have a well-balanced team, offensively AND defensively. We may continue to play awkward basketball.

Awkward basketball perfectly describes horford's offensive game.

[johnny878]

mrh is right: the goal is not to earn the most chips in a trade but to KEEP the players you need the most and add others who fit in. The Lakers could get more by trading Bryant than Walton; should they trade the best #2 in the NBA?

To me, the dilemma is this:
1) if Smoove continues to grow, he will (not may but WILL) become a major superstar -- but maybe his immaturity will forever hold him back.
2) if we move Horford to the 4 and add a traditional center, we'll have a very strong lineup made of players who are really well-suited for their positions. By "traditional" I mean being very good at playing a particular position both offensively and defensively.

If we trade Smoove, we may be giving up a cross between Karl Malone and Vince Carter.
If we trade Horford, we may never have a well-balanced team, offensively AND defensively. We may continue to play awkward basketball.

Awkward basketball perfectly describes horford's offensive game.

exactly. his offensive game i s ugly.

Josh Smith has actually shown some promise of a post game growth

[raleigh]

Can we can keep *today's* Josh Smith?

Other than a couple of dumb threes, he's looked great.

[ATL1en]

If josh smith works on his 3's in the offseason like marvin did he will be so good

[tontoz]

it should be noted that he shot his foul shots over 70% for the series and was 7/8 today.

[evildallas]

The way Josh and Joe played in game 7 made me think of the scene in Bad Boys when Martin Lawrence is racing with the bad guy in the Porsche and Will Smith says "Now that's how you drive. From here on out, you always drive like that." Josh was no nonsense today and if he played with that focus every game it would be amazing. Of course, the media would probably still be discussing his immaturity for several more years, but we'd be loving it. If they both play to their ability with consistency, the Hawks might just jump up another level to being a team that everyone takes seriously all the time.